The New Social Movements : Related to Ecology

Ecology, as a science, emerged in the late nineteenth century, although its roots may be found in many other places, times and cultures. The science of ecology looks at nonhuman nature, studying the numerous, complex interactions among its biotic and abiotic components. Human ecology adds the interactions between people and their environments, enormously increasing the complexities.

Environmental politics is about how humanity organizes itself to the nature that sustains it. Thus it encompasses matters of how people deal with the Earth and its life, and how they, relate to each other through the medium of the environment. Also it impinges on other areas of political concern such as those related to poverty, education, race, the economy and international relations…etc.

The ‘environment’ as a collective term for all these concerns arrived in the 1960s, which dates the beginning of environmental politics as such. Since then, the growth of environmental literature has matched the growth of environmental concern, which has spread to the Third World and the global system itself.

In the last four decades, the politics of the environment has featured a large and growing range of issues. The initial concerns were with pollution, deforestation, population growth, and depletion of natural resources. These concerns have been supplemented by worries about energy supply, animal rights, species extinction, global climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, toxic wastes, the protection of whole ecosystems and environmental justice. All these issues are interlaced with a whole range of moral and ethical questions about human livelihood, human attitudes and our proper relations to other entities on the planet.
Environmental politics today covers discussions of the various political, social and economic causes of ecological problems; the ethics of our relationship with the natural systems that sustain us; our environmental relationships with our fellow-humans; environmental movements and designs for alternative; political organizations.

Environmental struggles, rage all over the world, although it would seem that they are becoming more ubiquitous year after year in so many corners of our shared planet. It is as if the only way to face the declaration of war on nature and humanity by neo-liberal globalization is by conflict and struggle. The dominant models of development and the economy are making inroads into urban and rural landscapes, the body, and even the molecular fabric of life. They introduce environmentally destructive practices that leave landscapes of ecological destruction, sometimes veritable devastation, along the way. Today the number of environmental conflicts and mobilization that receive, or at least merit, worldwide attention has skyrocketed. Tropical forests, biodiversity, water, seeds, energy technologies, food, rivers, and seas, contamination caused by extractive industries such as oil and mining, trans-boundary pollution, fishing rights, urban redevelopment, the melting of glaciers, and polar ice caps possibly caused by global warming, and many more are all the object of struggles in many parts of the world.
Environmental crisis surfaced in the last 1960s, along with dire warnings about global shortages and ecological collapse. Since then, the global populations have increased by over 50percent. There has been mighty nuclear accident at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, industrial accident at Bhopal and Prince William Sound in Alaska. Green parties have emerged as a significant electoral force in many countries. Mainstream environmental groups have acquired massive memberships. Populist backlashes against environmentalism have flared. Global environmental issues relating to climate change and ozone layer depletion have come to the fore. We have had Earth Summits; Earth Days, environmental legislation and regulation.

Beginning in the 1960s, the various philosophical strands of environmentalism were given political expression through the establishment of “green” political movements in the form of activist nongovernmental organizations and environmentalist political parties. Despite the diversity of the environmental movement, four basic principles provided a unifying theme to the broad goals of political ecology; (a) protection of environment, (b) grassroots democracy, (c) social justice (d) nonviolence. The political goals of contemporary green movement in the industrialized West focused on changing government policy and promoting environmental social values. In the less-industrialized or developing world, environmentalism has more closely involved in “emancipatory” politics and grassroots activism on issues such as poverty, democratization, and political and human rights, including the rights of women and indigenous peoples.

Environmental movements, originated in the 1960s with the emergence of the German idea of “conservation biology” and the American concept of “doctrine of resources conservation”, adopted a very different tradition of “reverence for wilderness” in the 1980s. With the new trends in global politics, like the gap between rich and the poor, the North and South, the increasing illiteracy rate and etc has led to the conclusion that the kind of development that we follow today is not in harmony with nature.

Environmental organizations established from the late 19th to the mid 20th century were primarily middle-class lobbying groups concerned with nature conservation, wildlife protection, and the pollution that arose from industrial development and urbanization. There were also scientific organizations concerned with natural history and with biological aspects of conservation efforts.

The early strategies of the contemporary environmental movement were self consciously activist and unconventional, involving direct protest actions designed to obstruct and to draw attention to environmentally harmful policies and projects. Other strategies included public education and media campaigns, community directed activities, and conventional lobbying of policy makers and political representatives. The movement also attempted to set public examples in order to increase awareness of environmental issues. Such projects included recycling, green consumerism, and the establishment of alternative communities, including self-sufficient farms, workers’ cooperatives, and cooperative housing projects.

Sustainable Development has now been promoted as the ideal model for recovery and escaping from the environmental crisis that we are facing today. It intends at the improving well being of the present and future generation by protecting the nature and by guaranteeing eradication of poverty and satisfaction of basic needs. However, the recent development linked with the current Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime is encouraging commercialization of seed development, monoculture, and protection of new plant verities, micro organisms and genetically modified organisms. As a consequent, our rich biogenetic diversity is being coded irreversibly. Indigenous and traditional knowledge and its application as well as life styles and cultures are affected by these developments with a lot of environmental and ethical implications. All these lead to greater concern of the equation of IPR, biodiversity and Sustainable Development. It necessitates the need to make an alternative approach that will bring a balance in between formal intellectual property system and sustainable aspects of biodiversity. Of late, many environmental movements are greater concern on these issues.

The origin of modern environmentalism and environmental movements in India can be ascribed to the Chipko movement in the central Himalayan region in the early 1970s. Chipko movement, launched to protect the Himalayan forests destruction, has its roots in the pre independence days. Many struggles were organized to protest against the colonial forest policy during the early decades of 20th century. Peoples’ main in these protests was that the benefits of the forests, especially the right to fodder, should go to local people. These struggles have continued in the post independent era as the forest policies of independent India are no different from that of colonial once.

During the past thirty years people in various regions of India have formed nonviolent action movements to protect their environment, their livelihood, and their ways of life. These environmental movements have emerged from the Himalayan regions of Uttar Pradesh to the tropical forests of Kerala and from Gujarat to Tripura in response to projects that threaten to dislocate people and to affect their basic human rights to land, water , and ecological stability of life-support systems. They share certain features, such as democratic values and decentralized decision making, with social movements operating in India. The environmental movements are slowly progressing towards defining a model of development to replace the current resource-intensive one that has created severe ecological instability. Similar grassroots environmental movements are emerging in Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand. Throughout Asia and the pacific citizenry organizations are working innovative ways to reclaim their environment.

Kerala Plachimada Movement

Plachimada, a small village in Palakkadu district of Kerala, South India is predominantly an agricultural area. The people of the locality are waging a battle against the soft drink behemoth, Coke. With the plant, largest of its genre in India, sucking out six lakh litre of water a day, the region once with vast green multi-cropped paddy fields has lost all its bounty and is reeling under drought. A recent study show that the water in the region are unfit for drinking and even the soil is contaminated with perniciously high quantities of elements like Cadmium and Lead.

In 2000, when the Coca Cola Company started its bottling plant in this obscure village of rural Kerala, there were no protests. Because every body thought it is good for the development of the region. All political parties joined chorus in singing paean about the immense opportunities it would provide in a state with exceptionally high rate of unemployment. But these hopes were to be shattered within the next six months. The immense opportunity that it created was providing job for some 300 odd people (most of them outsiders). The local people started to recognize the demon behind the mask. The low monsoon rains added to the misery of the people.
The local people (mostly tribals), seeing the shrinking water levels in their wells and drying up paddy fields started an agitation. They were alone in their battle against the MNC. In the initial stages of the struggle neither was there any political parties nor any NGOs in their espousal. Even the media turned a wry face towards them succumbing to commercial pressures.

Despite the attempts by the company to suppress the agitation with the aid of the state machinery the determined local populace continued with their battle for water. The apathy of the authorities helped only in raising their spirit and the struggle intensified in such a rapid pace that now the political parties and the media found it hard to ignore them. The voice of the poor residents of this remote Indian village began to reach out to the world. The left, Janatha Dal (S), youth organizations like the DYFI, SUCI, AIYF and many NGOs joined the struggle.
The agitation was formally launched on 22nd April, 2002 by Adivasi Samrakshana Sangam (Organisation for the Protection of Adivasis). The campaign was inaugurated by C.K. Janu, a tribal leader whose has been in the frontline of Adivasi struggles in Kerala for a decade. More than 2000 demonstrators gathered outside the factory gate forming a blockade. The protesters were met with barbaric act of violence from the police.

Meanwhile a test conducted on samples collected by a BBC Radio-4 correspondent, James Smith proved that the sludge that the plant distributed among the local farmer as manure contained toxic materials like Cadmium in well above the allowed levels. The concentration of Cadmium was 201.02 mg/kg, over four times the maximum allowed value (as per Indian standards).

On August 4th, 2002 The Coca Cola Virudha Samarasamithi (Anti Coca Cola Struggle Committee.) and The Pachimada Ikyadartya Samiti (The Plachimada Solidarity Council) organized a mass rally and a public meeting at Plachimada to mark the 105th day of the protest. Over 1000 people, including women and children participated.
To mark the 1000th day of Plachimada struggle, The World Water Forum was organized in which eminent personalities and activists like Tony Clark, Vandana Siva, Medha Patkar, Sukumar Azheekode and M.P. Veerendrakumar. The Plachimada struggle was the main theme in The World Social Forum (WSF) held in Mumbai in 2005.

Do our Government machinery has the chutzpah to act against the interests of MNCs? The obvious answer is ‘No’. But in a rare show of audacity The Kerala State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) has ordered the stoppage of production at Plachimada Coca- Cola Company. The order was issued on 19th August 2005. The PCB sited the failure of the company to comply with its directions regarding the disposal of the sludge as the reason for its action. Besides that The Board found that the concentration of heavy metals like Cadmium in the sludge was 400 to 600 times above the permissible level of which the company had no explanations. The Company seeks to review the order and is yet to close down.

Will this be an ultimate victory for the poor local populace? Considering seemingly notorious past of the MNC nothing can be taken for granted. But let’s forget not, as the Bolivian struggle demonstrated, that nothing can triumph over the collective determination of the people. Let's hope that they would succeed in their battle for existence.

Kerala Mavoor reyons

The Rayoons is the biggest private sector industrial unit in Kerala known for its poor environmental and industrial relations record, has closed down. The agreement in this regard was signed on July 7 by the management and the trade unions under the mediation of the State government. For the Aditya Birla Group, owners of the unit which produced rayon-grade wood pulp and viscose staple fibre (VSF), it was the end of an increasingly embarrassing burden on its Rs.20,000 crore business empire. It meant victory for environmentalists who have for years protested against the severe pollution caused by the industry, which is located on the banks of the Chaliyar river. It may also mean relief from serious health for the people of the nine densely populated panchayats along the Chaliyar, mainly Mavoor, Vazhakkad, Peruvayal, Vazhayoor and Olavanna, caused by the toxic waste discharged from the factory.

The section that will suffer is the nearly 3,000 workers and their family members, who number over 10,000. Many of them had spent major parts of their productive lives serving the Grasim management. As per the agreement, signed in the presence of State Labour Minister Babu Divakaran, the employees are to be paid an amount equivalent to 40 days' salary for every year of completed service and also for the remaining years of service. In addition, a "special pay" of Rs.27,500 each is to be paid. The management has also agreed to pay some fringe benefits, bonus for the current year and the eligible provident fund and gratuity.

For many workers who joined the factory after 1979, this meant a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs or less. Employees with longer service, who are fewer, are expected to get around Rs.5 lakhs. In the long interval since May 1999, when the unit stopped production and the company announced a lay-off (with salary), most of the employees had reached a state of hopelessness and were willing to accept whatever compensation was finally offered. At the time of its establishment in 1957 the Mavoor unit, known then as Gwalior Rayons Silk Marketing Company Ltd., was regarded as a boon for industrially backward Kerala with a high level of unemployment. Successive governments pampered the unit with water and power supplied at heavily subsidised rates and access to the State's forests to gather raw materials at extremely low prices. But the initial goodwill, which was earned mainly on the promise of employment, soon gave way to anger and resentment against its gross violation of pollution control norms to the detriment of people living in the surrounding areas (Frontline, December 24, 1999). The unit also showed an insatiable appetite for raw materials, a major reason for the denudation of tracts of forests.

From the late 1970s, agitations and court cases had plagued the company. In 1985, when public pressure against pollution by the factory was at its peak, the management closed down the factory for nearly three years citing "labour trouble" as the reason. The hardship that it caused to the employees and their families (many workers were driven to penury; 14 of them committed suicide) brought the government to its knees. Grasim eventually succeeded in wresting more concessions from the government on the supply of raw materials and on following pollution control norms. Meanwhile, the fall in the international price of wood pulp made its import a cheaper option for the Grasim conglomerate, which has a strong presence in the textile market in India and abroad. Also, Grasim, with its five other VSF units, was already the world's largest producer of VSF (which is blended with polyester and cotton in the manufacture of fabrics). With the establishment of a plant at Harihar in its Karnataka in 1972, Grasim also became the largest producer of rayon grade wood pulp in the country. In 1998, the group acquired a joint venture pulp mill in Canada, whose entire output was meant for captive consumption in Grasim's VSF units in India, Thailand and Indonesia.

The Mavoor unit was the first in the world to manufacture rayon-grade pulp from bamboo and later from heterogeneous species of pulp wood, including eucalyptus and certain wild plants, when bamboo was in short supply. The use of heterogeneous wood was stated to have affected the quality of pulp from Mavoor. The unions alleged that this was a result of large-scale corruption by local managers of the unit who bought heterogeneous wood of inferior quality. The local managers also allegedly conveyed to the Grasim management a wrong impression about the intensity of the public ire against pollution and exaggerated figures of the cost of pollution control measures.
But the allegations were raised too late in the day. In the Grasim's scheme of things, the Mavoor plant, which had thrived on the inability of the State government to act, was going down in importance. And, as the demand for more investment in pollution control measures became intense, it became a liability. The company served a closure notice to the State government on August 23, 1999 under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and it was rejected. A review petition was also rejected, and the government referred the issue for adjudication by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal in Kozhikode. Simultaneously, the Grasim management submitted a petition in the Indore High Court requesting sanction for the sale of the Mavoor units (estimated to be worth over Rs.750 crores) to a benami company at a low price of Rs.22.5 crores. The trade unions had since impleaded as a party in the case.

Narmada India

The Narmada Bachavo Andolan in India

The Narmada is one of India's most sacred rivers. Holier than even the Ganges. In its vast basin live a phenomenal twenty million Indians; nearly half of them protected tribal or schedule castes. In the forests along the river banks is a huge wildlife population. For centuries, the river, flowing majestically westwards into the Arabian Sea, has nourished the people on its banks, both materially and spiritually.

The Narmada Valley Development Project is the single largest river development scheme in India. It is one of the largest hydroelectric projects in the world and will displace approximately 1.5 million people from their land in three states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh).The environmental costs of such a project, which involves the construction of more than 3,000 large and small dams, are immense. The project will devastate human lives and biodiversity by inundating thousands of acres of forests and agricultural land. The State” (India) wants to build these dams on the Narmada River in the name of National Development.
Like in the case of Chipko Movement Narmada Bachavo Andolan was successfully ensuring the mass mobilization , they adopted nonviolent actions like the Sit-in as water rise (1993), Sit-in hunger strike (1997), Mobilization begins in tribal belt (1985), Sacrifice in water threat (1993), Marches, sit-ins fasts, arrests (1989), capture of dam-sit (1998) ..etc.

The ‘Rally for the Valley’ organized by noted writer and booker prize winner Arundhati Roy in support of Narmada Bachao Andolan's ongoing Satyagraha, against unjust displacement and submergence, at Jalsindhi (Madhya Pradesh) and Domkhedi (Maharashtra), numbering not less than 500 people.

Arundathi Roy and many others walked by foot to understand the seriousness of the issue in depth and extend their support to the tribal who always travel by foot, about 4-5 hours from Mathwad and part of the rally including some old people traveled by boat to Jalsindhi. All the rallyists were warmly welcomed by the villagers and satyagrahis including Medha Patkar at Jalsindhi, The Narmada Bachao Andolan strongly condemnt the highhanded and paranoid behavior of the Gujarat government since there was no plan for the rally to come through Kawant and Hafeshwar. The NBA and the organizers of the rally had announced time and again that their route to Jalsindhi will be through Kakrana in M.P. and not through Hafeshwar. The Gujarat government and the pro-dam vested interests, as usual, have been raising the non-issue and have been trying to whip up frenzy in Gujarat for no reason. That has always been the modus operendi of the vested interests and fascist forces in Gujarat.

kerala silent valley

Silent valley Peoples Movements

After being declared as a National Park, the Silent Valley forests in Kerala, one of the world’s richest biodiversity hotspots, are looking at a new threat. While environmentalists perceive a grave threat to the pristine Silent Valley ecosystem in the Pathrakkadavu Hydroelectric Project (PHEP) proposed to be built on the Kunthippuzha just outside the boundary of the National Park, the Government of Kerala and the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) argue that the apprehension and the controversy are misplaced and misguided.

The Silent Valley ecosystem comprises of 8,952 hectares of forestland on the Nilgiris plateau closed on all sides by mountains of the Western Ghats, some as high as 2000 metres. It is an “ecological island” with a relatively undisturbed evolutionary history of at least 50 million years manifested in a high degree of floral and faunal endemism. Rare, endangered and new biological species continue to be discovered from the Silent Valley National Park. The Pathrakkadavu dam has been proposed as an “eco-friendly” alternative to the Silent Valley project abandoned following worldwide opposition to the ecocide the project would have caused. PHEP is thus designed as a run-of-the-river project with a small installed capacity of 70 MW in the first phase (105 MW eventually) and an energy generation of 214 million units (Mu) from a 64.5-metre high dam with a minimal gross storage of 0.872 million cubic metres and a negligible submergence of 4.10 ha.

A Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out in just 5 km radius of the dam site and a limited period of five months by Environmental Resources Research Centre at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the report, the total forest area destroyed by PHEP would be 22.16 ha. Compared to 830 ha of tropical evergreen forests that would have been submerged under the original Silent Valley hydroelectric project, abandoned in 1980s, this too could be negligible. Being a run-off-the-river project, PHEP would not cause significant water scarcity downstream, except in an extent of 2.75 km between the dam and the point of confluence of the tailrace water, it is argued by the proponents of the dam.

. “The first and the foremost opposition,” according to Satish Chandran Nair, ecologist and director, INTACH, Thiruvanananthapuram, is that PHEP “posed a major threat to the long-term viability of the National Park,” by negating and proposing to sever the ecosystem continuity.
The existing Silent Valley National Park is an artificial administrative unit of just 89 sq. km. of Reserved Forest, its boundaries fixed for legal land ownership reasons in 1914. The natural, ecologically meaningful landscape unit that needed to be protected under the park should have encompassed all the contiguous biodiversity-rich forest tracts in the Nilgiris in Tamilnadu on the west as well as across the ridges and valleys in Kerala on the south of the existing park. “The biodiversity value of Silent Valley simply does not mean the value of forests in the 89 sq. km National Park alone excluding the contiguous areas,” argues Nair. “Merely safeguarding the administrative boundary of the National Park does not guarantee the long-term protection of the ecosystems or the species diversity contained therein.”

In 1979 Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, then secretary to the Department of Agriculture, had suggested that 39,000 ha including Silent Valley forests (8952 ha), New Amarambalam Reserve (8,000 ha) and Attappadi Reserve forest (12,000 ha) in Kerala as well as the Kunda forests in Tamilnadu (10,000 ha) should be developed into a National Rainforest Biosphere Reserve, with the aim of “preventing erosion of valuable genes from the area”. Despite such recommendations by expert committees and scientists, the boundary of the Silent Valley Park was never expanded and no buffer zone was created. The PHEP project area outside the park too remains an abode of rich biodiversity, a fact that the rapid EIA study report could not conceal. The report found 381 species of flowering plants in the Pathrakkadavu region of which 55 were endemic to Western Ghats and seven rare as per the IUCN category. The EIA also enlisted 23 sp. of mammals, 79 sp. of birds, 22 sp. of reptiles, 14 sp. of amphibians, 18 sp. of fishes (10 sp. not found even in Silent Valley) and 43 species of butterflies in this area. Of these nearly 20 per cent were endemic to Western Ghats.

“Nevertheless, this floristic and faunistic survey was quite inadequate,” says Dr. Vijayan, Director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology (SACON) at Coimbatore. “A year-round study or at least a multi-seasonal sampling should have given a more realistic picture.” During a trek through the project area on both banks of Kunthi, SACON scientists found nine species of butterflies, one species of reptile and two species of amphibians in just 12 hours.
It was based on such a ‘rapid’ EIA that the project authorities and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board conducted the mandatory public hearing on 21st May. The public hearing turned out to be a fiasco with the local MLA ordering out at the outset all persons except people from the two panchayats of Mannarkkad and Kumaramputhur where the dam and the powerhouse constructions would be sited. This created a commotion as hundreds of eco-activists from all over Kerala had reached the venue to submit their views. Later, all those who tried to oppose the project were booed and heckled and even physically threatened. Those who were not allowed to speak at the hearing included poet and environmentalist Sugathakumari, a key figure in the old Save Silent Valley agitation, and Dr. V.S.Vijayan, an expert on Silent Valley. The people's representatives of Mannarkkad and Kumaramputhur panchayats where the dam and the powerhouse are to be located said at the hearing that the project would bring much-needed jobs to this remote forest area and mitigate the bleak power supply situation in north Kerala. Eco-activists argue that the project would impact several rare, endangered and even unidentified species. They point out that the PHEP would not only cause drying up of the Kunthi river for a length of 2.5 k.m. but also reduce the flow in its downstream as well as in the Bharathapuzha, the second largest river in the state and the lifeline of millions of people.

Ecological arguments apart, the PHEP have also been questioned on its fundamentals, its capacity to generate the projected amount of electricity. The rainfall data and the river run-off data used in the Detailed Project Report (DPR) do not match with each other and are exaggerated, points out Dr. R.V.G. Menon, Director of Integrated Rural Technology Centre, Palakkad and former president, KSSP. There are also corresponding exaggerations in the runoff in the Kunthi river and also the power generation potential of the project. These distort the cost estimates.

Bangladesh Poribesh Andolan

Bangladesh Poribesh Andolan (BAPA)

Poribesh Rakkha Shopoth (POROSH) was formed in 1997 to mobilize citizen’s initiative for protection and development of the environment of Bangladesh was created because of the urgency felt by a group of concerned Bangladeshi citizens to act in order to prevent the rapid degradation of our environment. Porosh was the principal organizer, together with Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology (BUET), Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN) and Coalition of Environment NGO’s (CEN), of the International Conference on Bangladesh Environment held on January 14-15, 2000 (ICBEN 2000). Another about 60 organizations, including Universities, research institutions, professional associations, government agencies and above all NGOs dealing with environment joined as co-organizers. The conference brought together over 500 Bangladeshi participants, from various segments of the society, both home and abroad. Deliberations held in 20 technical sessions, in five parallel streams, yielded a set of recommendations for action by the people and the Government of Bangladesh. These recommendations were adopted as the Dhaka Declaration on Bangladesh Environment. The Bangladesh press extensively Dhaka Declaration on Bangladesh Environment.

By bringing about seventy organizations together, the ICBEN 2000 has set a very good stage for launching a broad-based environment movement in Bangladesh. The prerequisites for such a movement are consolidation of this remarkable unity and its further expansion. To this end, the conference proposed formation of an overarching framework called the Bang Organization

Bangladesh Poribesh Andolan (BAPA) is governed by its constitution prepared and approved by the Annual General Meeting. General membership of BAPA is open to any citizen, organization or agent who believes in the vision and mission of BAPA. Any citizen may be a life member of BAPA by a onetime subscription as per provision of the constitution.

The constitution of BAPA provides for three tiers of governing bodies General Council, National Committee and Executive Committee. General Council, comprising members of all categories, is the highest authority of BAPA. It meets once in two years to formulate new policy and review the activities and finances of the organization. It also elects the National Committee.

The National Committee adopts policies and monitors activities of BAPA in the period between the General Council meetings. It also elects the Executive Committee for a term of two years. The Executive Committee, which meets at least once every month, is responsible for day-to-day activities of BAPA. Green Force, an organization of young environmental activists, is affiliated to BAPA.

Main Objectives
To influence Government to adopt appropriate legal instruments for conservation of environment
To ensure that appropriate authorities undertake enforcement of laws and implementation of directives related to environment
To create awareness among the polluters, users, stakeholders and sufferers about the effect of the environment pollution.
To promote environmental education in the society and secure environment-friendly behaviour in social and personal life of the people of Bangladesh
To improve quality of life by mitigating environmental pollution.

Brazil Rubber Tapper

The Brazilian Rubber Tapper Movement began in 1975 with the formation of the first Tapper Union, in the state of Acre. The Rubber Tappers, or Seringueiros, unionized as a result of increased state support deforestations. The state wanted to clear forest for more profitable cattle ranching and for road projects. The Tappers have successfully and sustainable tapped rubber from the trees for generations. However, the state sponsored construction of road BR-317 threatened to destroy the trees and therefore the livelihood of the Rubber Tappers. The Catholic Church actively participated in the construction of the unions.The unions organized traditional nonviolent empates where groups of Seringueiros confronted deforestation ranchers. From the early unionizing grew of movement’s most eloquent and influential leader, Chico Mendes. He later became the international symbol for the movement.

The internationalization of the movement came wit

h the help of Mary Allegretti, an anthropologist from the University of Brasilia. She worked to publicize the struggle between the state supported ranching and the tappers in the local newspaper, the Varadouro. This newspaper soon became the voice of the Acres Seringueiro. These reports attracted the attention of Tony Gross, of Oxfam’s Brazilians office. The connection to international NGOs grew and eventually many Washington DC based groups became involved with the movement to prevent the deconstruction to the forest. The groups focused their attention on building of the road BR 364. Which had the potential to cause massive deforestations. The connection between the Seringueiro’s and the international NGO spread the local movement around the globe allowing it to gain financial and informational support; in effect empowering the movement. New identities, which linked traditional relations, blurred the lines between domestic and international issues, thus demonstrating the porous nature of territorial and national boundaries and challenging state sovereignty.

The internationalizing of the Rubber Tapper Movement led to the transfer of money across geographical borders. These funds were used to support activities that went against state policy. For instance Tony Gross of Oxfam pledged monetary support for the early formation of rubber tapping cooperatives and schools in 1983. Later that year, the Brazilian army raided the school searching for the evidence for the guerrilla activity and subversive literature. Oxfam also funded the first meeting of 120 Seringueiro leaders in Brasilia, which ultimately grew in to National Council of Rubber Tappers, a permanent entity. As more international NGOs became involved with the Seringueiro movement more money entered Brazil. The Ford Foundation, which was egar to foster sustainable development in to Brazil, provided grants to the council for the establishment of extractive reserves. The Gaia foundation also provided a stipend to the movement. The money flowed in to the country from outside forces and activities in opposition to the state. The international NGOs directly intervened in the domestic affairs of the state and proved that the state was not able to hold absolute supremacy over other authorities within that territory or population.
Similar to the transfer of funds, the transfer of information in and out of Brazil illustrates the state’s porous borders and the decline of its sovereignty. Unlike monetary transfer, however, the transfer of information flowed in both directions. In other words, NGOs provided the Seringueiros with information and likewise the Seringueiros provided the NGOs with information. This two way flow is shown best by the environmentalization of the local movement. Previous to Allegetti’s meeting with Washington environmental organizations, the movement had focused on the effect of deforestation on the rubber tapper’s livelihood. Allegretti realized, however that the movement “could gain enormous strength”, if they emphasized the ecological aspect of its activities. Soon after she arrived in Brazil, Mendes and other Seringueiro leaders drew up a manifesto demanding rights for the Rubber Tappers, declaring that they “were the defenders of the forest.” This statement showed that movement wanted to save the rain forest for the sake of the people as well as for the sake of the forest itself. Thus, the transfer of information into the movement gave it strength.

Important information also spread from the Rubber Tapper Movement to the northern environmental NGOs. First, the movement allowed Steve Schwartzman and Bruce Rich, of the Environmental Defence Fund, to add a “human” aspect to their campaign to halt development in the rainforest. This aspect strengthened their fright with the international development agencies like IMF and the World Bank. It gave “them people to fight for not just birds and trees”. Northern NGOs fought with the World Bank over the failed Rondonia Road Project for years and increased its ammunition against the development projects with this information. However, the most important information that spread from Amazonia was Chico Mende plan for the creation of extractive rubber reserves. The plan called for the establishment of protected lands in which Seringueirous would be able to sustainable cultivate rubber to sell. This plan allowed the NGOs to provide the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) with a crucial alternative to the old-fashioned, from the top down development of the Amazon. Again the transactional alliances fostered the transfer of information from the South to the North, giving the NGOs more firepower. This plan was successful in stopping IDB funding of the BR-364 roads through Acre. In Both cases the transactional alliances allowed for the transfer of information across the state borders. The movement and the NGOs used this information to work against the states plans.

The internationalisation of the Rubber Tapper Movement created new identities in opposition to the state. The movement’s early connections to Oxfam allowed for the creation of the Council of Rubber Tappers. It was this organization that was approached by the Union of Indigenous Peoples, which proposed establishing relations between the two groups. These two groups had been traditional enemies for many years. Yet soon formed the Alliance of People of the forest. This umbrella organization represented countless groups in opposition to state sponsored ranching and road construction. Mendes later recalled: “People became amazed at the time saying, ‘Indians and rubber tappers together? Didn’t you fight before? Weren’t you enemies? And we responded, “We understand today that our fight is the same one”.
The transactional alliances between Northern NGOs and the Seringueirs movement were successful in changing both the World Bank and the Brazilian policy. The local movement empowered with their connection to internatioal environmental NGOs and influenced the states action. Extractive reserves were created to protect the Seringueiros and their livelihood. Millions of acres of rainforest were set aside as a result of the porous nature of territorial and national borders. Information and funds passed effortlessly across the geographical borders, showing the state’s inability to control all activities within its territory. Also, new identities were created in opposition to the state. The internationalisation of the movement involved international actors directly intervening in domestic affairs, challenging the tenets of the Peace of Westphalia and thus states sovereignty. A similar challenge to state sovereignty is posed by the internationalisation of the Narmada Bachavo Andolan in Gujarat, India.

France water war

Fighting Against Privatization in France
France, the national home of the worlds leading water giants were celebrating the return of their water service and sewage system to public control after more than a decade of local community struggles. In 1989, the Mayor of Grenoble had initiated proceedings to privatize the city’s water services by striking a deal with Lyonnaise des Eaux, a subsidiary of that world leading water company Suez.

The privatization scheme was concluded in exchange for monetary contributions to the mayor’s electoral campaign. When Lyonnaise des Eaux introduced massive hikes in water prices, public resistance grew and a citizens movements was born. Then in 1995, the mayor and an executive of Lyonnaise were prosecuted and in 1996, they were convicted to bribery.

The citizen’s movement that emerged was anchored in two organizations, the Association for Democracy, Ecology and Solidarity (ADES) and Eau Secours (Save the Water). Both organizations went to work, doing background research on the deal that was struck with the Suez subsidiary. Eventually both ADES and Eau Secours put together a legal strategy to challenge the water privatization deal in court. Through these initiatives, the citizens of Grenoble won a series of court rulings that overturned the price hikes. The court also went on to nullify the original 1989 privatization decision and subsequent contracting out of the city’s water and sewage system. Through the court action, the Grenoble city council opted for the creation of a “societe mixte” and proceeded to subcontract its water service to another subsidiary of Lynnaise des Eaux. But this contract was also declared null and void by a court ruling instigated by yet another legal challenge brought by the citizen’s movement.

The stage was now set for the de-privatization of Grenoble’s water system. Since 1995, citizen’s activists had been waging electoral campaigns based on a platform of returning the city’s water system to public hands. After winning several seats on council, the first day of spring in the new millennium give the citizens of Grenoble something to celebrate. After a decade of privatization, Lyonnaise des Eaux was handed its exit papers. In March 2000, the Grenoble city council decided to return the water and sewage system to public control once and for all.

The story of Grenoble illustrates that people can do when they organize to take back public control of their water systems. And the fight against the privatization, or corporate take over, of community water systems has been accelerating recently in countries all over the world. This process has been assisted by organizations like Public Services International (PSI) the worldwide alliance public service unions and its affiliates.

Ghana Water War

Ghana: Fight Against Water Privatization

The price of water in a community increased 300 percent in just three years, this recently happened in Ghana, West Africa. By raising the price of water the Ghanaian government paved the way for foreign investors to take over the country’s water system. This will affect 7.5 million people in thousands of people in hundred of cities and towns.

An effort by the Ghanaian government to privatize public water supply and management continues to meet fierce opposition from the country's National Coalition Against the Privatization of Water (CAPW). The National Patriotic Party government’s plans are tied up with the World Bank’s ‘market liberalization’ strategy pursued on behalf of the global corporations. The World Bank has offered an interest free loan of $150m to re-equip the state-run Ghana Water Company and hire new management. Under the plans, new management would operate, maintain and sell the water under a 10-year contract in what would be an obscene form of so-called public-private partnerships.
Water supply in Ghana's cities and regional capitals has worsened over the past two decades. But campaigners say this is due to poor management and lack of investment in infrastructure. Most homes in urban cities have water tanks to store water because the taps run only for a few hours for two or three days a week.

And in parts of

Accra, such as Teshie-Nungua, Madina and Adenta sprawling residential areas in the South-east and North-east residents pay somewhere between 500 cedis and 1,000 cedis (5-10 cents) per bucket of four gallons from private suppliers the official Ghana Water rate is 64 cedis.

According to, Ameng Etego is the spoke man of the National Coalition Against the Privatization of Water in Ghana, ‘you can't privatize something as close to air as water, and allow market forces and profit motives to determine who can and who cannot have some to drink for the Some 300 million people around half of Africa’s population have no access to clean water and sanitation.

The World Bank recently reaffirmed its policy of tying loans to bringing in the private sector. Plans for water privatization began under the previous Jerry Rawlings government and were actually opposed by the National Peoples Party (NPP) while it was in opposition. When the HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) initiative was developed in the late 1990s, Ghana opted not to sign up, despite being eligible. In contrast, one of the first acts of the new NPP government, brought into office in 2000, was to join HIPC. But debt relief and poverty-reduction programmers come with conditions. Central to the IMF, World Bank and even bilateral agreements has been the condition that the government press ahead with its privatization programmes, including that of the water sector.

According to Alhassan is the leader of National Coalition Against the Privatization of Water in Ghana, In 1995 the government decided to privatize Ghana Water and ask for bids. An American-based company bribed the minister in charge with $5m, and the newspaper Public Agenda revealed this. The government was unhappy that this was happening in the election year of 1996 and therefore postponed privatization and left it out of the election debate.

The idea was once again floated in 1999, when the union representing staff at Ghana Water said the company should not be allowed to be looted. During that period there were many demonstrations, with the key demand that all forms of privatization and divesting of state enterprises must be stopped. Then in 2000, the NPP won the general election and announced that Ghana Water Company must be put on fast track for privatization. A group of organizations and individuals then called a conference in Accra opposition parliamentarians, unions, students, workers and water workers. From that came the Accra Declaration committing themselves to fighting privatization and calling on Ghanaians to join the campaign.

Initially, Adam, a member of the National Coalition Against the Privatization of Water in Ghana, explained, the government prepared a bid document that said the government would invest $500m and the private company would have to match that with $70m. Government sponsored advertisements denounced the campaign against privatization as “anti investment and anti-development”. And because it was at the height of the storm over the attack on the World Trade Center, they tried to link campaigners with terrorism.

The campaign then heard that the private companies were going to invest $70m but they were going to borrow it from the Ghanaian government. Then CAPW learned that they had reduced the figure to $30m. So in reality, there was no investment at all. The Ghana peoples already had experiences of such bogus privatizations, where they companies fail to make money they pack up and run away. But the government doesn’t see the provision of water, electricity, education and health as a priority.
The mining companies taken in profits from this town and repatriated those profits without investing any of it here. If only a trickle of these profits had been invested here it would have been possible for people to have free water. Instead a steady trickle goes into the pockets of a chosen few in Ghana who then have to live in houses that are like concentration camps. They have to build high walls with barbed wire and on top of the barbed wire an electric fence. And they live like that because they have concentrated the resources that everyone should have shared into their own pockets.

The relentless fight of the CAPW has slowed the implementation or privatization. The government had set up a department to oversee the sell off, mostly public relations and finance people, with only a few water engineers. But the timetable for the bid mandate expired and this department has now been closed down. According to Dr. Granfedeal Ayitomeka, is famous social Worker explained that the NPP government was failing the people on all fronts, not only the privatization issue, they would create opportunities for people to have access to water, electricity, health care education, sanitation but three years later the economic statistics are rapidly deteriorating and the country is in a very terrible crisis.

If you commodity water, turn it into commodity, then the poor will be forced to drink unwholesome water. Guinea Worm infestation in Ghana is already now second worst in Africa next to Sudan a country where there has been civil war for the past 20 years, in order to ensure efficient and clean supply of water it must go into private hands, which will bring in capital and expertise. This is no different from when Ghana was struggling for independence and was told we were not ready for independence.

The government conducted an investigation into the running of Ghana Water, which has never been made public. But the Coalition believes that it showed that the government departments responsible for Ghana Water were mainly responsible for any inefficiency. And one of the individuals particularly identified as responsible is one of the leading figures in water privatization. The problems here are not to do with lack of technical knowledge

After two decades of structural adjustment imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in which literally anything that could be sold was sold, Ghana still remains ‘a highly indebted and poor country’. After the 20 years of implementing Structural Adjustment Programmes, economy has remained weak and vulnerable and not sufficiently transformed to sustain accelerated growth and development. Poverty has become widespread, unemployment very high, manufacturing and agriculture in decline and our external and domestic debts much too heavy a burden to bear. For the 13.5 million Ghanaians who live in urban slums and rural areas and who represent 75 per cent of the population, even this rare honesty from a minister of state was an understatement.

Since 1995 when the World Bank pushed the Ghanaian Government to develop specific options to privatize the country’s water service, the poor have been systematically deprived of their right of access to safe water. The price of water has been increasing at an alarming rate, in order to set the stage for the Bank’s treasured principle of ‘full cost recovery’. Pro-privatization consultants hand-picked by the World Bank are peddling it for all they’re worth, turning the Bank’s involvement into a front for the transnational corporations interested in taking over Ghana’s water. Leading the pack are the French companies Vivendi, Suez Lyonnaise and Saur. In hot pursuit is Biwater of Britain; in March 2002 the IMF stated that Ghana would get the next tranche of its loan under the so-called Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility only if it aimed for full cost recovery in all public utilities, including water.

Kenya Green Belt Movement

Green Belt Movement

The Green Belt Movement is a grassroots organization based in Kenya and it focuses on environmental conservation and community development. Green Belt Movement has undergone tremendous growth and evolution over several years. It was founded in 1977 by Wangari Mutta Maathai, known then as Envirocare.

Wangari Maathai joined the National Council of Women of Kenya and was actively participating in it. She introduced the idea of Envirocare to her colleagues and, after consultations and discussions; they agreed that it was necessary to establish such an initiative. However, rather than impose the name Envirocare on them, Wangari and her colleagues derived a new name for the organization: Save the Land Harambee.

As the campaign progressed, many people at the grassroots joined in the tree-planting exercise because they realized the importance of soil conservation and reforestation. The strategy that Save the Land Harambee employed involved encouraging community members to plant trees in large areas of public land so as to form green belts of trees. Many with a lot of excitement and enthusiasm embraced this strategy and it was not long before the organization became synonymous with Green Belts. To capture the dynamism that was instrumental to its success, the name of the organization was changed from Save the Land Harambee to The Green Belt Movement (GBM) a name that it has retained ever since.

In addition to forming Green Belts on public lands, the need to plant trees on private land also arose since more than 90% of the rural population use fuel wood in their homes on a daily basis. In response to this need, GBM encouraged community members to organize themselves into groups, become members of the organization and then establish a tree nursery and distribute seedlings to community member’s free-of-charge. In return, GBM promised to compensate these groups in monetary terms for the seedlings that they distributed. To make the whole process effective as well as ensure a high survival rate of trees, GBM developed a methodology, which is now known as the ten-step procedure for tree planting.

The main objectives of Green Belt Movement
To promote environmental conservation and sustainable development.
To avert desertification process throughout Africa through planting of trees.
To encourage tree planting soil rehabilitation, water harvesting, reforestation.
To protect the catchments areas, many of which have been deforest rated.
To protect Zero-grazing and organic farming as a means of improving soil fertility and food production.

The Green Belt Movement grew very fast. By the early 1980s there were estimated to be 600 tree nurseries, involving 2000, 3000 women. About 2000 public Green Belts with about a thousand seedlings each had been established and over half a million school children were involved. Some 15000 farmers had planted woodlots on their own farms. In 1986 the movement established a Pan African Green Belt Network and has introduced over 40 individuals from other African countries to its approach. This has led to the adoption of Green Belt methods in Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and some other countries of the region.

NIgeria Ogoni Movements

The Movements for the Survival of Ogoni People
Nigeria, the giant of Africa and the black nation of the world, is totally dependent on single export commodity oil. She is the fifth largest producer of crude oil in the world. There has been a progressive increase in the oil revenue from a paltry 5.9% in 1964 to a staggering 90% and above, of Nigeria’s foreign exchange today. Although Nigeria has major tribes such as Hausa, Yoruba and Ibo, the land of the minority groups such as the Edo, Efik, Ibibio, Ijaw, Ikwere, Isoko, Isekiri, Kalabari, Ogoni and others which, because of their small numbers, have little or no say in resource allocation and development. However, the worst hit of the groups is Ogoni land.

The Ogoni are a distinct ethnic group within Nigeria. The territory forms part of the eastern-most extension of the mainland fringe bordering the eastern Niger Delta. Covering a total area of approximately 404 square miles and it forms part of the coastal plain terraces, which from here appears as a gently sloping plateau. The Ogoni number an estimated 500000 people and its population density of about 1250 persons per square mile compared with the national average of 300 per square mile, is among the highest in any rural area of the world.

Before the advent of colonialism, there was a very well established social system and with its rich plateau soil, Ogoni was a blessed land. The fresh water streams and the surrounding seas brimmed with fish; the forests had an abundance of animals and hard wood preserved by the environmentally conscious Ogoni. The Ogoni who are known to be very hard working and fiercely independent were competent farmers and fishermen, producing food not only for their subsistence but also for most of the Niger Delta and its northern neighbours.

The Ogoni people’s struggle against the pollution and resources destruction by the oil industry in their homeland shows how environmental concerns coincide with struggles for self-determination. In 1958, when Nigeria was a colony, Royal Dutch Shell oil discovered large deposit of petroleum and natural gas in Ogoni land that Shell and British government and later, the Nigerian government sought to exploit their revenue. Oil export has since become vital to the Nigerian economy; revenue from oil export has brought approximately $30 billion since 1958, and in recent years accounted for approximately 95% of Nigeria’s export income.

But the oil industry has brought severe ecological problems to Ogoni land, an area of 650 sq km on the Niger River delta. Although densely populated, the area’s rich land and waterways have traditionally supported the Ogoni’s farming and fishing economy. Indigenous peoples of the oil rich Niger Delta region continue to suffer environmental degradation, poverty and violence to the hands of oil companies that operate in the area. The companies themselves, together with the Nigerian and Northern country governments are responsible for the present state of things.
Shell, that holds a sad record during its long history in the Niger Delta, has set aside a total of $1billion to develop its offshore oil and gas field in the region. This project is being financed by a funding agreement between oil companies in Nigeria and the Nigerian Petroleum Corporation. Since oil accounts for 90% of Nigeria's foreign earnings, the Nigerian Government is interested in increasing the country's crude oil production at all cost. At the same time, the state is in charge of the security of the area. This does not mean defending the right of local communities to live in peace in a healthy environment but, on the contrary, defending oil companies interests to the detriment of the Niger Delta population. The Nigerian government is not alone in this task. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) has recently denounced that the US government has granted military aid consisting of eight fast attack vessels to the Nigerian Navy, in order to patrol the region.

The Niger Delta is one of the world’s largest wetlands, and the largest in Africa: it encompasses over 20000 square kilometers. It is a vast floodplain built up by the accumulation of centuries of silt washed down the Niger and Benue rivers, composed of four main ecological zones coastal barrier islands, mangroves, fresh water swamp forests, and lowland rainforests whose boundaries vary according to the patterns of seasonal flooding.

The mangrove forest of Nigeria is the third largest in the world and the largest in Africa. Over 60 percent of this mangrove, or 6,000 square kilometers, is found in the Niger Delta. The freshwater swamp forests of the delta reach 11700 square kilometers and are the most extensive in west and central Africa. The Niger Delta region has the high biodiversity characteristic of extensive swamp and forest areas, with many unique species of plants and animals. It also contains 60 to 80 percent of all Nigerian plant and animal species. The Niger Delta alone has 134 fresh water and brackish water fish species as compared with 192 for the entire continent of Europe.
Such a fertile land was ill treated and destroyed by the transnational companies in the oil sector, such as Shell, Agip, Mobil, Texaco and Chevron. These companies exploited the land as well as the people. Thousands were displaced; forests were burnt; rivers were flowing with toxic waste. The story of oil and gas in Africa is the story of rogue exploitation, despoliation and bizarre brigand age.

But in spite of the brutality of the TNC-government alliance, people continued to resist the destruction of their environment and livelihoods. Such resistance is fraught with danger. Ken Saro Wiwa, a leader of the Movement of the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), struggling against the destruction of Ogoni land by oil companies, was legally assassinated by hanging in November 1995, but his message is as strong as ever. Ken described the environment in Ogoni as having been completely devastated by three decades of reckless oil exploitation or ecological warfare by Shell. An ecological war is highly lethal, the more so as it is unconventional. It is homicidal in effect. Human life, flora, fauna, the air, fall at its feet, and finally, the land itself dies.

Ken Saro Wiwa joined the movement convinced that success depended on both high-profile protest actions and international support. He supported the sabotage of Shell oil facilities, carried out by the movement younger members. Hoping to win the favor of the environmentalist in England and the United States, Saro Wiwa filmed the degradation of Ogoni land and distributed the footage abroad. His afford caught the attention of environmental groups such as Greenpeace as well as the international media, which further publicized Shell oil’s activities.

Meanwhile Shell ordered the military government of General Sani Abacha to protect its operations. Government officials, who profited financially from the companies presence, complied readily by sending troops to Ogoni land. These police efforts were extraordinary harsh, however, involving the massacre of village and murder of innocent Ogoni. Shell oil with drew from the area in 1993, but the conflict persisted as the federal government maintained operation of the lucrative wells.
On May 21st 1994, Saro Wiwa was arrested along with 14 colleagues, allegedly for involvement in the murder of four progovement Ogoni chiefs. In 1995 the imprisoned Saro Wiwa won a Goldman Environmental Prize, a prestigious award given annually to one environmental activist on each continent, despite such publicity and lobbying efforts by numerous foreign parties, Saro Wiwa was hanged on November 10, 1995.
Shell Nigeria is one of the largest oil producers in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. 80% of the oil extraction in Nigeria is the Niger Delta, the southeast region of the country. The Delta is home to many small minority ethnic groups, including the Ogoni, all of which suffer egregious exploitation by multinational oil companies, like Shell. Shell provides over 50% of the income keeping the Nigerian dictatorship in power.

Since the Nigerian government hanged nine environmental activists in 1995 for speaking out against exploitation by Royal Dutch/Shell and the Nigeria government, outrage has exploded worldwide. The tribunal, which convicted the men, was part of a joint effort by the government and Shell to suppress a growing movement among the Ogoni people: a movement for environmental justice, for recognition of their human rights and for economic justice. Shell has brought extreme, irreparable environmental devastation to Ogoni land.

Greenpeace Movement

GREENPEACE MOVEMENT

Greenpeace movement, one of the first environmental pressures groups, was founded in 1971. It was dedicated against the abuse of the natural world by nonviolent direct action protests. The movement had twenty-five national offices in forty one countries, 2,473,000 supporters and a net income of 96 million Euros in 1999. Canadians protesting against a planned U.S nuclear test on a Pacific Island founded Greenpeace. Greenpeace Movement attracted international attention through this dangerous, dramatic high profile action at sea against nuclear testing, whaling and the killing of seas pups. Their methods, which often put campaigners in great personal danger, have made headlines around the world, bringing remote issues directly to public’s attention. Its campaign against the slaughter of seals had contributed to ban on imports of seal products.

Greenpeace Movement has its international headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands and has over sixty offices in thirty three countries worldwide. In 1987, Greenpeace became the first, and so far only, nongovernmental organisation to establish a base on Antarctica. In 1989, Greenpeace’s arrival in the Soviet Union was accompanied by the launch of a pop music album, ‘Breakthrough’ which sold half a million copies within hours of its release. The same year, Greenpeace opened an office in Japan and, in anticipation of playing a greater role in China, opened an office in Hong Kong in 1996.

Greenpeace has played a pivotal role, in banning of toxic waste exports to less developed countries; banning of mineral exploitation in Antarctica and the banning of radio active wastes and discussed oil installation being dumped at sea. It has also played a major role in affecting a UN convention providing for better management of world fisheries, a Southern Ocean whale Sanctuary.

Greenpeace activists have confronted whaling fleets in the Southern ocean and the North Sea; documented Russian radioactive waste dumping in the sea of Japan; been rammed by US coastguard vessels and arrested by French, Russian and Norwegian navies; boarded and occupied a Shell oil platform in the North Sea and prevented it from being dumped at sea; and led a series of dramatic protests to the French nuclear testing site of Moruroa.

Origin of Greenpeace Movement
In 1969, US nuclear test was carried out beneath Amehitka Island, near the tip of the Aleutian Island chain in the North Pacific. The test had been surrounded by controversy due to widespread public fears that it would trigger a major earthquake. An earthquake, which occurred five years earlier, had left thousands in Alaska homeless, severely disrupted the local economy and caused a series of tidal waves and after shocks for 18 months. On the day of the test, 10,000 protesters blocked the major US Canadian border crossings, carrying signs, which read: Do not Make a Wave. Its Your Fault if Our Fault Goes The test passed off without earthquakes or tidal waves but concerns were still high and when the US Government announced plans for another test at Amehitka two years later, gathered momentum for more protests.
Canadians Jim Bohlen and Irving Stowe were among those opposed to the tests but were frustrated at the lack of protest from established environmental organizations. Remembering a Quaker ship which, in 1958, had gained attention by sailing to Bikini Atoll to try and stop a nuclear test there, Bohlen, Stowe and Paul Cote formed the ‘Do not Make a Wave Committee’, with the sole purpose of bringing to halt the Amehitka blast. The exact circumstances surrounding the name-change of their group are uncertain, but it soon became clear that the words Dont Make a Wave Committee did not generate a lot of interest or excitement. What was needed was a short, catchy, name, which encapsulated the group's twin concerns of pacifism and environmentalism. Since ‘Green’ and ‘Peace’, two words best describing their cause, didn't fit on the first button (or badge) designed, thus the name Greenpeace was born.

The Greenpeace crew chartered a twenty four meter fishing vessel, the ‘Phyllis Cormack’, to take their protest directly to the test site. On September 15, 1971, the ‘Cormack’ chugged away from the dock and headed for Amchitka. Ensuring that the voyage would never be out of the media, the first Greenpeace expedition carried several journalists including Robert Hunter of the ‘Vancouver Sun’, Ben Metcalfe of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Bob Cummings, a reporter for the ‘Georgia Strait’, as well as its own photographer. On their second day, they went ashore at a native Kwakiutl village, where they were given a special blessing and invited to visit again on their return voyage. After their voyage, they were told; their names would be carved on the Kwakiutl totem pole.

On September 30, as the crew neared Amehitka, the ‘Phyllis Cormack’ was arrested by the US Coast Guard cutter ‘USS Confidence’, for failing to clear customs during an unscheduled stop in the waters of a nearby island. The Coast Guard ship escorted the Greenpeace crew away from Amehitka to clear customs elsewhere. The US Government had meanwhile announced that the test would be delayed, possibly by over a month. At that time, the seas around Amchitka would be rough and dangerous, and there were concerns that tensions among the crew would reach boiling point. The ‘Phyllis Cormack’ reluctantly turned around and headed back to port. The bomb was eventually detonated on November 6, 1971.Greenpeace had not stopped the test but the crew's efforts had made headlines across North America and, in the process, had won the battle. Amehitka was never again used as a nuclear test site
Greenpeace remains more firmly wedded to the principle of direct action. It has always recognized the power of the media image, and quickly become associated with dramatic stunts that captured the attention of millions of viewers. A key event was the Rainbow warrior incident in 1985. This Greenpeace ship which was used to protest against French Nuclear testing was blown up by French Government agent while it was docked in a New Zeeland port, killing a crew member. The resulting publicity continued to the rapid growth of Greenpeace as an international organization.

Organization and Structure
Greenpeace allies itself with no political party and takes no political stance except for the protection of the environment. Greenpeace is funded almost entirely by the contributions of its approximately three million supporters from 160 countries. It is independent of the influence of governments, groups and individuals and maintains a strict policy of soliciting no government or corporate funding. Greenpeace embraces the principle of nonviolence, rejecting attacks on persons and property.

Established in 1979, Greenpeace International united the many separate Greenpeace organizations around the world, which were then, only loosely coordinated. Today Greenpeace is a closely knit network of interdependent national and regional offices working together with Greenpeace International based in Amsterdam. The role of Greenpeace International is to initiate and coordinate campaign activities and programmes. Each national or regional office works on some or all of Greenpeace International's campaign priorities, which are reviewed and. collectively agreed at a meeting every year.

Greenpeace International is primarily funded by its national offices, which are in turn financed primarily by individual donations from supporters in their country. All offices are required to contribute eighteen percent of their gross income to Greenpeace International. Greenpeace International financially supports smaller Greenpeace offices that are unable to fully fund their own operations. It also funds staff in key countries for specific international campaigns. The money is also spent on: campaign actions on environmental issues that go beyond one nation’s borders; operating a fleet of ships worldwide; ensuring that Greenpeace obtains high quality scientific information; staying at the cutting edge of communications technology; and publishing international campaign materials and reports.

Greenpeace’s Council is the major decision making body of the organization. Each Greenpeace office has an appointed representative on the Council which meets annually at a General Meeting to elect the board, set an annual budget ceiling and review the organizations overall direction policies.

The Greenpeace International Board of Directors is the legally responsible decision making body of Greenpeace International. The Board is elected by and accountable to the Council. It elects its own chairperson. The Board appoints an Executive Director who is responsible for the day-to-day management of Greenpeace International. The Executive Director is assisted by a team of program directors who, between them, carry out overall management of the campaign and facilities. This group makes day today decisions on policy and budget. The Executive Director reports regularly to the national and regional Greenpeace offices and to the international Board of Directors to keep them informed of the organization’s progress and activities.

Argentina Water war

Water Movement in Argentina

The story of water privatization in Argentina is one of government corruption, corporate mendacity, World Bank coercion, bribery, cloudy water and murkier intention. It is a handbag of human vice, weakness, helplessness and suffering.
In 1993, the Argentine government privatized the Buenos Aires water utility; consummating the largest such deal ever proposed. The year before privatization, the public utility, Obres Sanitarias de la Nacion (OSN) was considered to be a competent, well run organization. OSN supplied drinking water and sewage service comprehensively to Buenos Aires three million inhabitants. However, the Latin America trend of urban migrations had by 1993 saddled the city with nine million more people living in teeming extra municipal suburbs and slums. It was clear that OSN would need a huge infusion of capital to extend its services en masse to the arrives. In response the World Bank offered up hundreds of millions of dollars, with one recalcitrant condition that water be privatized.

Auguas Argentinean led by two French corporate giants, Compagnie generale des Eaux (then Vivendi, now Veolia) and Lyonnaise des Eaux (Noe Suez) who won based on their offer of the largest rate reduction 26.9 percent. Before the government could concede its water to private management, however they had to overcome the loudest and most problematic sector of the opposition, organized by labors. Though labor leaders were initially fervently bent on fighting privatization “to the last drop of blood”, the government and World Bank affiliates circumvented these obstacles with institutionalized and sanctioned bribery, through the Programa de Propriedad Participada (PPP).

The PPP targeted union leaders and offered them a 10 percent stake in the new company, and union opposition dried up; half of OSNs 7200 workers lost their jobs. After paying for the support of union officials, the company quickly fulfilled its contractual obligation by dropping tariffs by 26.9 percent. However, in the two years the government had artificially raised rates 62 percent in addition to adding an 18 percent sales tax to water bills. In essence, the public had been duped. Agues Argentinas exercised the obligatory tariffs cut which had supposedly won them the contract, by simply rolling back part of a rate cushion with which the government had set them up.

Before privatization, non-payment of tariffs had been somewhat of a problem. Agues Argentines effectively dealt with this problem by cutting off poor Argentines after three un-paid bills. Consequently the company persuaded 90 percent if its customers to pay.

Within a year of assuming control of water in Buenos Aires, Aguas Argentinas petitioned the newly established government authority, for a rate increase, even though the company had previously agreed that there would be no real rate increase for 10 years. The government authority’s operations are financed through the collection of 2.6 percent, of Aguas Argentinas billing, agreed, increasing rates 13.5 percent in exchange for expediting contractual investments in slum communities. Despites the now evident dishonesty with which Aguas Argentines had won the Buenos Aires contract, the World Bank stepped in to publicly defend the company, issued loans worth 911 million dollars, and even purchased a five percent share of the company making the World Bank a lender in partner in and public relations arm of their model privatization project.

After the Mass Protest Movements were sprouting and gaining the strength, thousands blocked the roads leading in to the capital and protest of 800 dollars fees charged by Agues Argentina to connect to the water and sewage systems. Meanwhile, a congressional commission issued a report indicting the company for “serious grave” breeches of contact, failing to meet goals regarding infrastructure development, and falling to inform its regulatory body, and government disrupt the protest movements, Agues Argentines lowered the 800 dollar connection fee to 200 dollars, but stabilized that decrease with the creation of a new fee, entitled’ Universal Service” to be paid by all. The company succeeded in imposing fees not elaborated in its contract.

Argentinean president Carlos Memem, in an effort to further protect Aguas Argentines from public accountability, undercut the regulatory body by signing a decree which placed it under the control of political ally and secretary of the Environment, Maria Julia Aslogaray. Aguas Argentines had only built a third of new pumping stations and underground mains it had promised to complete by 1997. It had only invested 9.4 million of a promised 48.9 million in sewage net works. It was delaying due to the need for further investigation the construction of the Berazategui wastewater treatment plant. Consequently, sewage was being dumped into rivers and cesspools, raising nitrate levels in the water and risk from various waterborne illnesses. The World Bank commented this on the delay of the project: that it was saving Agues Argentines a heady 100,000 dollars a day by not building the plant.
I997, after Aguas Argentines creatively quelled popular dissent against its operations, it began pushing hard to revise the 30-year contract agreed upon four years earlier. To assist the World Bank sent one of its senior water manager to join the staff of Agues Argentines, of which of course it owned a five percent stake and into which it had invested hundred of millions. The manager continued to be paid by the World Bank and stayed with the Argentine company until a new contract was signed in 2000, after which he returned to lead a World Bank team, which gave to Argentina another loan worth 30 million dollars. The World Bank and the rest of the international leading community were obviously extremely committed to the success of the Argentina water privatization project. However, it become even more obvious that the World Bank had a different idea of success than the people of the country it was trying to help.

In 2001 Argentinean economy collapsed famously, facing spiraling debts due to inflation, the private water company agues Argentinean leveraged infrastructure development. The company demanded a fixed Peso dollar exchange rate for the repayment of its external debt and or another rate increase of 42 percent. When the government in crisis refused these demands, Aguas Argentine threatened to take the Argentine government to the International Center to the Settlement on Investment Disputes, which is part of the World Bank, which of course owned five percent of the company. Argentina tried to forbid Aquas Argentines from the complaint, but acted to allow it.

Now the ordinary Argentines are learning to live with out drinking water and sewage disposal. Across Argentina the World Bank regime of water privatization spelled disaster for both the water consumers and for the multinationals corporations involved. In Buenos Aires, Tucuman, Santa Fe and Cordoba, citizens fought privatization and concomitant new fees and rate increases. Corporate response to the Argentine economic collapse and Peso devaluation has been not to ensure the water supplies of thirsty communities, but to attempt to saddle poor citizens with prohibitive rate increases so it can maintain corporate profits and the bottom line.

Ireland Water war

Water War in Ireland

Over the last years Dublin faced the battle has raged between the councils, they were trying to implement a charge for the supply of water. This is the story of the campaign against the imposition of this Double Tax. When the domestic rates were abolished in 1977 following the general election an increases took place in income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT). The money made for these increase was to used fund the local authorities, who had previously relied on the domestic rates for their funding. Central Government was to pay a rate support grant to Local Authorities. This rate support grant increased until 1983 when the then Fine Gael and Labor Government decided to cut this grant and brought in legislation to allow the councils to levy services charges.

The peoples were effectively paying more taxes, less of this money made its way to local councils, so they were asked to pay more money in the guise of service charges 87% of all the tax paid in this country by the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) worker. This is massive amount of money especially when contrasted the fact that many multinationals companies are attracted to this country for exactly the opposite reasons, because they have to pay relatively small amount of tax.
In the 1980s resistance in Dublin led to the scraping of the first attempt to introduce a water tax in Dublin. Dublin divided into three new country Council areas. Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown were created and they all had to strike a rate, which they would then be charged to each household for the water service. The existence of three new areas made it easier to administer the charges on each household.

According to Gregor Kerr is the Member of the Workers Solidarity Movements the householders and residents in Dublin should immediately prepare to resist these charges, if nobody pays they will be impossible to collect. Over the summer 1994 political opposition to these water charges was drummed up as many public meetings were held all over the country. Members of Militant Labor and the Workers Solidarity Movements and many nonaligned activists worked at leafleting information about the charge. The water charges had soon developed in to a service charge and now households were facing annual bills from their local counsel in excess of $100. The first charge was the thin end of the wedge and we went about getting that information into as many houses possible.

In Templeogue people had not been involved in campaigns and there was little history of community-based struggle. A sense of community appeared absent as each person looked after their own interests. But this area became more organized later on in the campaign and more people became involved as the council began to drag people to court. The hard work done a year earlier was rewarded as the campaign blossomed in the area.

The response was difference in other areas of the city. In Firehouse 70 peoples showed up for the initial meeting. The activists organized a survey as a good means to develop contacts and as a means to argue against the charges. Persistent work by activist helped raise the awareness of the issue. As people became aware of the campaign more and more became involved.

On September 24th a conferences was held and this gave rise to the Federation of Dublin Anti Water Charges Campaigns (WSM). Councilor Joe Higgins was elected Chairperson of the campaign. Gerge Kerr, a member of the WSM was elected Secretary of the campaign. Local meetings were held though out Dublin and they were generally well attended. A march took place in the city center and over 500 people protested at the implementation of this Double Taxation. Over the course of late 1994 early 1995 nearly every house in Fingal and South Dublin had received a leaflet from the campaign.

In December South Dublin, peoples weren’t paying the bill fast enough for their liking so they decided to up the ante and declared that if people didn’t pay their outstanding bills within a certain number of days cutoffs would commence. The council was now resorting to the tactics of the schoolyard bully by their use of threatening language in letters and ultimately wit the threat of cutting off peoples water supply.

All the activities raced into action, they were organized their own cars to patrol around that area, CB radios were installed in the cars so that we were in constant communication with each other as we monitored the movements of the men who would try to cut peoples water off. One house in Tallagaht was turned in to a virtual Head Quarters for the campaign. The telephone calls kept flooding in. communities learned to be vigilant of the Blue Dublin Water Works vans and were very wary when they came into the estates. The final result from the reports the campaign received was that 12 houses were disconnected and they were duly reconnected. The campaign had won the first battle and no house would be with out water for that Christmas.
The federation of Dublin Anti Water Charges Campaigns held a conference in May of 1996. The water charges were effectively dead in the water. They had become uncontrollable and largely uncollctable. Further demonstrations were held outside local council meetings where they tried to strike an estimate for the following year of how much they would seek from the people. A march was held in the city center, which attracted a good attendance. Protest phone calls bombarded the local counselors. Massive public meetings were held. 500 people attend such a meeting in Baldoyle in late November. Finally on December 19th 1996 the Minister for the Environment announced that the Water Charge was going to be replaced by a new system whereby the road tax collected in each area would be the source for local council funding.

The working class people of Dublin had organized rallied and won an important victory. Double taxation was over and this is due to the policy of mass resistance, organization and direct action. The political establishment had once again thought they could exploit the working class for yet more money. But this time they had their noses bloodied. The fight is not over but the victory is certainly ours. The direct action and mass resistance destroyed policies and finally the people of Ire land won the last fight.

In America also, the resisting process is continuing by the Amish community, but not as the winning side. These are some encouraging noises from the part of oppressed world. Privatization is not going well for water companies in the developing world. They are meeting growing opposition from civil society.