Transport and climate change
Global terminal operator- APM-Arab World responses
Hava-Is seminar - Lessons from 25 years of neo-liberal attacks

Transport and climate change

There is no longer any serious debate about whether climate change is taking place or not, or whether such change is caused by human activity. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is greater than 90 percent likelihood that most of the observed warming is due to human-generated greenhouse gases. If action is not taken now, the Stern Review concluded that a 2 degrees centigrade temperature rise is likely by 2035 (the threshold marker for dangerous climate change identified by scientists).

Transport is a significant and growing source of carbon emissions. Currently, the transport sector accounts for about a quarter of total emissions from fuel combustion. OECD countries together with many countries in central and eastern Europe account for 71% of worldwide emissions from transport (Summary document of European Conference of Ministers, 2007).

Transport emissions have increased by 120% over the past 30 years (Human Development Report, 2007/8), and are gradually increasing in all regions of the world. In the EU, transport continues to be the fastest growing consumer of energy and therefore producer of greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK, for example, transport was the only sector where emissions grew between 1990-2004. In some countries, the growth in transport emissions has outweighed the reductions made in other sectors. Transport is also the fastest growing consumer of energy in developing countries.

In 2001, freight activity accounted for 30-40 per cent of transport related CO2 emissions in OECD countries (OECD Information Paper). More goods are transported further and more frequently than before. Since 1992, freight volumes have grown by 43% in Europe (TRUST report drawing on figures from the European Environment agency). The dominant transportation mode for freight is road (75% in OECD countries) linked to the changing needs of supply chains and freight flows, particularly just-in-time production. Evidence seems to suggest that technological improvements (related to fuel and vehicle efficiency) will not be able to outweigh the increase in volume of road freight transport and reduce emissions.

When considering emissions from transport, it is important to look at the specifics of different modes including:

·    While aviation currently contributes about 3% of global emissions (13% of CO2 emissions from all transport sources), the growth in air travel has seen emissions from international aviation increasing by 87% between 1990-2001. The IPCC in its special report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere anticipates that aircraft emissions will continue to grow significantly despite technological improvements. The total impact of aviation is estimated to be two to five times higher than the effect of CO2 alone due to the release of gases at high altitude and contrail and cloud formation.

·    Recent reports suggest that emissions from shipping could be double the amount previously believed, with ships contributing 5-6% of global emissions. Ship emissions are projected to grow by 70% by 2020 as global trade expands. The impacts of emissions from shipping  are not only of concern for global warming, but also for the health of seafarers, port workers and communities living near ports.

·    Ports are a major source of pollutants from vessels, cargo-handling equipment and trucks. Factors contributing to pollution levels include the “hotelling” of ships while at shore (their auxiliary engines are kept on), the speed of the ship as it approaches the port and the length of time at port. Numerous studies have shown that high concentrations of emissions related to port activities are harmful to human health (ILWU research paper, 2006).

·    Road transport is the largest contributor of emissions within the transport sector. Passenger transport accounts for the largest part of road emissions, mainly through expanded private car use. However, freight emissions have been growing faster than passenger emissions in OECD countries, a trend expected to continue (European Conference of Ministers of Transport).

·    Railways are a relatively energy-efficient transport mode yet the share of rail transport, both passenger and freight, has been declining in most OECD countries. In developing regions, “the industry has continued to decline in many countries that have not privatised, as well as in others that have done so”. (FES Briefing Paper, Brendan Martin, 2007).

The growth in transport emissions raises important questions for trade unions concerning the way in which the restructuring of transport has been geared towards economic growth and the competitive needs of multinational corporations. This approach has had many implications for workers and unions, including harmful effects on human health. It highlights that the development of technologies alone cannot be effective in reducing emissions from transport, and that a more holistic approach encompassing wider economic and social changes is necessary.

Unions cannot address the environmental impact of transport separately from wider issues of how transport is controlled and organised in the context of globalisation and the impact on workers and unions. We need to turn to our existing policies on globalisation and transport workers, and deepen our perspective on how climate change is linked to an unsustainable model of development which “,,,is having a major impact on workers, communities and populations all around the world. It has led to an acceleration in economic inequalities between rich and poor, within and between countries, a reduction in the influence of governments compared to that of corporations and a cut in the importance of public services”. (Resolution No 7, ITF Congress 2002).

Within this overall approach, unions and the ITF need to develop specific responses to the climate change solutions being promoted by governments and companies. In doing so, unions need to analyse whether supporting such “solutions” contributes to the labour movement organising for wider structural change in the global economy and for greater public control.
 

Global terminal operator- APM-Arab World responses

An Arab world seminar focusing on APM terminal operators concluded with a need to develop a minimum set of principles based on international labour standards that APM Terminals should respect. Other seminar outcomes included a commitment to increasing union strength in the region, engaging APM in dialogue and organising workers in the terminals.

The seminar was held in Aqaba, Jordan, from 4 – 6 December 2007, with participants from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman.

Overall the aim of the seminar was to provide a forum for port unions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries to share experiences of their engagement with APM Terminals, a major player in the ports sector in the region.  APM Terminals is one of a several Global Network Terminal Operators that the ITF is seeking to engage on the issue of labour standards.   The seminar also aimed to support the unions in developing common and complimentary responses, and consider how best to inform, participate and benefit from the ITF’s global dialogues with global operators.

Company and trade union relations

From participant reports the level of engagement between participating unions and the company varies from country to country.  However, on the whole, the relationship between APM and participating unions in the region has been difficult. 

Egypt:  There was no contact between the union and the company as yet.

Morocco:  APM Terminals’ Tangier terminal had now been completed.  Tangier is the linking point between Africa and Europe and the terminal was built to help the company to be more competitive in Europe.  The terminal was not yet fully open for business and at the time of the seminar was still going through a preparatory phase.  The approach of the management in Tangiers appeared to be to use workers who were just entering the labour market.  The terminal had employed about 600 workers so far and many of them were recruited from the government agency for revitalising employment.  This is a phenomenon that should be examined more closely.

There were no official communications between the company and the union as yet.  However, the union was taking the initiative and was involved in the establishment of a Tangier convention in cooperation with political parties and civil society groups.  The convention was aimed at all foreign companies operating in Tangier (another terminal concession has been awarded to a consortium with CMA-CGM and Eurogate amongst the companies).  Issues included in the convention are freedom of association and sectoral level collective bargaining.

Jordan:  The participating union represented workers in the container terminal and was affiliated to the general port union.  APM Terminals took over the running of the Aqaba Container Terminal when it was privatised and in August 2006 it was awarded a 25 year contract.  Many workers were dismissed following privatisation and the company was against unionisation, prefering individual contracts with the port workers instead of a collective agreement.  However, a group of workers managed to establish a union.  Elections were held in June 2007 and the company eventually accepted the union.  550 out of the 750 workers are in the union. 

The management showed good intentions at the first meeting.  It expressed its readiness to engage due to its concern over the company’s assets and reputation, and employee relations.  It was agreed that regular meetings should be held.  However, disagreements arose when the union sought to regain benefits that the workers had lost e.g. social benefit fund and raised issues relating to pay and conditions.  The matter was not resolved until the union finally informed the company of its intention to initiate strike action.  The Ministry of Labour, the General union of port workers, and the General federation of Jordan TU, intervened to mediate and a deal was finally reached on 19th October 2007.  The union had presented the company with a two-week deadline to respond to their demands or face strike action on 21 October.

Bahrain:  APM Terminals took control of Mina Sulman terminal in December 2006 and has rights to develop a new container terminal with a local firm as a partner.  The union organises in the container terminal where about 40% of the workers are members and in Weismuller, a Swiss company which works in cooperation with APM Terminals, where 80 – 85% of the workers are unionised. 

Initially the union met with the local APM Terminals management and agreed to have monthly meetings with a human resources representative and 4 monthly meetings with the executive manager.  However, following the initial meeting, the human resources manager would not agree to requests for meetings.  It was the union’s intention to try again for a meeting in January 2008. 

The union also reported that workers had been intimidated for joining the union by individual managers and supervisors, a matter that had been raised with the management.    The union was concerned over the adequacy of safety measures in place and the need to raise awareness of workers about health and safety issues.  There had also been no effective response from the local management in relation to the union’s concerns over the issue of staff assessments which appeared to be carried out in a random fashion.

Oman:  In general, union work was still new in Oman.  The national trade union federation which participated in the seminar was formed in 2005.  There are about 4,000 workers in Salalah where APM Terminals has its operations.  There used to be a union but following recent problems, the union was terminated by a decision of the Ministry of Labour.  The problem had now been solved, and a new union committee was formed in coordination with the national centre.  The federation was working to develop trade unions to cover the ports but union awareness was generally still weak and support was needed from the ITF and other international trade union organisations to develop union work in the country.

As unions need as much information as possible about APM terminals and Maersk, information exchange on developments relating to APM was supported. In addition as Arabic is a common language this should facilitate communication within this network of APM unions and the ITF will ensure that unions are updated on engagement with Maersk and APM terminals at a global level.
 

Hava-Is seminar - Lessons from 25 years of neo-liberal attacks

The need for an internal discussion for a shift to a class-based struggle and an end to business unionism formed part of the concluding remarks by Asbjorn Wahl, National Coordinator for the Campaign for the Welfare State.

Asbjorn was speaking at a seminar on the state of the European trade union movement and lessons from the ongoing global neo-liberal attacks of the last 25 years, organised by Turkish Civil Aviation Union (Hava-Is) for its members. 65 shop stewards and members attended on December 3 2007.

Wahl began by observing that Europe's trade union movement is on the defensive. His view is that they are also in a deep political and ideological crisis, and are unable to fulfil their role as the defenders of the immediate economic and social interests of their members.

Wahl pointed out that behind this development is the ongoing neo-liberal transformation of society. “Capitalist interests have gone on the offensive, and we have seen an enormous shift in the balance of power between labour and capital. Multinational companies have, of course, been at the forefront of this development.

The post-war "social pact" between labour and capital, the policy of peaceful coexistence between unions and employers, has broken down.” But he counselled against the idea of passively complaining about “inevitable and external factors”, stating that “The paradox labour faces is that while the economic and political climate in which the trade unions must operate has changed enormously, most unions have continued to pursue the policy of the social pact.”

Wahl explained in detail what he called “the historic compromise between labour and capital” based on the welfare state or so-called Keynesian economics. He elaborated on the ideological pillars of the social pact as well: “…real social achievements formed the material basis for an ideology of social partnership which remains deeply rooted in European trade union leaders.”

Wahl criticised European trade unions that have been drawn deeper into business unionism and legal formalism rather than shifting towards a strategy based on class analysis and an assessment of the balance of power. The outcome of this being the “acceptance by the dominant part of the trade union movement of a step-by-step reduction in welfare and working conditions.

Through negotiations, trade unions have gradually accepted increasing "flexibilization" of work.” He mentioned the growth of rightwing populist, neo-fascist and fascist parties as the most dangerous result of this trade union policy of indulgence.

Wahl concluded with a list of “concrete tasks” for European unions including: “Organise, organise, organise!!!; Fight informal / precarious jobs; Fight flexibilisation (incl. flexicurity); Defend jobs and employment protection; Defend public pension systems; Protect trade union and workers’ rights.”

“Business unionism and the social partnership policies will have to be replaced by a joint class-based struggle in which democratic control of economy and production is crucial. This will also entail an ideological struggle inside the trade union/labour movement.”

A lively and frank discussion followed on the problems of the European trade union movement as well as the labour movement in general. Kemal Ulker, Hava-Is Education Officer