BREAKING

Saudi, Iran restoration of ties a 'victory for dialogue'-China’s Wang Yi


China's top diplomat Wang Yi in Moscow

Fri, March 10, 2023

BEIJING (Reuters) - The successful talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Beijing are a victory for dialogue and peace, China's top diplomat Wang Yi said on Friday, following the major diplomatic coup for China in Middle East geopolitics.

Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed on Friday to re-establish relations after seven years of hostility which had threatened stability and security in the Gulf and helped fuel conflicts in the Middle East from Yemen to Syria.

"This is a victory for dialogue, a victory for peace, offering major good news at a time of much turbulence in the world," the Chinese foreign ministry cited Wang as saying at the close of the dialogue.

Previously undisclosed talks between the two were held March 6-10 by top security officials from Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Chinese capital, according to a tripartite joint statement of the countries released by China's foreign ministry.

In the statement, the three parties expressed their willingness to make "every effort" to strengthen international and regional peace and security.

The landmark deal is a diplomatic win for China in a region where geopolitics has been dominated by the United States. It also comes as China calls for dialogue over Russia's war in Ukraine, amid accusations from the West that Beijing has not done enough on the issue.

"As a good-faith and reliable mediator, China has faithfully fulfilled its duties as the host," Wang said.

China will continue to play a constructive role in handling hotspot issues in the world and demonstrate its responsibility as a major nation, he said.

"The world is not just limited to the Ukraine issue," said Wang.

(Reporting by Ethan Wang and Ryan Woo; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

Countries that could be impacted by renewed Iran-Saudi ties


 In this photo released by the official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, President Ebrahim Raisi, left, shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in an official welcoming ceremony in Beijing, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2023. Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations and reopen embassies after years of tensions. The two countries released a joint communique about the deal on Friday, March 10, 2023 with China, which apparently brokered the agreement. 

(Iranian Presidency Office via AP, File)

Fri, March 10, 2023 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to resume diplomatic ties has wide-reaching effects across the Middle East and beyond, and reduces the chance of armed conflict between regional rivals.

Here’s a look at some of the countries that could be affected by the deal, struck this week in China:

— YEMEN: Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are deeply embroiled in Yemen’s yearslong civil war. Saudi Arabia entered the conflict in 2015, backing the country’s exiled government, while Iran has backed the Houthi rebels who in 2014 seized the capital, Sanaa. Diplomats have been seeking a way to end the conflict, which has spawned one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters and turned into a proxy war between Riyadh and Tehran. The Saudi-Iran deal may provide a boost to efforts to end the conflict.

— LEBANON: Iran long has backed the powerful Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, while Saudi Arabia has backed the country’s Sunni politicians. Easing tensions between Riyadh and Tehran could see the two push for a political reconciliation in Lebanon, which is facing an unprecedented financial meltdown.


— SYRIA: Iran has backed Syria’s President Bashar Assad in his country’s long war, while Saudi Arabia has backed the rebels seeking to topple him. But in recent months, particularly after the earthquake that devastated both Syria and Turkey, Arab nations have moved closer to Assad. The diplomatic deal on Friday could make it more palatable for Riyadh to interact with Assad — and further strengthen the autocrat’s hand.

— ISRAEL: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wanted to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, but the deal with Iran, his longtime nemesis, will complicate that. It also could make Israel feel more alone if it decides to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program as it creeps closer to weapons-grade levels. Already, the United Arab Emirates, which has normalized relations with Israel and long has been suspicious of Tehran, already has sought to ease tensions with Iran.

— IRAN: Iran has faced withering international sanctions amid the collapse of its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. The Saudi-Iran deal could provide Tehran new avenues to skirt sanctions. Already, Iran has deepened its ties to Russia and armed Moscow with bomb-carrying drones in its war on Ukraine.

— SAUDI ARABIA: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on megaprojects to pivot the kingdom off crude oil amid threats imposed by climate change. Worrying about cross-border attacks only puts these projects in more doubt.

— UNITED STATES: The Biden administration insists that it has always been in favor of any arrangement that can help reduce tensions in the Mideast, including a restoration of Iran-Saudi ties. However, U.S. officials say they are skeptical Iran will follow through on its commitments but say they will be watching closely. China's role in mediating the rapprochement may be a concern as it relates to the battle between Washington and Beijing for influence in the region and beyond, but the officials said it was far from clear if the Chinese efforts would be successful.

The Guardian view on the UN ocean treaty: arriving just in time
Editorial
Thu, 9 March 2023 

Photograph: Petty Officer 2nd Class Justin Upshaw/AP

In his 1968 essay The Tragedy of the Commons, the ecologist Garrett Hardin argued that resources which do not clearly belong to anyone are likely to be overexploited, since protecting them is in no one person’s interest. That tragedy is unfolding on the high seas – the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond coastal states’ national jurisdiction. This is a commons, where fishing and mining have been opened to all. The result is serious damage to a vital resource that covers almost half the planet’s surface. The high seas are not entirely lawless. Yet only a tiny fraction of these waters are protected from exploitation, despite harbouring the world’s marine wilderness and its unique biodiversity.

Beneath the waves lies a rich prize. Many scientists think the high seas harbour novel disease-fighting chemistry that might lead to new drugs. Until this month, there was no mechanism to prevent nations or companies monopolising the world’s marine genetic resources. One study in 2018 pointed out that BASF, which calls itself “the largest chemical producer in the world”, owned nearly half of the 13,000 patents derived from marine organisms. Mining exploration licences in the Pacific alone span an area almost as wide as the US. If deep sea extraction were permitted to go ahead, many warn, it would lead to biodiversity loss on an enormous scale.

The good news is that the agreement of a historic UN ocean treaty this month may help to slow the plunder. Crucially the deal keeps alive the 30x30 target – a pledge made by countries at the UN biodiversity conference in December that aims to protect 30% of sea (and land) by 2030. The treaty tries to accommodate both the global north’s desire for a legal framework for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect against the loss of wildlife and the global south’s expectation that resources are seen as being common to all.

All this arrives not a moment too soon. The oceans are not an inexhaustible resource. Yet humanity treats them as if they are boundless. There are limits to how many animals and plants can be sustainably harvested for food and other products. Nor can humanity carry on dumping sewage and pollutants into the watery depths with little care for what damage is being done. In absorbing the carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels, the oceans become much more acidic, threatening marine life. The International Union for Conservation of Nature says that nearly 9% of saltwater species are at risk of extinction.

What is encouraging is that the delegates from 193 member states put aside their geopolitical differences to work together in the name of protecting the seas. The new treaty is crucial, as the UN secretary general, António Guterres, said, for addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.

There is still some way to go. The new law must be ratified by 60 member states before it can be enforced. The final text contains a tension between the two principles of the “Freedom of the High Seas” and the “Common Heritage of Humankind”. One key test will be if traditional powers allow controlled access to marine genetic resources and for profits derived from the high seas to be equally shared among all states. The onus is on developed nations to act responsibly because, as Mr Hardin pointed out, too much “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all”.

First Cop15, now the high seas treaty: there is hope for the planet’s future

Patrick Greenfield

THE GUARDIAN
Thu, 9 March 2023 

Late last Saturday in New York, exhausted negotiators reached a landmark agreement on protecting life on Earth: the high seas treaty, the second big environment deal in just three months after Cop15, the biodiversity summit in Montreal. The moment, nearly two decades in the making, overwhelmed the president of the conference, Rena Lee, who cried as she announced that a deal had been done.

On paper at least, countries nearly have a complete strategy for action on the three planetary crises of our era: the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution. Governments are still negotiating a UN agreement on plastics pollution, with another round of talks scheduled in Paris this year. But world leaders, business heads – all of us – know what we must do in the next decades to avoid disaster.

More urgently than ever, governments must stick to their word, and get on with what they have pledged. Maintaining a livable planet for future generations is on the line, says the UN acting biodiversity chief, David Cooper, who voiced cautious optimism that momentum was building, while also noting not enough is being done.

“Politicians are catching up with much of the public on this. Because people – and particularly young people and Indigenous people – see what is happening and they see what their future will be like without taking these actions. They have been pushing governments to act and I think what we saw in Montreal and again in New York is the result of that pressure. I think it’s very encouraging, despite all the other tensions we have in the world,” he says.

“[Delivering on the agreements] is really the difference between a livable planet in many parts of the world and one that is barely habitable for people,” he adds. “To some extent, the momentum was established in Montreal at Cop15, particularly with the target to protect 30% of land and sea. But we need agreements like the high seas treaty to meet that target.”

Here are the main points of the once-in-a-decade deal to halt the destruction of Earth’s ecosystems, called the Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework:

30x30

The most high-profile target at Cop15, the final wording commits governments to conserving nearly a third of Earth for nature by 2030, while respecting indigenous and traditional territories in the expansion of new protected areas.

Indigenous rights

Indigenous peoples are mentioned 18 times, which some activists are pointing to as a historic victory. The language in the text is clear: Indigenous-led conservation models must become the norm this decade.

Subsidies
The final text says harmful subsidies should be reduced by at least $500bn a year by the end of the decade. It does not specify whether they should be eliminated, phased out or reformed, but this is recognised as one of the strongest parts of the agreement.

Business
Although the language was watered down in the final text, target 15 requires governments to ensure that large and transnational companies disclose “their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity”.

Digital biopiracy
Digital sequence information (DSI) refers to digitised genetic information that we get from nature, which is frequently used to produce new drugs, vaccines and food products. It was agreed to develop a funding mechanism on DSI in the coming years, which has been hailed as a historic victory for African states, who called for its creation before the summit.

A link to all of the documents agreed at Cop15 can be found here.

Other senior UN figures have greeted the agreements with cautious optimism, acknowledging the spirit of multilateralism amid tensions between great powers on the economy and the invasion of Ukraine.

“I think that on the pollution side as well as on the biodiversity side, there is a focus that we haven’t seen for decades. That, I celebrate,” says Inger Andersen, the executive director of the UN environment programme. “It’s never enough. We are on a trajectory on climate that is not good.”

But, she adds: “What is really exciting is that we are able to come to the end of the road on some of these critical issues. Loss and damage, it has been on the docket for a while, it was agreed in spite of the complexity. Getting the plastics negotiations going and moving forward – we have the second round in Paris in May – was very difficult but we got [the process going]. Divisions come up all the time but we have made some real strides in the last couple of years.”

China’s environment minister, Huang Runqiu, with the then Cop15 executive secretary Elizabeth Maruma Mrema and deputy executive secretary David Cooper, in Kunming in 2021. The summit set the course for the biodiversity agreement signed in Montreal in December 2022. 

Photograph: Xinhua/REX/Shutterstock

It is easy to dismiss multilateral efforts on the environment. Many aim to avoid awful realities that we hope are never realised, often building in destruction in the short and medium terms as part of the deal, while humanity slowly responds.

The exasperating pace of change is made worse by scientific assessments about the health of the planet that have become increasingly alarming, with experts warning that more than 1 million species are at risk of extinction, threatening the function of ecosystems that sustain human civilisation.

Related: High seas treaty: historic deal to protect international waters finally reached at UN

Overfishing, plastics pollution and the continued consumption of fossil fuels are some of the drivers of the environmental losses. Now many governments are, at least, recognising the scale of the problem.

While action on the climate, biodiversity loss and pollution has a history of half-met promises, the world has successfully come together on some issues, including the 1987 Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, which continues to recover successfully. In January, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, said it was “an encouraging example of what the world can achieve when we work together”.

Li Shuo, a policy adviser for Greenpeace east Asia who was at Cop15 in Canada and at the high seas negotiations in New York, said that China would have a key role to play in meeting the international agreements. Beijing held the presidency at the biodiversity summit in Canada and, in partnership with the Canadians, help shepherd talks to a successful conclusion despite a series of tensions.

The high seas treaty “brings marine protection into the 21st century”, says Li. “Building on the recent success of biodiversity Cop15, the high seas treaty will help fulfil the 30x30 target. This success indicates that environmental progress and multilateralism can still triumph despite challenging geopolitical conditions. China is a critical country in these negotiations. Its willingness to upgrade marine governance is a key element to unlock the deal.

“I feel very much privileged to have been able to experience what a veteran observer told me was the most exciting moment in ocean lawmaking in decades. This is really a very consistent storyline: an arc from Montreal to New York. The global community is able to strengthen biodiversity governance on land and at sea. It is a very exciting moment despite the challenging geopolitics,” he says.

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

FURTHER FASCISM
Tunisia's Saied to dissolve municipal councils ahead of local elections

NEWS WIRES
Thu, 9 March 2023 


Tunisian President Kais Saied said late on Wednesday he will dissolve municipal councils months before they were due to be elected, further dismantling the systems of government developed after the 2011 revolution that brought democracy.

"We will discuss a decree to dissolve municipalities and replace them by special councils," he said in a video of a cabinet meeting that was posted online.

The new councils will also be elected, but under new rules that he will write, he said. He has previously called the existing councils "states within a state" and said they were "not neutral".

In the 2018 local elections, a third of municipal councils came under the control of Ennahda, an Islamist party that has been the most vocal critic of Saied.

Elected municipal councils were introduced after the 2014 constitution called for decentralisation - a constitution that Saied has replaced with one he wrote himself and passed last year in a referendum with low turnout.

"Unfortunately the head of state is not convinced by decentralisation," said Adnen Bouassida, the head of the National Federation of Municipalities, on Mosaique FM radio.

The president has rejected that accusation, saying his moves were legal and necessary to save Tunisia from years of chaos at the hands of a corrupt, self-serving political elite.

The elected municipal councils had struggled to make much impact in many areas of Tunisia, functioning with small budgets.

Pioneering wind technology project has a buoyant future

Community contributor
Thu, 9 March 2023

Ørsted's Hornsea Two off the Yorkshire Coast is the largest offshore wind farm in the world and produces enough energy to power well over one million homes – with the company now keen to expand its engagement in Scotland’s green energy transition (Image: Orsted)

With a proven track record of delivering offshore energy across Europe, Ørsted is now powering ahead with Stromar, a giant floating windfarm located off the north-east coast of Scotland

For offshore wind developers, the holy grail is delivery. The ability to deliver megawatts and gigawatts of clean, low-cost, secure, renewable energy out of demanding, unforgiving, inhospitable environments – like the North Sea.

And those are just the conditions on water. Never mind the challenges on land – from pandemics and global conflicts to the energy crisis and inflation.

Developing offshore wind projects is not for the faint of heart. Ørsted, the world’s leading offshore wind developer, knows the challenges. But the company also knows how to deliver.

It has developed and built more offshore wind projects than any other company in the world with 8.9GW of capacity installed across three continents by the end of 2022.

That’s enough green energy to power approximately nine million UK homes.
And it is generating more than renewable energy, Ørsted is powering green economic growth, revitalising local communities, and making a net-positive contribution to biodiversity.

Ørsted’s vision is a world that runs on green energy – and the company knows there is so much more that needs to be done – especially in Scotland where the ScotWind leasing round aims to deliver up to 28GW of capacity through 20 offshore sites.

ONE OF THE WORLD’S MOST SUSTAINABLE ENERGY COMPANIES

 
ØRSTED is particularly proud of where it stands today because of the remarkable transformation it has gone through – from one of the most coal-intensive energy companies in Europe to being ranked one of the world’s most sustainable energy companies.

The company used to be a fossil fuel giant called Danish Oil & Natural Gas (DONG) and was formed in 2006 out of a merger between Denmark’s state-owned oil and natural gas company and five Danish energy companies.

But Ørsted realised that its business model was no longer sustainable from both a financial and an environmental perspective.

In 2009, 85% of Ørsted’s energy production was based on fossil fuels and only 15% on renewables. It committed to switching that ratio to 85% renewable energy and only 15% fossil fuels by 2040. Many thought Ørsted was overly ambitious and said it couldn’t be done.

But the company was determined to focus on offshore wind, bring down its production costs and decisively move away from fossil fuels.

It achieved its goal by 2019 – within a decade of setting it and 21 years ahead of schedule. Today, Ørsted has developed around a third of the global capacity of offshore wind installed, excluding mainland China.

HeraldScotland:
Above, Ørsted employees were in Glasgow last month promoting the ambitious Stromar project at the Offshore Wind Conference 2023 which was held in the city

POWERING LOCAL ECONOMIC GROWTH

WHILE the UK has established itself as a global leader in offshore wind as it strives to reach its net zero goals, Ørsted is the biggest developer in the market, with 13 offshore wind farms and 6.2GW installed capacity delivering approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity.

Just last year, it commissioned Hornsea 2, the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world, about 90 kilometres off the Yorkshire coast. With a total capacity of 1.3GW of clean energy, that’s enough to power over 1.4 million UK homes with clean, renewable electricity.

Ørsted projects are delivering more than green energy, they are transforming coastal communities through investment in local infrastructure, the creation of high-skilled jobs and the development of a robust, export-oriented local supply chain.

This is what it now aims to help deliver in Scotland.

Building the world’s largest wind farm required the skills and ingenuity of thousands of individuals and hundreds of companies across the Humber region. Over the course of the last decade Ørsted directly invested or enabled the investment of over £9.5 billion in the Humber region alone.

It also directly invests millions into the communities it works in by supporting Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) educational initiatives and through community benefit funds that support local social and environmental programs.

WORKING IN BALANCE WITH NATURE

WHILE Ørsted delivers on the green energy transformation – it is committed to doing it right – in balance with nature and people.

The company has set a goal for itself that all new renewable energy projects it commissions from 2030 at the latest should deliver a net-positive biodiversity impact.

It is already actively working to avoid and minimise the potential impact of its activities on the marine environment.

For example, the company is restoring biodiversity around the UK’s Humber Estuary by planting seagrass, rejuvenating saltmarsh and creating a biogenic reef using native oysters.

It has also made a long-term commitment to tackle marine waste with the help of the UK fishing industry called “Fishing for Litter.” And globally, Ørsted has partnered with WWF, the world leader in nature conservation, to drive a global shift towards addressing climate and biodiversity goals together.

AT THE FOREFRONT OF FLOATING WIND TECHNOLOGY

WITH 30 years of experience in offshore wind comes a sense of confidence and Ørsted is undaunted by uncertainty.

As industry leaders, they know they need to constantly innovate to make progress. That’s why Ørsted is so eager to jump into the next frontier for the industry: floating offshore wind.

Given its rich history pioneering the offshore oil and gas industry, it’s fitting that Scotland is at the epicentre of this exciting new technology. Ørsted’s most ambitious floating offshore wind project is Stromar, a 1GW project off the north-east coast of Scotland created with the company’s partners, Renantis and Blue Float Energy.

Given its collective expertise, Ørsted is confident it will deliver this large-scale project and help Scotland become a hub of global expertise for this emerging renewable energy solution.

The company is also working on Salamander, a 100MW floating offshore wind project that is part of a joint venture with Simply Blue Group and Subsea 7. Designed as a stepping-stone for floating wind technology developers, supply chains and stakeholders, the project is supporting the cost reduction and learning journey needed for the commercial deployment of floating offshore wind.

At its core, the project has been designed specifically to help the Scottish supply chain prepare for commercial scale build out coming through ScotWind.

Ørsted is eager to expand its engagement in Scotland’s green energy transition beyond these floating projects and it’s onshore wind farm Kennoxhead – because they believe on the path to net zero, we’re all just getting started.
orsted.co.uk

French Senate votes for controversial rise of retirement age to 64

Mary-Kate Findon
Thu, 9 March 2023 

The French senate has voted to rise the retirement age to 64, a move proving to be controversial among the public.

Protests have broken out across the country over the proposed rise to the pension age by two years.

Emmanuel Macron has said that the move is necessary to prevent the country from running into a deficit.

Nationwide strikes were held this week against the change to the retirement age, with education and transport workers among those staging industrial action.

The conservative-dominated legislative body voted in favour by 201 votes to 115.

\

French pension reform strikes continue to disrupt fuel supplies, power output

NEWS WIRES
Thu, 9 March 2023 

© Pascal Rossignol, Reuters

Workers striking in protest against proposed changes to France's pension system continued to block fuel deliveries and reduce electricity production at several sites on Thursday.

Power supply was reduced by 8.2 gigawatts (GW), or 13% of overall production, across some of the country's nuclear, thermal and hydropower sites due to the strike, EDF data showed.

France is not currently importing electricity, data from grid operator RTE showed, suggesting domestic supply is meeting demand.

TotalEnergies said there were again no fuel deliveries from its French refineries due to the strike.

There were also no deliveries from ExxonMobil unit Esso's Fos-sur-Mer refinery in southern France, although operations had returned to normal at Port Jerome in the northwest, a union representative told Reuters.

About 7% of French refuelling stations lacked at least one product as of Wednesday, but "there is no supply problem for service stations and the situation is improving", said OlivierGantois, president of the French Union for Petroleum, Energy and Mobility Industries UFIP.

While the price of diesel product contracts in Europe has edged up in recent days, "overall the market doesn't seem to be reacting to the strikes in the same way it did during October 2022", said Pamela Munger, senior market analyst at energy analytics firm Vortexa, referring to a previous wave of industrial action.

RMT ‘will not endorse’ Network Rail reforms even if members vote to end strikes

Neil Lancefield, PA Transport Correspondent
Thu, 9 March 2023 



Britain’s biggest rail union has pledged to continue to oppose maintenance reforms at Network Rail even if its members vote to end strikes at the company.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) has suspended its industrial action at Network Rail after receiving a new offer on pay and benefits.

A ballot of its members on whether to accept the proposal opened on Thursday and will run until March 20.

The RMT said the offer amounts to an uplift on salaries of between 14.4% for the lowest paid workers to 9.2% for those earning the most.

Network Rail has always insisted pay rises can be funded only through modernising how it carries out maintenance.

It has already opened local consultations on changes, but no major reforms are expected in the short term.

In a video message to members, RMT senior assistant general secretary Eddie Dempsey said: “This offer is not conditional on our acceptance of modernising maintenance, which this union will not endorse.

“But to be absolutely clear, you will be casting your vote on the basis that acceptance of this deal will settle all aspects of this trade dispute, and this dispute will be terminated.

“We may be able to continue to challenge modernising maintenance in the company processes and through raising our safety concerns to the regulator, but this dispute will be concluded.”

If the offer is rejected, the union will “continue in strike action and in our industrial campaign to pursue a new deal”, Mr Dempsey said.

He added: “The matter is now in your hands as rank and file members, and is for you to determine the next steps for this trade union.”

Network Rail chief executive Andrew Haines said: “The deal protects jobs, ensures a pay rise and will help us move forward as a business and a railway.

“I recognise that there may still be disruption for passengers this month due to other strike action, but this is a constructive step forward and I hope that my colleagues in the RMT will vote to accept this package.”

The RMT has been engaged in national rail strikes since June last year, frequently disrupting services.

Strikes by RMT members at 14 train companies are still scheduled to take place on March 16, 18 and 30 and April 1, and are expected to cause major disruption.

The Rail Delivery Group, which represents the companies, has urged the union to also call off those walk-outs and put its latest offer to a vote.

The RMT said on Wednesday it has been invited for talks by the RDG on condition next week’s strikes are suspended.

The union went on: “The RMT NEC (national executive committee) has decided that the scheduled action will remain in place but that the union will be available for discussions and will attend any meetings on creating a resolution to the dispute through an improved offer.

“The union will contact the RDG seeking such a meeting.”

Strikes bill could breach UK workers' human rights and expose the government to legal challenges

Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol

The Conversation
Thu, 9 March 2023

UK workers’ human rights are at risk under government plans to curb strike activity, according to a report by parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. The strikes (minimum service levels) bill 2023 aims to set requirements for the level of service needed in certain key sectors during strike action.

The bill is making rapid progress through parliament. But it has already sparked concern from various quarters, including unions and the International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency set up to protect social and economic justice via labour standards.

Most recently, a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights said the bill falls short of UK human rights obligations. It has proposed five amendments to the new rules that it believes are needed to protect UK workers’ human rights.

The committee wants the government to provide more detail within the legislation about when restrictions on strike activity can be imposed, how far these limits can go and who should be involved in discussions before strikes. It also suggests more clarity on how employers decide who needs to work during a strike and greater protection from dismissal for people that do strike.

But even with the amendments, which are based on international standards for freedom of association and protection from discrimination at work, the UK government could still be at odds with these standards if the current version of the bill is passed.

The bill would allow the UK secretary of state to set minimum service levels for striking workers in the health, fire and rescue, education and transport sectors, as well as people working in the decommissioning of nuclear installations, the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security.

Under the legislation, employers in these industries would give a “work notice” to trade unions seven days before a strike. This would identify the services covered by the rules and the names of employees required to work during the strike.

The employer would have to consult with the union about the content of the notice, with the trade union then taking “reasonable steps” to ensure the named persons comply with the notice. Failing to do so could leave the union liable for up to £1 million, while employees that join the strike would lose their automatic protection from dismissal. Any person named in the notice that refuses to comply would also lose this protection.

A focus on specific human rights

When it launched the bill in January 2023, the government argued the new rules were “necessary in a democratic society”, reflecting “a pressing social need”. But the committee disagreed after examining the government’s policy statements and the impact assessment for the bill. The latter has already been called “not fit for purpose” by the Regulatory Policy Committee, an independent watchdog.

The joint committee’s five suggested amendments aim to address concerns about workers’ rights. They are based primarily on Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which covers freedom of association). The amendments draw on the views about these issues of the European Court of Human Rights in case law which applies in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998.

In its report, the committee states that “freedom of association” under Article 11 covers the right to strike and that the bill does not adequately protect this right. The committee also warns that minimum service requirements could affect some groups more than others, such as women that work as nurses. This would breach Article 14 which protects against discrimination.

Bolder claims around “forced labour”, which is covered by Article 4 of the ECHR, were not addressed in the committee’s report. This may be because the committee members represent a wide range of political views and they needed to reach a consensus on the report’s conclusions.
Amendments in line with ILO standards

The first amendment to the bill proposed by the committee reflects ILO standards, which the European Court of Human Rights also follows. It sets out when minimum service levels should be triggered:

to protect the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population


against an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population or


to protect public services of fundamental importance.

Second, the committee says the bill needs more specific details about limits on strike activity to make sure that any minimum service levels set by the secretary of state do not make strike activity ineffective. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also requested greater detail on the minimum levels and services covered by the bill. It said that the powers given to the secretary of state would be “inappropriate” if this information is not clearly stated in the legislation.

The third amendment again follows ILO norms. Rather than asking employers to simply “consult” with unions on work notices, the committee argues there should be a negotiated settlement of minimum service levels. It also suggests bringing an independent body into any disputes that arise.

The fourth amendment put forward by the committee would further restrict employers’ ability to choose who must work during a strike. The aim here is to ensure an employee’s trade union activity doesn’t influence their selection because, again, that could make strike action less effective.

Can the Strikes Bill be salvaged?

The fifth amendment in the committee’s report would prevent striking workers from losing their automatic protection from unfair dismissal if a union failed to take “reasonable steps” to ensure named employees comply with a work notice issued under the bill. This is important because employees have no control over the steps a union might take in this situation.

However, this proposed amendment falls short. The committee’s report repeatedly says that it is unclear what steps would be “reasonable” or how a trade union or its members could know that this requirement was being met. This aspect of the bill clearly interferes with Article 11 rights relating to freedom of association, but the committee’s current amendments would not address this flaw in the new rules.

Overall, the recommendations would go some way towards protecting UK workers under international human rights law if the strikes bill is enacted. But even if it accepts these committee recommendations, the government could still be open to legal challenges to the bill, whether through judicial review before the European Court of Human Rights, or at the ILO.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tonia Novitz is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol and a Vice-President of the Institute of Employment Rights, but the opinions provided here are her own. She gave evidence to the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights at a session held on 8 February 2023.

Anti-strikes law would 'strip workers of unfair dismissal protections', watchdog warns

Thu, 9 March 2023 


The anti-strikes bill could be in breach of international law and strip workers of unfair dismissal protections, the equalities watchdog has warned.

The government is facing renewed calls to drop the "nasty" Minimum Service Legislation (MSL) bill following a scathing report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The EHRC said it is "concerned that an employee would lose automatic unfair dismissal protection" if they fail to comply with a notice ordering them to work on days of industrial action.

Politics live:
Labour calls for childcare reform details; another HS2 setback

The organisation warned staff could also be sacked if their trade union has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure minimum service levels are in place during a strike, as "they would not know" before participating in a walkout if that is the case or not.

Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC, said: "The EHRC is right to warn that this draconian legislation could see striking workers losing a vital right - protection from unfair dismissal.

"The Conservatives are trying to keep people in the dark about the true nature of this legislation. But make no mistake - this bill is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal."

Mr Nowak accused the government of launching a "brazen attack" on workers' rights which will likely "poison industrial relations and exacerbate disputes rather than help resolve them".

"It's time for ministers to protect the fundamental right to strike and drop this nasty bill," he said.

What does the anti-strikes bill mean?

Under the government's draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the right to strike would be restricted by imposing "minimum service levels".

That means if the bill becomes law, some trade union members would be required to continue working during a strike.

The bill does not set out what the minimum service levels would be for each industry, but they could include maintaining core service provision in emergency services and ensuring key transport, travel and trade routes don't completely shut down on strike days.

The government has argued the legislation is necessary to ensure minimum safety levels at a time of widespread industrial action.

But the plans have drawn backlash from unions and opposition MPs.

Critics say, thanks to the proposed changes, bosses would be legally able to fire employees who ignore a "work notice" ordering them to work on days of industrial action.

The EHRC contrasted this with similar laws in Italy, where "legislation provides that an individual cannot be dismissed for failing to comply with a Minimum Service Level agreement".

It said the bill in its current form raises "several human rights considerations", specifically in relation to Article 4 (Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour), Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly and Association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report also criticised ministers for failing to properly consult on the legislation with worker and employer organisations.

"It is not clear why this more collaborative approach - as practised in some states in Europe - was not pursued in the current bill," the watchdog said.

Read More:
Anti-strike bill: The arguments and what it means for workers

The intervention comes days after the Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the bill "for failing to meet human rights obligations".

Last week, a House of Lords report also expressed concerns the bill would give ministers too much power while providing virtually no detail on what counts as minimum service.

There was a further backlash when the Regulatory Policy Committee, another independent watchdog, ruled the government's impact assessment of the legislation was "not fit for purpose" in a damning report last month.

And in January, 50 civil liberty groups - including Oxfam and Human Rights Watch - warned the bill would allow "a further significant and unjustified intrusion by the state into the freedom of association and assembly".

A government spokesperson said: "The purpose of this legislation is to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public and ensure they can continue to access vital public services.

"We note this report and will consider it in full, but the government needs to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect essential services to be there when they need them."

New Utah oil railroad by river is health and climate risk, campaigners say

Nina Lakhani in New York
Thu, 9 March 2023 

Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Developers are seeking billions of dollars in tax breaks for a new oil railroad in Utah that will threaten the Colorado River and be a risk to the health and safety of millions of Americans while damaging Joe Biden’s climate credentials, campaigners say.

The 88-mile proposed Uinta railway is forecast to quadruple crude oil production in the Uinta Basin by connecting it to the national rail network and coastal refineries.

According to the plans shared with federal agencies, up to five two-mile-long oil trains a day would run more than 100 miles directly alongside the Colorado River – a vital drinking water source for 40 million Americans, 30 tribal nations and millions of acres of farmland. A derailment could be catastrophic for the river, which is already in crisis due to the region’s mega-drought, rising temperatures and reduced snowpack on the Rocky mountains, warn campaigners.

The railway could spur an additional 350,000 barrels of oil extraction a day, campaigners estimate, exacerbating the poor air quality in Utah, Colorado and Gulf coast communities while releasing millions of tonnes of planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually.

Federal agencies have issued or signalled their willingness to issue key permits, despite the president’s goals to slash planet-heating emissions in half by 2030, tackle environmental inequities and transition to clean energy.

The railway company says environmentalists are overstating the climate footprint, risk of derailment and ecological harm. It recently emerged that the developers are seeking authorization from the Department of Transport (DoT) to issue up to $2bn in tax-exempt bonds to construct and operate the oil train, through a program that has mostly helped fast-track rail and road projects with public benefits.

“If this goes forward it will be a triumph of corporate greed,” said Kristen Boyles, a managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental legal group. “The fact that we continue to have disasters like East Palestine and near misses over and over again is a regulatory failure that demonstrates the absolute power of railroad industry lobbying.”

More than a thousand trains derail every year in the US, and the number of derailed cars carrying hazardous material is rising. In the past decade, the railroad industry has spent around $280m lobbying Washington, and more than $50m on campaign contributions, according to political finance trackers Open Secrets.

The Uinta basin in eastern Utah contains large reserves of oil and gas but extraction, which is done by fracking and conventional drilling, has been limited by poor transport links. The Republican-controlled legislature, Utah’s governor and local officials support building taxpayer subsidised transport links to ramp up production, arguing that it would benefit the state’s economy.

One option involves flattening a section of the nine-mile canyon, known as the largest prehistoric art gallery, to build a road fit for a steady flow of heavy oil tankers; the other is the 88-mile railway.Interactive

The Uinta Basin Railway company is a public-private partnership between the asset management firm DHIP Group, formerly known as Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners, the railroad company Rio Grande Pacific and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. The seven county commissioners last month tentatively adopted a resolution to seek authorization to issue up to $2bn in tax exempt bonds.

The DoT was directed by Congress to issue up to $30bn in tax exempt private activity bonds via its Build America Bureau, which have so far mostly been to finance highways, bridges, and transit projects of public benefit. The seven-county coalition is expected to formalise its support for the bonds at a public meeting on Thursday. The final decision is down to Pete Buttigieg, the transport secretary.

The DoT did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile opposition from elected officials in Colorado has been mounting since the catastrophic derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, on 3 February.

“The governor continues to share a number of the concerns that our communities and Colorado’s recreation and tourism industry have raised with the proposal,” said a spokesperson for Jared Polis, the Democratic governor.

“Derailments are seen as a cost of doing business but we’ve seen the future in East Palestine and for us this would be like killing the golden goose,” said Jonathan Godes, mayor of Glenwood Springs, a picturesque mountain town in Eagle county popular with tourists. “This railway will not impact what we pay at the pump but could add 1% to the country’s climate emissions, which I just can’t square with Biden’s climate goals.”

A coalition of environmental groups and Eagle county in Colorado have filed lawsuits to the DC circuit arguing that the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) permit – the cornerstone requirement for freight rail projects – was granted without an adequate environmental impact review.

“East Palestine highlighted that every train incident can be catastrophic, and the risks have not been adequately reviewed,” said Matt Scherr, Eagle county commissioner. “These limited bonds are meant to be used for the public good, how can something so climate impactful ever be appropriate.”

A separate lawsuit challenging a provisional decision by the Forest Service indicating it would allow a section to be built through a 12-mile roadless area of the Ashley national forest is also ongoing. On Monday, senator Michael Bennett and congressman Joe Negusse from Colorado wrote to Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary responsible for the Forest Service, calling for the ruling on the roadless exception to be suspended until a proper environmental review is undertaken.

In contrast to the information submitted to the STB, according to Mark Michel, president of Uinta Basin Railway, said that many of the trains would go through northern Utah and Wyoming, not Colorado, and that the crude oil would be used for lubricants, base oils, cosmetics, and plastics not fuel.

In a statement Michel added: “The waxy crude is transported as a solid and thus, not a flammable or hazardous liquid which presents an environmental problem or concern to the ecological system if there were to be a derailment … think of this as a big candle being transported inside a tank.

“In the unlikely case of a derailment, clean up crews would simply pick up a ‘bunch of candles’ with shovels. For opponents to claim this would be an environmental catastrophe, shows a lack of understanding of the physical properties of the oil and how it is transported. Furthermore, the route through Colorado that Eagle county and other communities seem to be so concerned about has been a line in existence for a century. More hazardous things are transported up and down that line than this Uinta crude oil.”

Deeda Seed, the Utah public lands senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity which is campaigning to stop the railway, said: “Science shows even if the waxy crude doesn’t burn following a spill, the mess will be difficult to clean up … This is a project with appalling consequences that will benefit only a few private businesses, it is entirely contrary to public interest.”

Shell slammed for ‘outrageous’ pay and bonuses package of up to £21m for ex-boss

Holly Williams, PA Business Editor
Thu, 9 March 2023 

Shell has fuelled calls for a higher windfall tax on the sector after the oil giant revealed that its ex-boss saw his pay package soar to £9.7 million last year and is in line for further potential payouts of more than £11 million.

The company’s annual report showed that former chief executive’s Ben van Beurden’s pay jumped by 53% in 2022, including a £2.6 million annual bonus and a £4.9 million long-term shares award on top of his £1.4 million annual salary.

Mr van Beurden – who was replaced by Wael Sawan at the start of 2023 – is also set to pick up another £2.13 million this year for advisory work and loss of office, plus a maximum possible £1.8 million pro-rata bonus dependent on company performance, as well as a potential £7.4 million in long-term awards for 2021 and 2022 share plans.

It comes after the oil giant posted a record 84.3 billion US dollars (£71.1 billion) in core profit for 2022 as it benefited from soaring energy prices, branded “obscene” at the time amid heavy criticism over the amount of tax paid by the group.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey condemned the pay package as “outrageous” and called for an increase in windfall taxes on the sector.

He said: “It is outrageous that oil and gas bosses are raking in millions in bonuses while families struggle to heat their homes.

“Rishi Sunak’s refusal to properly tax these eye-watering bonuses and record profits is mind-boggling and shows how out of touch he is.

“It is completely unfair at a time when the Conservative Government is choosing to put people’s energy bills up.

“Whether it is executive bonuses or soaring profits, the money being made out of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s illegal war should be helping struggling families, not oil and gas barons.”

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Global Witness said Mr van Beurden’s 2022 pay package is 294 times the UK’s median salary of £33,000.

Ben van Beurden was chief executive of Shell for nearly a decade (Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA)

Alice Harrison, fossil fuels campaign leader at Global Witness, said: “Shell’s CEO earnt in one year what a typical UK worker would earn in six lifetimes.”

“It’s a sign of just how broken our energy system is,” she added.

The NGO is urging the Government to change the windfall tax on the oil and gas sector to also cover executive bonuses.

“We’re calling on the UK Government to implement a people-first windfall tax in next week’s Spring Budget which includes executive bonuses, and to ensure a rapid transition to homegrown renewable energy sources that are cleaner and cheaper than oil and gas, and better for energy security,” Ms Harrison said.

BP is also expected to publish its annual report on Friday, which is set to reveal multimillion-pound bonuses for its boss, Bernard Looney.

The spotlight has been thrown on energy firms after a record-breaking set of annual results from the sector, which stoked controversy given the cost-of-living crisis affecting firms and businesses.

A spokesman for Shell said the former chief executive’s pay package is “considered the appropriate quantum for running a group of Shell’s scale and complexity”.

He said: “The CEO’s remuneration package is reviewed carefully on an annual basis against a range of UK and international companies, to ensure reward packages are appropriately positioned against market.”

He added: “We fully appreciate the difficulties that the cost-of-living crisis is causing many people across the world.

“Shell are taking steps to address it, such as doubling the hardship fund for vulnerable customers of our UK retail energy business.”

The group’s annual report also showed that Mr Sawan – Shell’s former head of gas and renewables – was appointed on a £1.4 million annual salary, in line with his predecessor, plus a potential annual bonus worth £1.75 million, or 125% of salary, and long-term shares worth up to a maximum potential of £4.2 million, or 300% of salary.

Profits ‘all but wiped out’ by windfall tax, says oil giant Harbour Energy

August Graham, PA Business Reporter
Thu, 9 March 2023 



The UK’s biggest oil and gas producer said it had seen a nearly eight-fold increase in its profit “all but wiped out” as the Government’s windfall tax on energy companies kicked in.

Harbour Energy said it would pay close to 1.5 billion dollars (£1.3 billion) due to the new rules, which were put in place last May amid surging energy prices.

As a result, and thanks to the company’s normal tax bill, Harbour’s pre-tax profit of 2.5 billion dollars (£2.1 billion) was reduced to eight million dollars (£6.7 million) after tax.

“The UK Energy Profits Levy, which applies irrespective of actual or realised commodity prices, has disproportionately impacted the UK-focused independent oil and gas companies that are critical for domestic energy security,” chief executive Linda Cook said.

“For Harbour, the UK’s largest oil and gas producer, it has all but wiped out our profit for the year.”

Harbour has said that it plans to cut both jobs and investment due to the windfall tax, despite a loophole in the tax which would have allowed it to write off much of any new investments in the North Sea.

But it did not stop Harbour from handing cash to its investors, clubbing through 600 million dollars (£504 million) in shareholder distributions in 2022.

The windfall tax – officially called the Energy Profit Levy – was introduced last year to ensure that oil and gas producers in the UK’s North Sea were not able to massively benefit from the war in Ukraine.

It has been less impactful for oil and gas giants BP and Shell because most of their production comes from outside the UK, so is not covered by the tax.

But Harbour Energy is largely focused on extracting oil and gas off British shores, so a much larger percentage of its profits were impacted by the levy.

Harbour said it had produced an average of 208,000 barrels of oil equivalent every day in 2022, up 19% from the year before. Extracting each barrel cost 13.90 dollars (£11.69), a reduction of 8.5%.

“In our first full year as a publicly listed company, Harbour delivered materially higher production which – together with improved margins – enabled us to continue to deleverage and make material shareholder distributions,” Ms Cook said.

“We further developed our net-zero strategy, setting ourselves an interim target, and built significant momentum in our flagship Viking CCS project. Most importantly, we achieved all of this while improving our safety record.”

Fossil fuels received £20bn more UK support than renewables since 2015

Helena Horton Environment reporter
Thu, 9 March 2023 

Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Rex/Shutterstock

The UK government has given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015, the Guardian can reveal.

The research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, found that while renewable energy was given £60bn in support over that time, fossil fuel companies were given close to £80bn.

In 2020, renewable energy support was greater than fossil fuel support for the first time. However, fossil fuels have been receiving greater additional investment recently. From 2020 to 2021 they received an extra £1bn support from the government compared with 2020, a 10.7% increase. For renewable energy in the same year, total support for projects increased by just £1m, or 0.01%.

Analysis by the House of Commons library found that a fifth of the money given directly to the fossil fuel industry was to support new extraction and mining. In 2021, support for fossil fuel extraction rose by 20% to nearly £2bn.

Politicians have asked the government to put net zero at the heart of policy decisions instead of funding fossil fuel corporations.

Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat climate and energy spokesperson, said: “It is extremely alarming that the Conservative government has been giving these staggering amounts to the fossil fuel industry. Not only have the Conservatives failed to properly tax the record profits of the oil and gas giants, they have showered these companies with taxpayer money too.

“We have been through one of the toughest winters on record and the energy crisis is still biting hard. The government squandered the opportunity to shield us from these spiralling energy bills through their lack of long-term thinking. For years, they gave billions to the fossil fuel industry, rather than actually improving our energy security by investing properly in renewables.

“This is just yet more proof of the government’s legacy of failure on climate change. They need to get a grip and start putting net zero at the heart of all our policy decisions. It will grant us the energy-secure, green future we desperately need.”

She added that, when in the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats tripled renewable energy generation, and said the Lib Dems would also end new listings of fossil fuel companies on the London Stock Exchange and require existing fossil fuel companies to set out how they will transition to net zero.

Fossil fuel companies have been criticised for not investing sufficiently in renewables, despite getting tax breaks and funding from government. Shell and BP made £32bn and £23bn in profit last year respectively while energy bills rose. Shell invested nearly £10bn into oil and gas projects over the year, compared with just £3bn in its renewable energy division. Similarly, BP has announced that it is scaling back the ambition for its emission-cutting targets. Previously, the fossil fuel producer had said it wanted to cut emissions by 35-40% by 2030, but now it has committed to a 20-30% reduction.

A government spokesperson said: “This is utterly misleading analysis. The Climate Change Committee themselves have said we’ll still need some fossil fuels as part of our move towards the net zero target, which is why we must ensure we remain an attractive investment for all energy sectors, as we have consistently been for renewables.

“Our domestic oil and gas industry have a vital role ensuring energy security and the transition to net zero, and alongside that since 2010 the UK has seen more than a 500% increase in the amount of renewable electricity capacity connected to the grid, making the UK a world leader in offshore wind with the most installed capacity in Europe. This will play a key role in achieving net zero by 2050, and will create thousands of new jobs around the country.”