The high cost of cheap oil

index / previous page 

Africa                             

An international consortium consisting of Exxon, Shell and ELF is planning a multi-billion dollar oil exploitation project that will involve territories of Chad and Cameroon. It is feared that the project will bring very serious environmental and social risks that may create another Ogoniland, Nigeria's oil-producing region marked by environmental devastation and brutal human rights violations.

The project plans the development of the Doba oil-fields in southern Chad, and a 600 mile pipeline through Cameroon to transport oil to an Atlantic port for its export. Public funding from international development agencies -mainly the World Bank- is needed to realize the project. The World Bank intends to fund it both with IDA credits -supposed to help the poorest countries- and through the International Finance Corporation, that supports private sector companies directly.

The World Bank claims that the project will alleviate poverty because revenue from oil for the Government of Chad and royalties for that of Cameroon for the use of the pipeline would be invested in poverty programmes. However, this strategy has clearly little credibility, since both governments have shown a complete lack of commitment to poverty alleviation and besides are known for their lack of transparency in their financial transactions. So the allocation of aid dollars for these kinds of projects actually diverts scarce resources away from investments for social welfare.

From the environmental point of view perspectives are also negative. The projected pipeline will pass through ecologically fragile rainforest areas, including one that is the home of a Pigmy minority of traditional hunters and gatherers. Deforestation, wildlife poaching and the loss of farmland of local villagers, together with the danger of groundwater contamination and pollution of river systems through the expected leaking of oil from the pipeline itself, are points of grave concern.

On June 1998, the WRM secretariat addressed a letter to the president of the World Bank, expressing our concern over the arrest of Ngarlegy Yorongar and two journalists in relation with a declaration by the former opposing the construction of the oil pipeline Chad-Cameroon, which is being supported by the World Bank.

The World Bank's country director for Chad, Mr Serge Michailof, responded on June 22, expressing that he believed that the three had been released. On the general situation he added:

"As I am sure you are aware, we are supporting the Chad/Cameroon petroleum pipeline project because of its potential to substantially increase spending in Chad, one of the poorest countries in the world, on poverty alleviation activities. Let me assure you that notwithstanding the project's potential to reduce poverty, we will only proceed if our environmental and social safeguards have been respected, included meaningful consultation with local populations in Chad on the impacts of the project."

Facing strong opposition from civil society representatives, the World Bank recently approved a controversial oil and pipeline project led by Exxon-Mobil, that will link oil fields in Chad to Cameroon's Atlantic coast. The project sponsors also include Chevron and Petronas, the Malaysian state company. The total cost of the megaproject will reach U$S 3.7 billion and it will be one of the largest of its kind ever undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa.

Even though the Bank argues that the project includes a programme to direct new revenues to support socioeconomic development in Chad and that environmental and social impacts of the project will be especially considered and periodically monitored, environmental and human rights groups emphasise that this megaproject will forcibly displace villagers along the 673-mile length of the pipeline as well as the Chadian villagers living near where the 300 oil wells are to be located, harm forest wildlife in the affected areas and contribute to further corruption at the government level in both countries. An added problem of the project is that it might spark the renewal of armed conflict in the oil-producing region and lead to severe human rights violations. The claim for a two-year moratorium to the project in order for Chad to develop a proper legal framework to handle the revenues and for Cameroon to establish environmental safeguards was ignored.

Taking into account the negative social and environmental performance of the actors involved in the project, as well as the proven effects of this kind of megaprojects undertaken in the South in the name of "progress", the idea enthusiastically expressed by the Bank, according to which the project is "an unprecedented framework to transform oil wealth into direct benefits to the poor, the vulnerable and the environment'' is really difficult to believe. Unless the Bank considers oil companies to be poor and vulnerable and that oil exploitation and transport can in some way benefit the environment. In sum, the Bank has unfortunately once again shown who it serves.

Nnimmo Bassey, President of Oilwatch Africa, was detained on 26 October 1997, when returning to Nigeria from the meeting of the International Committee of Oilwatch in Ecuador.

An architect, poet and active defender of human and environmental rights in this country, Nnimmo has been persistently denouncing the abuses of oil companies in Nigeria. Although he has been politically active in Nigeria for years, it is only since becoming a high-profile, vocal critic of the oil industry that he has been imprisoned. In June-July 1996 he was imprisoned during 43 days for attempting to attend a West African regional meeting of Friends of the Earth.

Responding to an urgent call of the Oilwatch Network Secretariat, the International Secretariat of the WRM addressed a message to all WRM members and friends, asking to express their solidarity with Nnimmo. At the same time a fax was sent to the Nigerian Ambassador in Buenos Aires, Argentina, expressing our concern for Nnimmo’s arrest and asking to be informed about his situation. We later received news that Nnimmo had been released. What follows is the letter where Nnimmo expresses his gratitude to all who supported him in those difficult moments:

Dear friends,

I write to thank you all for the solidarity shown over my present brush with the weilders of state power here. I was arrested on arrival at the Murtala Mohammed Airport in Lagos at about 9 pm on Sunday 26th October. I was detained in the airport for the night and transferred to the Head Office of the SSS in Lagos the next morning. All through Monday I was subjected to rigorous interrogations. I spent Monday night in their cell. No talk of convenience in the cell! I regained partial freedom at about 8 pm on Tuesday night, I was allowed out of their center, but with all my luggage held hostage. That included my eye glasses, wedding ring, wrist watch and wallet. I was further interrogated on Wednesday and Thursday. Centred on my involvement in the struggle for a better environment in Nigeria. Centred also on my activism in the Oilwatch network.

I was finally released yesterday [Friday 31st October] at about 12 noon. My luggage was returned to me but my Passport is still being held. This means that my movement is severely restricted. Means my attending the Friends of the Earth International Annual General Meeting in Uruguay is quite unlikely.

Where is the liberty? Where my freedom? Our freedom?? I was only able to reunite with my family at about 5 pm yesterday; and this was when I was able to have a change of clothes since I left Quito!!

I have to keep reporting to the SSS and that in itself is dangerous!

That's the price to pay for fighting for an environment suitable for mankind.

That's it for now. Please do not push this matter to the back burners. Keep on the pressure.

Nnimmo

As a response to a fax sent by the WRM International Secretariat requesting information about Baton Mittee, Nigerian activist arrested in connection with the Ogoni Day, we received the following letter (which we believe does not require any comments) from the Embassy of Nigeria in Buenos Aires:

"Mr. Ricardo Carrere World Rain Forest Movement

Re: Arrest of Baton Mittee in connection with Ogoni Day.

1. I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28th January '98 on the above subject matter, and to inform you that its contents have been forwarded to appropriate authorities in Nigeria.

2. I am also to draw your attention to the facts that all reports of ill-treatment, torture, isolation and alledged denial of medical attention said to be meted out on detainees (of whatever kind) in Nigeria are not only baseless, but are wild allegations which cannot be substantiated, but only part of a poorly orchestrated campaign aimed at tarnishing the image of Nigeria and exposing its authorities to disrepute. For the avoidance of doubt, prison conditions in Nigeria are in consonance with acceptable international standards, and all prisoners regardless of their crime, are treated humanely.

3. Finally, you should endevour to authenticate the reports you receive from people whom you know little about, so that your organization does not unwittingly become an instrument for subversiveness.

Sincerely,

A. Yusur, for: Chargé d'affaires"

News of huge forest fires -as the ones that affected Indonesia and those that are spreading in Roraima in the Brazilian Amazon- are disseminated worldwide. Nevertheless, fires at a smaller scale have also terrible consequences for local communities. This is the case of the fire that has affected the forest of Aleibiri, a village of 6,000 inhabitants in the Niger Delta in Nigeria. The carelessness of the Shell contractor was the cause for this desaster. A providential rain -that Chief priest of Aleibiri Firstman Mgbeke called an intervention of their ancestres and gods- prevented the fire to expand.

The story of the Aleibiri forest fire actually started in March 1997, when a Shell's pipeline spewed crude oil into the surrounding wetlands, forests and waters of the community. Even if the company would at first not accept its responsibility, the fight of the native Ijaw forced Shell to contract Emmanique Services Co. to clean up the spill. But the operation was so carelessly performed that a fire started. It quickly spread helped by the unusually dry weather conditions that reigned.

Abuses of Shell date back to many years. In 1983 the communities of Ekeremor-Zion, Sekebulo, Obotobo 1 and Obotobo 2 took the Royal Dutch Shell as represented by its subsidiary to court for the environmental damages it produced in their lands. After about 14 years' delay judgement was delivered in favour of the communities, but Shell declared that they would not obey the High Court judgement and that they would appeal. At the same time Shell started using the apparatus of State security to threaten members of the community. There was a direct threat from Shell representatives to members of the communities, who were menaced to be given a 'Ogoni treatment'.

The Sophie Foundation, an organization based in Norway, has nominated the Nigerian NGO Environmental Rights Action, for the Sophie Prize 1998. The main purpose of the Sophie Foundation, is to award an annual international environment and development prize of US $ 100,000. This is an initiative of the Norwegian author and philosopher Mr. Jostein Gaarder -worldwide known by his book "Sophie's world", one of the world's best-selling novels- who donated a large sum of his private fortune, earned by selling his books, to this goal.

The nomination is a recognition to ERA's restless struggle for the Ogoni people and the environment, oppressed by the Nigerian dictatorship. "This nomination indicates to us that we are right to fight for our rights!" stated Nnimmo Basey, Director of ERA, who has repeatedly suffered threats and arbitrary arrests for his activities.

The news of the release on September 9, 1998, of the 20 Ogoni youths that had been held without charge since 1994, is a hope for reconciliation and peace in the abused and ravaged Niger Delta. The land, waters and the atmosphere of the Niger Delta have suffered, and continue to suffer much abuse and the presence of the occupation force officially known as the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force. Local people have been bearing the brunt of the adverse effects of oil exploration, exploitation and transportation, that have proved detrimental to the environment and to their livelihoods. The dictatorial government of Nigeria has been defending the interest of the oil giants --Shell, Chevron, Agip, Elf, Texaco, Mobil-- that continue to destroy peoples' livelihoods and the environment for their mere profit. Oil companies enjoy the right cover to disregard safety measures and responses from the people are readily put down with the help of the apparatus of state repression, including propaganda against indigenous people of the region, unfairly considered subversive and dangerous. The Ogoni have been repressed for the benefit of Shell, while the Ilaje people of Ondo State have suffered for that of Chevron.

A workshop on "Petroleum and Local Resistance", organized by Environmental Rights Action, took place at Port Harcourt, Nigeria, from 9 to 14 February 1999. Oilwatch Africa also held its assembly in the same place. Delegates from several countries in the region --Cameroon, Ghana, Gabon, Chad and Nigeria-- as well as representatives of Oilwatch International attended both events, after which the group made a trip to oil fields in the Niger Delta, where a strong conflict between Shell and the indigenous Ogoni people is ongoing.

Several important issues were addressed, such as the situation of the oil industry in tropical countries, the relationship between oil exploitation, local communities and resistance, the role of the State, the conflict over the Chad-Cameroon pipeline, the role of the global economy. Experiences of local struggles -as that of the Ogoni people- were also presented.

In relation with the above, several US environmental NGOs organized for March 21, 1999, a rally in North Arlington, USA, to protest against Shell's activities in the Niger Delta. The multinational company started its activities in this area in 1958. While the company has in that period extracted oil valued in more than $30 billion from the lands of the Ogoni people, in return, they have only received spoiled farmland, poisoned water reservoirs and toxic air. To this day, despite pleas from indigenous communities in the Niger Delta --particularly the Ogoni-- and millions of supporters around the world, Shell has done nothing to clean up its oil fields, claiming lack of funds to be devoted to that activity. Nevertheless, the company has recently announced that U$S 8.5 billion will be invested over the next 20 years on a new oil and gas project in the Niger Delta.

Thousands of hectares of mangrove forest and fresh water swamps of the Niger Delta, in the Cross River State, will be destroyed by ongoing oil exploitation activities. Responsible for the situation are the companies Moni Polu Nigeria Limited, that in early 1998 started its oil prospections in the area, and Nobles Drilling, which was contracted to start drilling oil wells. By December 1998 about 8 oil wells had been sunk. A 1000 km long pipeline, that will pass through over 25 communities, has also been programmed. In spite of the letters of protest sent by Nigerian environmental NGOs to the firms involved and to the national authorities, the new phase of the project will start without the accomplishment of the required Environmental Impact Assessment.

Oil prospection and exploitation are known worldwide for their negative environmental and social impact at the local level: loss of indigenous peoples' or peasants' lands, health problems, destruction of rainforests, pollution of water sources and air. At a global level, more extraction means more fuel consumption and liberation of CO2 to the atmosphere, the most relevant gas causing global warming. In the specific case of Nigeria, the military intimidate local populations, burn their houses and even kill the villagers that resist oil related activities in their lands. Many cases of human rights abuses have been denounced, as testified by the long struggle of the Ogoni people against Shell in Ogoniland and the most recent facts involving Chevron in the Delta State.

Oil industry is a very important factor of mangrove destruction in Nigeria, but not the only one. The Federal Government is suspected of having recently awarded a contract for the dredging of the upper River Niger from Warri to Baro, in the northern region of the country. Since mangroves are fragile forest ecosystems highly dependent on continuous water feeding, this project could gravely affect them, which could bring about the loss of livelihoods for their inhabitants. It is feared that the Niger Delta area, situated downstream of the location of the dredging project, and which has suffered for years much environmental degradation and social conflicts due to the activities of the oil industry, is further compounded with the works to be undertaken.

Nigeria has lost between 70 and 80% of its original forests and nowadays the area of its territory occupied by forests is reduced to 12% even if the entire country is located in the humid tropics. Having the largest population in Africa (115,000,000 inhabitants in 1996) it registers levels of 40% of illiteracy, while GNP per capita is only U$S 240. The authorities seem to ignore this reality and prefer to devote funds and efforts to megaprojects as the above referred, regardless of the real needs and aspirations of local communities.

Oil exploitation is responsible for the destruction of mangroves, local community displacement and suffering, as well as environmental degradation of water sources and soil in Nigeria. This depredation is usually accompanied by brutal actions against local community members and activists, during which armed corps constitute the executive arm of the companies. The Niger Delta is an area where oil prospection and exploitation are especially active. Environmental destruction and human rights abuses in this region to the hands of Shell and Chevron have been repeatedly denounced.

Last April the Ekebiri communities of the Southern Ijau Local Government Area of Bayelsa were victims of the violence displayed by a group of soldiers, under the control and direction of Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC). Ekebiri is a clan of three communities -Ekibiri I, II, and Opuadoma- with 32 other satellite villages, with an estimated population of about 10,000 people. NAOC has been responsible for several human rights abuses in the Niger Delta. The company has even been accused by several of its host communities for instigating ethnic clashes amongst them as a way of weakening their resistance.

The events leading to the blood-bath started when the communities demanded from NAOC a compensation for the incessant spillages that have occurred in their territories, since 1969, the last being in 1997, and in which the company refused to pay. At the beginning of 1999 the company went into discussion with the communities but refused to pay the demanded sum. The discussions then broke down and the communities took steps on April 17 to enforce their demand by closing down the company's 2 manifolds in their communities. The following day NAOC took a military escort and reopened the shut manifolds, what was resisted by the villagers. The soldiers then opened fire into two boats, filled with unarmed youths and chiefs of Ekebiri I and II, who where on their way to a meeting with the Commissioner of Police of Bayelsa State. Eyewitnesses said that the shooting lasted for about 40 minutes and the soldiers shot the fleeing youths and chiefs until they landed on their community waterfront. Some were shot dead right on the community water bank while scrambling to run into their community. On hearing the gun shots, the entire villagers ran for their safety and deserted the village. As a result of this brutal action eight people were killed, two chiefs arrested and the boats seized.

The Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd. has produced crude oil in this region since 1969, but despite these two decades of oil exploration and generation of huge benefits for the company, the local population has remained poor. And their environment destroyed.

The Niger Delta Human and Environmental Rescue Organization (ND-HERO) is worried over the extent of impunity of Agip in dealing with oil producing communities. Agip is considered the worst company ever regarding environmental degradation and human rights abuses, seconded only by Elf Aquitaine.

ND-HERO demands government to take urgent steps to bring Agip and the soldiers involved in these atrocities to justice and for Agip to abandon the use of the military in suppressing communities, and the instigation of ethnic struggles amongst the Niger Delta communities.

The Niger Delta, in the southern region of Nigeria, has been the scenario of environmental destruction and human rights abuses related to oil prospection and exploitation. The activity of oil companies like Shell, Mobil, Chevron and NAOC -supported by Nigerian armed corps- is strongly denounced and resisted by local communities. Local peoples have just achieved a great victory over the powerful US-based Texaco Company, which has been forced to stop its operations in the Delta region. This success was obtained as a result of effective protests and direct actions. For example, community members blockaded the Funiwa and North Apoi platforms, cutting production of more than 50,000 barrels per day of the light crude extracted from that area. At the same time, youths attacked Texaco's office in the southern industry hub of Warri.

Texaco is not the only oil multinational which has been forced to put an end to or scale back their operations due to the occupation of flow stations and oil platforms. Last January Shell, the largest producer of oil in the region, was the first to be shut down by non-violent protesters, and nowadays the company is operating at 25% capacity.

Although the oil companies have not yet left the area, opposition is mounting. In December 1998, nearly 500 Ijaw communities and over 200 non-governmental organizations around the world endorsed the Kaiama Declaration, which asked oil multinationals operating in the Niger Delta to voluntarily cease operations in order to seek remedy for the impacts of oil production on communities and their environment.

Four years have passed since the judicial murder of Ken Saro Wiwa together with other eight human rights activists to the hands of the Nigerian military dictatorship on November 10th 1995, that generated condemnation and outrage worldwide. Nevertheless -and in spite of the political changes that occured in the country- environmental destruction and human rights abuses associated to oil exploration and extraction in the Niger Delta region continues. A delegation of US social and environmental organizations' representatives who visited that region during October 1999 reported that the irresponsibility of the multinational oil companies operating in the area -e.g. Shell and Chevron- in relation to environmental and social issues are threatening the survival of local people and the fragile political stability of the country. The Nigerian government has not yet met the demands in the Ogoni Bill of Rights which would guarantee them their existence in their traditional territories. Additionally, the authorities continue to work in favour of oil companies and against their own people by not implementing the independent environmental impact assessment on Ogoniland as recommended by the UN. Environmental degradation and poverty are not only affecting the Ogoni, but also other people of the Niger Delta, such as the Ijaw, the Itsekiri, and the Urhobos.

"We the Ogonis have been cheated in the past 41 years of our fair share of revenue from oil exploration and extraction in our land by Shell with assistance from the governments of Nigeria. We need not restate the fact that in a land so richly blessed by nature, we have been met with poverty and injustice. Our people have nothing to show for their sacrifices and for a long time, this giant multinational corporation has continued to humiliate our existence. Shell has wasted our environment with oil exploration and in return repaid us with a degraded and polluted land, poisoned air and streams" reads a statement by MOSOP-UK (Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) dated September 10^th 1999. The Ogoni people reject the so called "Development Project Programme" that the company has proposed for their territory and have declared Shell "persona non grata" in Ogoniland.

"Lord take my soul, but the struggle continues" said Ken Saro Wiwa before being executed. His last message keeps its significance and vigour in these difficult times.

The Urhobo National Assembly (UNA), which represents the Urhobo nation in the Nigerian federal state, stopped all oil exploration activities in the region of the Niger Delta, where an oil spill fire destroyed last September 1999 a large area of fragile ecosystems. Once again the involved oil company is Royal Dutch Shell. It will remain expelled from several affected communities until an independent investigation on the explosion has been satisfactorily conducted and made known by experts from several Southern countries. The Urhobo also demanded for immediate clean up of all polluted land, as well as compensation. "When this spill occurred we thought we will be treated like human beings. But this has gone a long way to prove right what our other neighbours have been telling us about oil firms, especially Shell, about their insincerity" said a leader of the Ikeerre community.

As usual, Shell has not assumed any responsibility for the peoples' suffering. A trustworthy source of Shell admitted to ERA (Environmental Rights Action) at the Aluu-Agbada West flow station, that the pipes are very old and cannot withstand the much pressure. He attributed the frequent spills being experienced to this factor, among others. The last case of September 17 and 18 of 1999 has not been the only one in the Niger Delta. On December 12, 1998, a blowout occurred on a Shell flow line leading to the Aluu-Agbada West flow station. The accident contributed to the pollution of the Onuigigbo river, which is the only source of drinking water and fishing for the Omuike people.

In relation to the present situation of the country regarding communities and the environment, the Ijaw Youth Council stated that: "Nigeria is standing still on the ocean of oppression. We must move away from sinister waves of violence that have been let loose by the agents of injustice. We have only one option. We either march most relentlessly towards the finishing line of self-determination, resource control, environmental protection and a truly Federal Nigeria or be drowned."

In a surprising move that can mean a positive switch, the Federal Government has blamed the situation in the Niger Delta on what it called "heinous environmental crimes" of multinational oil companies. It also traced the killing of Ken Saro Wiwa and other activists to the activities of the oil companies. The government's spokesperson has been the Minister of State for Environment, Dr. Ime Okopido, who on October 22 1999 outlined strict conditions for oil firms in the Niger Delta and gave them a six-week ultimatum to clean up the communities' environment. Nevertheless, only the future actions of the authorities will reflect how much they are interested in defending their own people's interests. The Nigerian Government has been and is still being severely criticised at the national as well as at the international level for its violation of human and environmental rights.

There is ample proof that oil prospection and extraction constitutes a major cause of forest degradation and destruction, which brings with it also the loss of forest dwellers' livelihoods and territories. In tropical countries oil companies generally act with strong support from local governments. Nigeria, and especially its Niger Delta region, is a paradigmatic case of this situation.

As a result of the visit that representatives from US social and environmental organizations made to the Niger Delta region in September 1999, the NGO "Global Exchange and Essential Action" has recently published a report titled "Oil For Nothing: Multinational Corporations, Environmental Destruction, Death and Impunity in the Niger Delta." The report says that Chevron, Shell, Mobil, Elf and Agip, "act as a destabilizing force, pitting one community against another, and acting as a catalyst -together with the military with whom they work closely- to some of the violence racking the region today." It underscores that even if during the last 40 years both the Nigerian government and oil multinationals have made huge profits out of the oil extracted from the Niger Delta, the region undergoes high unemployment and poverty rates, corruption, repression, failing crops, declining fisheries, polluted waters, dying forests and vanishing wildlife. Far from contributing to the welfare of the region, oil corporations, the government and the military have exploited ethnic differences in the Delta, as well as menaced and murdered people to avoid any opposition attempt.

Nevertheless, resistance by the Niger Delta peoples continues. The Ijaw National Youth called on the government and the oil companies operating in the Niger Delta to enter into genuine dialogue with local communities "on the matter of resource control, self-determination and a truly federal Nigeria." At the international level, abuses by the military to the detriment of local dwellers are continually being denounced. The government's announcement on October 1999 of strict conditions for oil firms to clean up the communities' environment was cautiously but well received by environmental and social organizations. However, there are still no clear signs showing that things have really changed for the better.

It is interesting to point out that "Oil for nothing" was released in the US, coinciding with mounting opposition against a major Chevron refinery in California which is being accused of releasing dangerous pollutants. Several cases of environmental racism -such as the location of polluting industries among poor, generally black communities- have been denounced in that country. It is the same racism that Northern oil companies show with regards to people and the environment in Nigeria.

On October 1999 the Nigerian Minister of the Environment himself blamed multinational oil companies for the situation reigning in the Niger Delta, and gave them a six-week ultimatum to clean up the communities' environment affected by several oil spills. However, nothing much seems to have changed.

For six months -from 10 June 1998 to December 1998- a pipeline belonging to Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (SPDC) in Kolo Creek, at Num River watershed, burst and discharged crude oil into the Oyara mangrove forests, endangering Otuegwe 1, a small rural community with predominantly indigenous population devoted to farming and fishing. Due to heavy rains that occurred during this period, the oil spill dispersed into surrounding water streams, farms and sacred sites of the Otuegwe. To face the accusations that blamed the company, Shell opted to blame the victims, and attributed the spill to an act of sabotage. Thus it declined to assume the responsibility of repairing the leaking pipeline.

Local communities of farmers and fisherfolk, which had to suffer not only from health hazards but also from the impacts of the spill on their natural resources, started a campaign with the help of the Niger Delta Human and Environmental Rescue Organisation (ND-HERO). At last Shell had to respond to such pressure and hired Willbros Nigerian Ltd to repair the leakage. The company also chose an "environmentally responsible" way of eliminating the remaining residue of the oil spill: it set fire to vast extents of forest! This strategy of forest burning seems to be the official policy of Shell as a means of "cleaning" crude oil spills in the Niger Delta. Other communities of the Niger Delta, as Obelele and Igebiri, have witnessed this same Shell policy, and already 3,500 km2 have been destroyed by the effect of the drastic method of provoking intentional fires.

As a result of the negative impacts of this activity, people of the Niger Delta do not want the oil companies in general -and Shell in particular- any longer in their territories. However, oil transnationals and the Federal Government continue to ignore the communities' claims, who have to pay the high cost of cheap oil. "We promise to listen", says Shell in its web page. But in the Niger Delta, the company seems to have become almost completely deaf.

In Bangladesh the remaining virgin rainforests are near to extinction. The whole Bangladesh mainland and its off-shore areas are gradually being leased for oil/gas explorations. Even the Sundarbans, considered a world heritage and the largest mangrove forest of the globe and only remaining habitat of royal bengal tiger is being occupied by the exploration activites of oil/gas companies.

The affected area is one of the 23 blocks into which the government divided the national territory for the oil/gas exploration activities by foreign multinational companies. The measure has already been implemented in nearly half of the country area and is affecting several ecosystems rich in biodiversity, like the virgin forests of the hilly eastern part of Bangladesh, which stretches from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal.

The Sundarbans is a vast tract of mangrove swamp forest situated in the southwest corner of Bangladesh and forming the lower part of the Ganges Delta. The name 'Sundarbans' is derived from the term "Sundari", a reference to the large mangrove tree that provides valuable fuel. It extends for about 160 miles (260 km) along the coast of the Bay of Bengal from the Hugly river Estuary in India to the Meghna River Estuary in Bangladesh. The whole tract reaches inland for 60-80 miles (100-130 km). A network of tidal rivers and creeks intersect numerous islands. Along the coast, the forest passes into a mangrove swamp which is virtually uninhabited. It is one of the last reserves of the royal bengal tiger and the site of a tiger preservation project. In addition, it supports other mammals, more than two hundred species of birds, as well as crocodiles, other reptiles and amphibians. The Sundarbans is also important for its estuary fisheries and for being a safe winter quarter of several hundred migratory birds. The cultivated northern area yields rice, sugarcane, timber and betel nuts, etc. This unique mangrove forest, comprising a more than 10,300 square kilometre area, has been earmarked as Block nr. 5 in the government’s division. It has been leased out to Shell Oil & Cairn Energy for oil/gas exploration.

Rainforest extended over most of ancient Burma, but deforestation now affects two-thirds of the country’s forests. The Kanchanabury Conservation Group and 11 conservation human rights groups and their allies are threatening to close off the forest to prevent the controversial Thai-Burma gas pipeline being built through it. The groups involved claim that this controversial project, undertaken by the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT), has infringed the rights of locals -since no consultation has been realized- and will damage natural resources. In fact, national park status for the section in Sai Yok National Park, through which the 260 Km pipeline will pass, was revoked last October. Two weeks later, the PTT started laying the pipeline in the area. This National Park holds a lush forest.

The activists made the threat in a bid to get the construction suspended and a new round of negotitions to be started. A petition will be presented to the Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai for the revision of a resolution, passed during the previous government, allowing construction of the pipeline. Phibhop Dhongchain, spokesperson of the NGOs, said that if no response is given they will march from Bangkok to Kanchanabury and close the forest to prevent PTT from laying the pipeline until talks are called to consider changing its route.

Kanchanaburi March 6, 1998: Sulak Sivaraksa and some 50 students and activists who have been camping in the forest were arrested and taken out of the Huay Kayeng forest about noon time. Kancahnaburi governor was present at the event to instruct some 20 officers to take away the activists. Even though Sulak was shown a letter requesting him to testify to the police on the charge filed by PTT (Petroleum Authority of Thailand) before the arrest, the other activists were taken away without being informed properly on what charge they were taken.

The nearly three months encampment was ended, and the forest will soon be cleared to pave the way for the pipeline laying. "The last forest strip we have been trying to protect by risking our lives in front of bulldozers is to be destroyed. Streams which are home to rare species like Rajini crab are being filled up. Elephants which have been so far so frightened by the construction will find their lives harder when the project can continue at its full scale after the removal of the protesters."

It was evident on arrival at the police station that those taken forcibly from the protesting site were held with intention of prosecution. Supporters of the cause congregated on arrival at the police station. Along with Sulak, a core group of students as well as an Englishman -Daniel Campbell- were finger printed. The police showed a great concern for the foreigners who were showing support for Sulak. Those who had arrived that morning were questioned and asked not to return to this area. Passports were asked for and names and addresses of the foreigners. Meanwhile, Sulak had been escorted to a private room next to the governor's office while the Thai students had been released under Sulak's request that they may not be charged as he would be kept, refusing bail. From this room Sulak was able to give us the comment.

"This situation would bring awareness to three things, one, that the Prime Minister allowed the gas pipeline to go on without consulting the facts, relying only on the information from lies. He went over the area in a helicopter on 28 February 1999 and promised to meet the conservation groups who had been camping since the 21st of December, but he refused to meet them; he was only told by the military and the PTT officials that it was good for the project to go ahead. From the helicopter he claimed that he saw smoke and claimed that the forest was degraded. The conservation groups would have shown him pristine forest including the tracks of elephants. Besides, he was to read the report on 25st of February by Mr Anand Panyarachun and the committee, but he did not, as he announced on 28th of February that PTT was to go ahead bearing in mind the recommendation of Mr Anand's committee which said that PTT has abused its power, it has been lying, abusing people at the grassroots and has no consideration for the environment. That PTT could go ahead with consultation and approval with the Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister office. PTT did not follow the Prime Minister's instructions and started felling big trees on the 1st of March and then using the big machines on the 2nd.

That is why friends and students started to protest. I told the officers that what we are doing is helping PTT as if they do not finish the construction in time they can claim it is "force majeur" and they will not be fined. If they hurry the gas pipeline to finish by 1st July, it means that the Thai government have to pay $400 million annually to the dictatorial regime in Burma and we could not use the gas, as EGAT (The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand) announced that they could not build the power plant to make use of the gas by the end of this year. It may not even be built at all due to the recent financial crisis in Thailand. Is it then, just, to pay money to Burma for her to buy arms to kill Burmese people? These $400 million dollars are equal to 20,000,000 Baht, which the tax payer have to pay; yet the forum of the poor received the promise from the last government that they would compensate 100,000 families in the North East which have been uprooted. The amount was 3,700 million baht and the present government refused to pay to the poor but is willing to pay to the military junta.

I told the foreman that the president of PTT publicly admitted that PTT had done all the wrong in the past and wanted to do the right thing with transparency, but it appeared to me that they went on as bad as before, using media as before. If he is sincere, he can come to talk to us and do according to the instructions of the prime minister and I would ask my friends not to obstruct the building of the pipeline, or the two cabinet ministers are willing to talk to us and are willing to supervise the pipeline strictly according to the Anand committee's we would also withdraw.

Secondly, I further want to demonstrate to the world that the Thai authorities must first of all have concern on truths and not falsehoods; besides, the Thai authority must not have any commercial dealing with any country without concern for real basic human rights. In the case of the pipeline, our conscience should be clear that we do not want gas at the expense of our neighbour's blood.

Thirdly, I want to remind the Thai government that development must take every consideration for environmental balance, consideration to take care of people in various local areas, forest, trees, rivers, elephants and various species. Indeed the area we came to demonstrate in is a prime forest, a source of various streams with fresh water feeding into rivers of the central plain of Thailand on which Bangkok depends. The building of the pipeline is polluting streams already.

Lastly, my friends and I may not be able to protect the forest but we want to demonstrate that development without consideration for human rights, consideration for environmental issues and without consideration of the local participation is fundamentally wrong. Development must benefit the poor, the grass roots, animals and trees, etc. Most grand schemes of economic development and technical advances benefit multinational corporations and the super rich, but harm the majority of people."

The trial shall begin in the morning of 7 March. The charge against him is "prevent PTT officers and as well as others involved in any project of petroleum development from performing their duties", as stipulated in the Petroleum Act, a special law which protects PTT's petroleum operations The maximum punishments can be 6 months jail term, 1,000 Baht fine, and/or both. In spite that he will plea guilty, he hopes he will be able to ask for permission from the court to read a statement to explain his actions.

In late 1995 the Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) started a survey of the route for a gas pipeline between the western province of Kanchanabuti and Burma. It was only after eight months that they admitted that the pipeline would be built. Since its very beginning this project was strongly resisted by villagers living near the route of the pipeline, who feared an explosion since the required security standards have not been reached. Now resistance has reached a national level and many civil society organizations have joined to object its economic feasibility and to protest against the environmental impact expected because of the works.

A seminar was held on March 7^th 1999 in Bangkok to discuss on the controversial pipeline. More than 300 people --among them members of various environmental and grassroots organizations, representatives of ethnic minority groups and student groups-- attended the event. The PTT and the government were accused for the lack of transparency of the project, for the agreement reached with a cruel dictatorship like that ruling Burma, and for their non fulfilment of the promises made regarding environmental restoration of the affected territory. Vast areas of forests were felled to give place to the pipeline and the authorities had promised that a reforestation plan was to be undertaken.

Among the speakers was Sulak Sivaraksa, the social critic who launched a solo sit-in protest at the pipeline site when it was being constructed. He was sent to jail and charged with trespassing, and his case is still pending in court. Mr Sulak said that the peaceful struggle against the pipeline project had not ended, and that the PTT must be forced to reveal fully what he called its "shameful contract" to buy gas from the Yadana field in Burma. However, he said the "real enemy" was not the PTT or the Thai government but transnational corporations which intend to exploit the region's natural resources, regardless of the peoples' interests.

Speaking on behalf of the anti-pipeline coalition --that is formed by more than 500 different organizations-- leading opponent Pibhop Dhongchai said that the problem arose due to lack of public participation in the planning and implementation of the country's energy policy and demanded that the public takes that role. The coalition also demanded that the PTT and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand postpone all their projects, including the Thai-Malaysian joint development project in the Gulf of Thailand, because it had become clear that there was an oversupply of gas and electricity in the country. It also demanded the cancellation of the three power plant projects in Prachuap Khiri Khan.

Gas and oil exploitation constitute a cause of forest destruction and human rights abuses in many countries and particularly in Burma. The construction of the Yadana gas pipeline -linking gas fields in this country with Thailand- constitutes one of the hotspots regarding nature conservation and human rights in that country.

The presence of foreign companies in Burma -among them oil companies- is linked to the military dictatorship that has governed the country since 1962, confronting the will of the vast majority of the population and imposing a regime characterised by repression, human rights abuses, disregard to ethnic groups' rights and -since 1989- the opening of the country to forest investors.

The involvement of the French authorities in favour of French company Total’s investment in the Yadana gas pipeline was studied by an Independent Mission during 1999. This is a long story beginning in 1988 when the government -known as SLORC (State Law and Order Restauration Council)- launched a bid for tenders for the development of the country's gas fields. In July 1992, Total signed a contract for shared production with the State Company MOGE (Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise) to exploit and develop the Yadana field in the Gulf of Martian, where gas reserves are estimated in about 140,000 million cubic metres. Total sold part of the shares of the project to various partners and nowadays the consortium includes the US company Unocal (28.6 % of the shares), the Thai company PTT-EP (Petroleum Authority of Thailand Exploration and Production 25.5%), MOGE (15 %) and Total (31.24%). A pipeline crossing the Tenasserim region over a distance of 63 kilometres had to be built in order to carry the gas to Thailand. A large coalition of NGOs in this country strongly oppose the project and have questioned PTT's role in it. The Yadana pipeline, which is currently valued in 1,2 billion dollars, is expected to provide the State an annual revenue of more than 200 million dollars.

Even though Total denies giving support to the military Junta or even interfering in domestic political affairs, opponents to the project hold that the firm is strongly linked to the military and provide them with key information on the activities of the rebel Karens and Mons that operate in the Tennasserim region, thus directly promoting the military presence in the area. As a matter of fact, the completion of the project in so far as it guarantees future incomes, has allowed the Burmese government to contract loans and to buy arms on long-term payment conditions. The Observatoire Géopolitique des Drogues (Geopolitical Drugs Observatory) considers that the Yadana project is being used as a means for the laundering of drug money. Total has recognized that it paid 15 million dollars for the contract and it is suspected that this sum was injected into the financial circuit covering drug trade. Additionally, the 1999 Independent Mission testified that for ethical reasons none of the NGOs present in the country -such as "Médecins du Monde" or "Action contre la Faim"- wish to participate in this operation despite the high level of financing proposed by the company.

It is clear that the French government has given its support to Total, regardless of its alleged opposition to the military regime. In fact, the risk taken by Total for operating in Burma was covered in 1994 by the French Company for the Insurance of Overseas Business (COFACE). According to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this country’s position is not contradictory, since the construction of the pipeline would contribute to the "development" of the region; but this is contradicted by reality.

The installation of Total and Unocal in Burma has been monitored by national and international NGOs. The International Federation for Man's Rights (FIDH) considers that Total backs and supports the dictatorship and that the construction of the controversial pipeline has contributed to the aggravation of the situation in the areas it goes through. The Mon, Karen, Tavoyan and Thai who live in the project area are suffering its consequences: "development" promises have evaporated and the only thing the project has brought them is blood and tears. Since work began, the Government put one of the coastal region commanders in charge of the security of the area, which led to forced displacements and other kinds of human rights violations. Four battalions were engaged to ensure inside security, and twenty battalions were mobilized to counter the Karen forces. More than 13 villages occupied by Mons and Karens have been displaced, which means that more than 3000 families were forced to move. During its visit to Thailand, the Independent Mission tried to visit refugee camps inhabited by displaced people from neighbouring Burma, but the Thai authorities didn’t allow it because the border between Thailand and Burma is under the administration of the Thai army, which is apparently trying to act friendly towards their Burmese colleagues.

There are even evidences that forced labour is being used at the pipeline site. The latter has not been completely proven; nevertheless, testimonies show that villagers are recluted by the army to work for the pipeline construction and they do not have a way out. The 1998 United Nations Special Recorder’s report on the Human Rights situation in Burma registers forced labour of men, women and even children in several parts of the country. A report released by the International Labour Organization in August 1998 emphasizes the generalized and systematic use of forced labour by the Burmese authorities. Each year, a special report by the United Nations Human Rights Committee proves the same facts.

In sum, what is happening at the Yadana gas pipeline has many similarities with what usually happens in most oil producing countries in the South, but in this case especially aggravated by the nature of Burma's political regime.

The Indonesian government is preparing the replacement of the 1960 Oil and Gas Act. The new draft bill has generated strong differences of opinion between government and parliament (Peoples' Representative Council). The central issue of disagreement is the future role of the state owned company PERTAMINA -which currently exploits 85% of the country's oil reserves and 65% of the gas reserves- and its relation to the state's economic interests. Ironically, considerations regarding the peoples' interests -such as the impacts of the oil and gas industry on peoples' lives and on their environment- are absent from the debate at the official level.

Considering the long history of human rights abuses and environmental destruction connected with oil and gas exploitation -both by the state-owned company and by oil multinationals- those issues should have been at the core of the debate. Instead, the government has chosen to focus on opening up the country to further foreign investment by multinationals. The threats of such move are truly alarming, since very well known big fishes - such as Mobil Oil, Shell, Caltex, Texaco, Unocal, Vico, and Total- are waiting to do good business . . . at the expense of the local communities and their environment.

The record of these companies in other oil producing countries or in Indonesia itself predict a bleak future coming up with the oligopoly of multinational corporations dominating the Indonesian gas and oil sector. For example Mobil Oil, the biggest producer of natural gas in the country, has been linked to serious human rights violations in the war-torn north Sumatran region of Aceh. Villagers of Tanjungsantan on the East Kalimantan coast have been fighting for years against pollution provoked by oil wastes produced by a Unocal terminal, which is destroying their rice fields, shrimp ponds, mangroves and "nipah" palms. In spite of the local communities's claims, the company has never taken responsiblity for the damage inflicted on them. Similar situations have been reported regading other oil and gas companies operating in East Kalimantan, such as Vico (USA) and Total (France) that have been the subject of recent protests by local people.

While the Indonesian government struggles to get its new legislation approved, local people in Tanjungsantan struggle for their lives and livelihoods and have presented Unocal with a list of demands to redress the damages inflicted on them. If these demands are not met, say the villagers, the company should stop operations and leave, after restoring the environment to its original condition.

The British-based oil company, Premier Oil, has begun preparations for oil exploration in Pakistan's largest park, Kirthar National Park. This is in spite of the fact that the company was refused permission by the Sindh Wildlife Department. Apparently, a concession was sold to Premier Oil by Pakistan's Director General for petroleum concessions, and has overridden the objections of the Sindh Wildlife Department. In effect, a team of Premier Oil entered the Kirthar National Park to conduct an environmental impact assessment. The Hegler and Bailey team, consultants of Premier Oil, is expected to stay in the park for a few weeks to perform their EIA.

"We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, wish to express extreme concern about the role envisaged for tree plantations in helping industrialized countries meet their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Sixth Conference of the Parties, in November 2000 in the Hague, will likely determine the content of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, which could allow many Northern countries to meet their emissions reductions targets by implementing projects in the South.

Trading carbon sequestered in tree plantations for carbon resulting from burning of fossil fuels cannot justify postponing deep reductions in CO2 emissions in industrialized countries. First, the trade would perpetuate and exacerbate existing inequalities between rich and poor nations and between rich and poor within particular nations. Second, the trade would increase the area of industrial tree plantations, which are already posing severe social and ecological problems worldwide. Third, the claim of quantifiable "climate neutrality" on which this trade rests has a highly questionable scientific basis and sanctions external political interference in the policymaking of the countries of the South.

For a century and a half industrial societies have been moving carbon from underground reserves of coal and oil into the air. Today about 175 billion more tons of carbon are circulating in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 than before the industrial revolution, the great bulk having come from the North. At least six billion tons are being added every year. Just over 122 corporations account for 80 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

The transfer of carbon from fossil fuels to the atmosphere cannot go on indefinitely. Some 4,000 billion tonnes of carbon in fossil fuels are still under the earth's surface -- more than ten times the amount of carbon stored in forests. According to current scientific consensus, adding as little as few hundred billion tons of this to the air would result in climate change unprecedented in human history, bringing extreme storms, droughts and floods, disrupting agriculture, increasing pest infestations, drowning islands and coastlines and creating millions of "climate refugees".

Climate change will affect the poor most severely. When Hurricane Mitch ravaged Central America it generated hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees. Many small island states may eventually disappear under the sea. In the US it is the poor who are most affected by pollution from oil companies, power utilities and automobiles. Climate change will also severely affect the forests and agriculture that are the sole means for livelihood for millions of people.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which industrialized countries pledge to reduce emissions by 2010 by an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels, does not go remotely far enough to stave off these dangers. Even if the Protocol were ratified and fully implemented, it is estimated, it would not be able to moderate an expected warming trend of 1.4º C. by 2050 by more than around 0.05º C.

Yet instead of strengthening the Protocol in ways that would reduce the use of fossil fuels, some governments are advocating the creation of plantations-based carbon sinks and stores in order to justify lesser reductions in fossil fuel use. Under the Clean Development Mechanism, such projects could be created in the South to "compensate" for industrial emissions in the North.

We are in no doubt about the role of forest conservation in maintaining a livable climate. We are strongly in favor of maintaining and restoring diverse forest ecosystems under local control. We also support the equitable distribution of wealth and common property North and South. But measures to maintain carbon reservoirs both below and above ground must be carefully distinguished from the carbon-trading plantation schemes now being mooted under the Kyoto Protocol. These are based on false premises and are likely to be counterproductive. We oppose the inclusion of plantations as "sinks" in the Clean Development Mechanism for four main reasons:

Licensing the burning of fossil fuels by financing tree plantations to "absorb" carbon dioxide would expand the ecological and social footprint of the rich, making existing social inequalities worse. Citizens of a Northern country which use (say) 20 times more per capita of the atmosphere for CO2 dumping than citizens of a Southern country would be entitled, under the rationale of carbon trading, to use 20 times more tree plantation land in order to compensate. This land would be taken disproportionately from poorer people in the South, where real estate is cheaper and tree growth rates faster. In addition, a carbon-trading system would put Southern countries at a disadvantage when they begin making emissions cuts, since the easiest cuts would have already been purchased and credited to Northern countries. It has often been pointed out that the North owes the South an immense "carbon debt" for its historical overuse of global carbon-cycling mechanisms. Far from abiding by the "polluter pays" principle, using trees to "compensate" for emissions would only increase this resource debt.

Such schemes would also sanction and deepen inequalities within both Southern and Northern countries. For example, corporations that buy carbon-dioxide emission rights in the North by sponsoring carbon "offset" plantations in the South would be allowed to go on releasing, along with CO2, many other pollutants that pose local health risks. Corporations site a disproportionate number of such factories in poor communities of color.

Millions of hectares of new plantation land would have to be taken over in any attempt to counteract even a small fraction of industrial emissions. Experience with large-scale tree plantations indicates that such "offset" projects would usurp needed agricultural lands, replace valuable native ecosystems, worsen inequity in land ownership, increase poverty, lead to evictions of local peoples, and undermine local stewardship practices needed for forest conservation. In Chile, Indonesia, the Nordic countries and elsewhere, tree plantations have destroyed natural forests, while in South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay they have replaced other valuable ecosystems such as grasslands. In countries such as Brazil, Thailand and Chile tree plantations are at the root of serious land conflicts among local communities, landowners, corporations and the state. Nearly everywhere they have led to loss of water resources and biodiversity. Inherent in industrial plantation forestry models and exhaustively documented by the World Rainforest Movement and others over many years, these deleterious effects of plantations would only be accentuated if genetically modified trees were employed.

A market in "carbon offsets" presupposes a notion of "climate neutrality" or "climate equivalence". In order for a plantation "offset" project to be tradable for a given amount of industrial emissions, a single determinate number would need to be calculated to represent the amount of carbon sequestered or stored as a result of the project over and above what would have been sequestered or stored in its absence.

Deriving such a number involves quantifying two types of project effect. Both would influence the net amount of carbon sequestered or stored.

One type of effect is physical. Unlike underground oil or coal, carbon stored in live or dead trees can quickly reenter the atmosphere at any time. Fires, whether human-set or not, are unavoidable features of both forests and plantations, and rates of decay difficult to anticipate. As CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, moreover, heightened rates of respiration could turn forests and plantations alike into net sources of CO2 emissions, while diebacks and fires due to localized climate change are bound to increase. In addition, plantations typically reduce the capacity of soils to store carbon, both inside and (through increased erosion) outside project areas. Vulnerable, dynamic and unpredictable, plantations, unlike underground reserves of oil and coal, are insecure storage places for carbon. These considerations alone indicate that no equivalence between industrial emissions and trees can be established of the type which would be necessary for the establishment of a "carbon offset" plantation market.

The second type of effect is social, and would exert an equally important influence on the amount of carbon sequestered or stored. Carbon "offset" projects could, among other things:

*Displace communities in the immediate neighborhood, which could lead to the project's destruction or cancellation or forest clearance and CO2 releases elsewhere.

*Undermine existing technologies or social networks preventing climatically-destabilizing forms of industrial land clearance and loss of local knowledge of sustainable agricultural or forest-conservation practices.

*Reduce investor interest in energy conservation or renewables.

*Displace timber operations to other locations and influence wood and land prices and thus incentives for logging.

*Change consumer demand, landfill legislation and other social factors influencing how quickly plantation products, including paper and furniture, were converted to carbon dioxide.

*Siphon funding away from existing forms of carbon protection.

*Provide incentives to degrade forests or other lands outside project boundaries in order to attract new money for carbon projects.

Such social effects are impossible to quantify. It is not even possible, in fact, to determine a single social outcome for any given project, which would be a prerequisite for both quantification and a "carbon trade". First, predicting the extent of the social effects of a plantation project would be impossible. These effects, moreover, are not a matter for prediction, but for democratic decision. Many different "atmospheric outcomes" of a single project are possible, depending on what policies are adopted. For example, people evicted by a plantation "offset" project are likely to behave in different ways toward forests in their region depending on their land rights, which in turn depends on national policy. To assign a single number to their behavior would be to prejudge which policy will be in effect. It could even be said implicitly to support that policy. Second, continuous monitoring of the extent of all social effects of a plantation project would be impracticable and vastly uneconomical (involving, among other things, close attention to the actions of thousands of rural people in the vicinity of the project as well as to the psychology of investors in renewables in distant cities). Third, controlling the behavior of all people affected by an "offset" project in such a way that the effect of their actions on atmospheric carbon became precisely calculable over the many decades during which a project's carbon would have to be sequestered would also be impossible. The attempt to do so, moreover, would be politically unacceptable.

By the same token, it is impossible to compare quantitatively the atmospheric effects of a plantation with "what would have happened without it". What would have happened without any particular project depends on many variables, some of them influenced by policy choices and political action which economists, biologists, foresters or climate scientists are not entitled to prejudge. Yet without such prejudgments, a carbon "commodity" is impossible.

In sum, the climatic effects of a plantation "offset" project cannot be calculated simply by (say) comparing the amount of carbon stored in local vegetation and soils before and after the project and by monitoring changes in vegetation outside the project site. Deeper issues are involved that cannot be resolved through "learning by doing".

We, the undersigned NGOs, strongly support national and international efforts to address climate change, especially through energy conservation, consumption reduction, more equitable resource use, and equitable development and sharing of renewable sources of energy. We hold that a widespread trade in tree plantation "offsets", through the Clean Development Mechanism and other means, would block or undercut these necessary and urgent measures, which constitute a rare opportunity to move on from dominant and failed patterns of development. We urge governments not to include plantations as carbon sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism and to address industrial emissions separately from tree plantations. A livable climate can be assured only by a commitment to tackling the root causes of global warming."

San Francisco, May 2000, signatures follow.