FoEI CONQUERING THE
NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE
Is there a North-South divide developing
not just in the environmental movement in
general but even within Friends of the
Earth itself? A somewhat superficial
assumption runs as follows: In the South,
environmental groups are determined to
pursue a course of resistance to
multinational corporations which goes
beyond simply environmental impact to also
address the economics of power, cultural
identity, and the safeguarding of local and
national decision making. In the North,
groups are oriented more towards tactical
campaigning which depends on isolating
specific companies to make an example of
them, but also does not exclude the
possibility of engagement in order to agree
upon reforms or improvements which will
effectively end the campaign.
Such a simplistic demarcation allows
southern actions to be painted as naive,
extreme or ineffectual, whilst northern
activities are suspected of being
opportunistic, encouraging compromise, and
reinforcing global power structures.
Our Strengths
I think it is appropriate that we
confront these tensions. But before we do,
it is equally important to acknowledge our
respect for the groups and individuals
making up Friends of the Earth
International.
Firstly, both our northern and our
southern groups are radical, fiercely
independent, financially and politically
uncompromised organizations. In both North
and South we have organizationally and
personally refused funding in order to
maintain our independence, even when this
has meant low salaries and even loss of
employment for our staff. In both North and
South we have staff and volunteers who have
been the subject of surveillance, threats,
imprisonment, beatings and, tragically,
have lost their lives under mysterious
circumstances. Look at Nigeria, Slovakia,
Costa Rica, Estonia, El Salvador,
Indonesia, England ... and the list could
go on.
Secondly, we must acknowledge that
whatever arguments we have between us on
the relative merits of environmental space
or ecological debt as measures of
sustainable development, we have set a
radical agenda which is currently beyond
the capacity and the political will of
governments and companies to deliver.
As a global environmental movement based
upon political and financial independence,
sound research, grassroots experience and
radical activism, there is no doubt that
Friends of the Earth International is
unique.
Our Challenges
However, this does not mean to say that
we should not examine some deep-rooted
concerns. In my experience, there are three
persistent refrains: from the South, about
the way in which we go about campaigning
and our attitude towards business; and from
the North, about making our agenda
relevant.
Firstly, the architecture of our
campaigns. There is little doubt that our
campaigns are planned largely based on
northern experiences. This critique may be
surprising and even hurtful to dedicated
campaigners in northern groups. After all,
FoEI has a long history of effective
campaigning to expose and harass companies
that have polluted our environment and
damaged our natural resources. Our
campaigns have been highly successful in
attracting media coverage, and we have made
the best use of ever-scarce resources. In
this way, we have been able to target
companies like Rio Tinto Zinc, Shell and
Monsanto to great effect.
But for many southern groups, campaign
planning is based on long-term strategy.
The idea of a short-lived campaign, geared
to the notoriously fickle interest of the
media or subject to fundraising fatigue, is
unattractive given that companies and their
activities will continue long after the
campaign has ceased to be a priority.
Secondly, because 'northern' campaign
objectives are often tactical rather than
strategic, some successes (such as making a
company part of a global 'producer
responsibility' supply chain) may serve to
cement the economic power base of
multinationals. To be fair, FoE groups have
long been aware of this dilemma, and this
is why for example we avoided the
initiative - heavily promoted by Unilever
and supported by a major international
conservation organization - to establish a
Marine Stewardship Council.
The ever-present anxiety that engagement
with major companies may blunt the anger
expressed by southern groups is a constant
reminder that we must carefully consider
the terms of any corporate connection. In
reality, though, the number of companies
with which FoE has had bilateral
discussions or agreements - if indeed there
are any - is vastly overshadowed by the
number of companies that we have campaigned
against, exposed to public and media
scrutiny, and forced unwilling changes
upon.
Nevertheless, we are aware that big
companies have embarked upon a policy of
engagement. They try to lure campaign
groups into discussions, to foster an
understanding of the problems faced by the
corporate sector, and to debate
improvements. If groups are unwilling to
enter into this quasi-consultancy mode,
they can then be portrayed as being
extremist and disinterested in finding
solutions. Our challenge is to
differentiate between those engagements
that in our view will bring about a
fundamental change in the company's
environmental impact, and those that are
merely greenwash. Secondly, we have to be
aware that any relationship - however
well-intentioned - can be abused by the
company. We can cite examples of oil,
energy and waste disposal companies which
have at various times claimed that FoE
prefers their product, their policies or
their company over the competitors.
Dealing with the impact of a specific
company is one thing, but dealing with the
role of the business sector in sustainable
development is quite different. I
personally believe that our message should
be straightforward and unequivocal. The
scale of change that FoEI wishes to see on
the basis of its analysis (whether through
ecological debt or environmental space) is
beyond the countenance of companies and
governments. We must constantly remind
those who believe they are creating the
architecture for sustainable development
that they are failing, due to their
compromises and the countervailing economic
imperatives of national governments and
company shareholders. The Kyoto Climate
Summit is a prime example of this
failure.
In my years representing Friends of the
Earth International, I have never felt the
need to compromise this position whether
speaking on a platform with the World
Business Council for Sustainable
Development, the European Commission or the
OECD. In fact, I fail to see why we should
even be present at such gatherings if we do
not articulate this perspective. FoEI
should encourage its strong southern groups
to inject these positions directly into
these political and economic arenas, and to
puncture the northern, managerial
problem-solving and collegiate atmosphere
by which they are dominated.
But there is also a challenge to
southern groups, who must be sensitive to
the political realities and social contexts
within which northern groups operate. Put
simply, the North is not without poverty or
socially-excluded communities. In fact,
some activists involved in tackling this
marginalization in the North believe that
environmentalists care little about people
with legitimate aspirations to free their
children from these circumstances. It would
be politically and morally impossible to
suggest that because northern countries
have misappropriated their share of
environmental space, marginalized groups in
the North should therefore pay the
price.
If we are going to make progress on
sustainable development, we must do so on
the basis of environmental justice. In my
terms, that means firstly addressing the
real-life degradation of the environment -
and its underlying causes - which defines
the quality of life for many poor people in
the North as well as in the South. This may
mean taking steps to reduce the polluting
impacts of certain companies and convincing
them to go beyond current legislation in
order to safeguard those who are most
vulnerable. Usually those closest to an oil
refinery, an open-cast mine or a toxic
waste incinerator are poor. They rely upon
groups like Friends of the Earth to support
their campaigns, which may not have the
primary goal of undermining the company's
position, but may rather deal with the
daily realities of its operations.
Northern groups also understand
resistance, and we have all been involved
in campaigns to halt polluting or wasteful
developments. However, the reality is that
some of these campaigns have been lost in
the past and will be lost in the future,
and we cannot abandon the communities that
must live with the consequences. So, as in
the South, we have to ameliorate the
impacts of these enterprises. This may mean
pressing for political initiatives to bring
about legislation or negotiating with the
companies involved to exceed what
regulations require. We collectively agree
that alternative development models and a
shift in societal power bases must be
secured, and our legitimacy is derived from
our grassroots experience of working with
and for communities, and not by standing
apart from their struggles.
My experiences in the past six years in
FoEI (and three as chair) have led me to
believe that in terms of campaigns, FoEI
and its member groups have hardly ever
compromised the values which we jealously
guard. However, I do think that in our
impatience to construct campaigns that deal
with the pressing issues with which we are
confronted, we have not created space for
the politically mature and culturally
sensitive debate needed to better frame
those campaigns. Secondly, I think that as
we grow in size we should accommodate
methodologies which embrace a number of
approaches - insider and outsider,
negotiator and protester, grassroots
activist and policy strategist - as long as
we remain bound by openness, common goals
and a radical perspective.
Kevin Dunion, FoE
Scotland
