OILWATCH GOES
GLOBAL
The savviest activists are finding that
the best way to combat the negative impacts
of economic globalization is to go global
themselves. Oilwatch, traditionally a
network of southern campaigners, held its
first-ever strategy session in a northern
country at the beginning of November. The
Amsterdam meeting was attended by over 100
NGO representatives working on oil issues
from around the globe, including FoE
activists from Ecuador, Georgia and the
Netherlands. The goal of the meeting was to
devise a clear role for northern groups in
supporting oil campaigning by people in the
South and in Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE), where a critical situation is
currently emerging.
Oilwatch, founded in 1996, is a radical
group with a very southern focus. Its goal
is to resist destructive oil-related
activities taking place in sensitive
ecosystems, specifically in tropical
forests, many of which are home to
indigenous and other people. The potential
benefits of having strong contacts in the
North, where most transnational oil
companies are based, seem obvious. The
challenge, however, is to develop a
relationship in which a northern agenda is
not imposed upon the South: a partnership
that allows those living and working in oil
hotspots to continue to take the lead in
campaigning.
Oil in CEE
One of the most pressing questions was
whether or not the traditional focus on the
South should be broadened to include oil
development in Central and Eastern Europe.
The economic climate fostered by the
collapse of the Soviet Union, combined with
a lack of adequate regulatory standards in
the new independent states, has opened the
floodgates for oil development in this
region. Representatives of the CEE
Bankwatch Network discussed the role of
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in
fomenting this development, and argued that
the region is at a critical point in
determining the future direction of oil
activities.
BP-Amoco's activities in the Caspian Sea
region, which are supported by various
international financial institutions, were
presented as an example. The company is
preparing to build a pipeline from
Azerbaijan to Turkey, skirting Russia and
Iran. The region's financial constraints
virtually eliminate the possibility of
independent studies, meaning that the
primary source of funding for scientific
research on the pipeline is the oil company
itself. Although BP-Amoco will pay nothing
for the oil it will extract and does not
plan to pass on any of its profits to
either the state or the people directly
affected by the development, oil agreements
have attained the force of law in the
region, superseding existing environmental
laws.
Western nations, particularly the United
States, support the pipeline. It will
provide an important new source of energy,
and will simultaneously reduce their
dependence on the Middle East and increase
their influence in this formerly
Soviet-controlled area. The CEE Bankwatch
Network feels that a multi-pronged attack
that includes increased local pressure on
the government to make extraction more
expensive for companies and international
pressure on MDBs for the implementation of
better environmental standards is the only
way to succeed in cancelling this
environmentally and socially destructive
project.
The need for locally-led resistance in
the CEE region jibes well with the goals of
Oilwatch. Esperanza Martinez of FoE
Ecuador, home of the Oilwatch Secretariat,
pointed out that the most important aspect
of the network is its bottom-up structure,
and that the focus on tropical forests was
just a starting point. The meeting
illustrated that northern activists can
benefit directly from the alliance as well,
by learning from southern experiences with
locally-led resistance.
Down to the Nitty-Gritty
Among the most controversial issues
discussed at the meeting was whether or not
to negotiate with corporations. Oilwatch
has always had a strictly no-negotiations
stance. And although northern campaigners
often conclude that dialogue is a logical
and viable strategy, the reality of
negotiations can be very different. The
risk of becoming the victim of a corporate
public relations scheme is substantial, and
long hours of labour and good faith on the
part of NGOs often elicit only slick
corporate talk and incomplete or false
information. The disparity of power between
the 'negotiators' makes real compromise
unlikely, and no matter what the outcome,
corporations can claim that they
'consulted' NGOs during the development of
their plans.
For southern groups, the power disparity
is so great that a no-negotiations stance
is fairly obvious, but in the North, where
NGOs often believe that they are on more
equitable footing with companies, such a
position may seem counter-productive. While
this issue was by no means solved during
the discussions, the overall consensus
seemed to be that northern activities
should not interfere with southern
initiatives within the Oilwatch network,
thus leaving little room for dialogue.
The meeting proved that by embracing the
knowledge and experience of other regions
and making use of political pressures, the
globalization process can be used to
promote sustainability. At the same time,
the autonomy and uniqueness of each
individual struggle back home can be
maintained. Oilwatch's expansion into the
northern hemisphere offers another
perspective on globalization, and provides
hope for unity and coordination among
campaigners.
Elisa Melsher, FoEI
