Environmental Movements

TheHistory of Environnetal Movements Environmental issues and forms of environmental concern have a very long history; awareness of the environmental consequences of economic development was given an increasingly political character from the 1950s onwards. Individuals produced provocative studies warning of particular threats to the environment, as with Rachel Carson's well-known criticism of the increased use of DDT as a pesticide. Groups formed to press for solutions to particular or local problems or sought to get the political system to respond. Think tanks, such as the Club of Rome, published accounts dramatizing the potential depletion of the Earth's resources. International agencies, including the United Nations Environment Programme began holding international conferences and promoting detailed studies of issues as part of an effort to get more coordinated and effective responses to increasingly global environmental problems. Later, protest movements, linking up with late 1960s student radicalism and with various anti-war mobilizations, took to the streets and forests in efforts to get a political response. In some places the mainstream political parties began to respond; in others, environmental concern was mocked and marginalized. After the period of 1970 there was a spurt in environmental movements. Porter and Welsh Brown estimate that by the early 1980s there were approximately 13000 environmental movements in the Third World Countries, such as African NGO environmental network (ANEN) formed in 1982. Twenty one environmental NGOs were among the founding organizations, but by 1990, membership has swelled to 530 NGOs in forty-five countries. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there are currently 6000 environmental NGOs, most of them formed since 1970s, India has some 12000 development NGOs, Bangladesh has 10000 NGO and Philippines has 18000 NGOs. And in the Developed world, North America, Australia and parts of Scandinavia the environmental agenda has often been dominated by attempts to protect wilderness areas from the intrusion and excesses of human development. Here environmental conflict has challenged the dominant goals of advanced capitalism and industrialism, such as unlimited growth and the rights of private property. It would be wrong to view environmental politics simply as challenge of capitalist orthodoxy. In Europe, environmental politics developed as a rejection of state socialism's promotion of rapid and ecologically damaging forms of industrial and agricultural development. As part of the East European ‘velvet revolutions' of the late 1980s, environmentalists championed pluralist democracy and 'free-market' economic solutions derived from the tenets of capitalism, in a bid to overthrow decades of rigid, bureaucratic and authoritarian rule. Asian, African and other Third World countries have used environmental debates to challenge a different and global status quo, where a few affluent and powerful countries have access to disproportionately greater amounts of the Earth's limited resources. The governments of these countries are more concerned with promoting economic development to raise the standard of living of their populations. In these countries, environmental politics often focuses on issues of human survival such as the adequate provision of housing, food and employment, as well as safe work and healthy living conditions. Governments of some industrializing countries oppose moves from the USA and Europe to impose global environmental objectives on them. Hence, in the international debates over greenhouse problems, Malaysia has set itself firmly against any moves that would make it harder for it to industrialize and export its goods. It should be noted that within these industrializing developing countries environmental issues are still raised by groups of environmental activists. For example in Nigeria, the struggle of the Ogoni people against the military regime has strong environmental theme. Here, poor people protest against the damage being done to their land by the polluting activities of Shell Nigeria. In Indonesia, environmental groups oppose the logging of rain forests; in India, environmentalist activists oppose excessive logging of forests, the polluting consequences of industrialization, and the environmental damage associated with population growth and urbanization, and they are concerned about the consequence of global climate change. Further, in many parts of the world environmental politics has been used to contest inequalities and differences in power based on gender, class, race and species.

Rbber tapper Movement Brazil

Brazilian Rubber Tapper Movement 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 with 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.

Narma Bachavo Andolan 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.
Friend of river Narmada

The struggle against the construction of megadams on the River Narmada in India is symbolic of a global struggle for social and environmental justice. The Friends of River Narmada is an international coalition of individuals and organizations .In particular, they are a support and solidarity network for the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada movement), which has been fighting for the democratic rights of the citizens of the Narmada Valley. The Friends of River Narmada holds that the Narmada Valley Development Project (NVDP) has been conceived without adequate participation from the people who are going to be affected.

(1) That many dams of the NVDP are not viable solutions to many of the problems (power, drinking water, flood control, irrigation) they set out to solve, and that there needs to be a greater emphasis on the search for alternative solutions from all concerned (Government, NGOs, people).
(2) That the construction and planning of many dams of the NVDP has disrupted (and will potentially disrupt) the lives of millions of people without just and adequate compensation;
(3) That the people of the Narmada Valley are waging a just and legitimate struggle to assert their right to life, livelihood, and participation in their own development;
(4) That while the country can ask for sacrifices from its people, such people must be justly and adequately compensated for the sacrifices that they are thus making;
(5) That while the country can ask for sacrifices from the people of the Valley for the greater cause of national progress, the burden of sacrifice should be distributed across the nation, and not be restricted to a specific group of people;
(6) That the NVDP is merely an example of a much bigger problem that is manifesting itself across the country: the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, the Enron controversy in the Dabhol Power Project in Maharashtra, the controversy over the Cogentrix project, the forgery of Environmental Clearances by Ernst & Young; the controversy over the construction of the Bangalore-Mysore highway, the human rights abuses over the port construction at Maroli, and the list goes on.
(7) That the struggle in the Narmada Valley consequently throws up much deeper issues about the developmental choices being followed in India and elsewhere, and that there needs to be a much wider debate of these choices;
(8) That the Narmada Bachao Andolan is a symbol of hope for people's movements all over the world that are fighting for just, equitable, and participatory development.

Chipko India

Chipko Movement

The Chipko movement emerged in the early 1970s in the Garhwal region of the Himalayas. In attempting to draw attention to the difficulty of sustaining their livelihoods in the region, local communities engaged in protest by hugging trees marked for felling in state owned commercial forests. As this account spread across the country and elsewhere, Chipko was transformed into a shining symbol of grassroots activism. Ironically, as ecologists embraced the story worldwide, eco-feminists, policy makers and academics so it became increasingly disconnected from the realities that gave rise to the original protests.

Chipko now exists almost as a myth, tenuously linked to an imagined space of the Himalayas that represents the timeless realm of pristine nature and simple peasant life, a terrain that escapes history. Or, in the more prosaic language of policy makers, it is one of several ‘disturbances’ to have emerged from a mountainous region that has, since the late 1800s, been characterized as backward or isolated.

The Chipko movement is historically, philosophically and organizationally an extension of the traditional Gandhian Satyagraha. Its special significance lies in the fact that it took place in post independent India. The continuity between the pre- independence and post-independence forms of this Satyagraha has beer provided by Gandhian, including Sri Dey Suman, Mira Behn and Sarala Bhen. Sri Dey Suman was initiated into Gandhian Satyagraha at the time of the Salt Satyagraha. He died as a martyr for the cause of the Garhwall people's right to survive with dignity and freedom. Both Mira Behn and Sarala Behn were close associates of Gandhiji. They settled in the interior of the Himalayas and established ashrams. Sarala Behn settled in Kumaon, and Meera Behn lived in Garhwal till the time she left for Vienna due to ill health. Equipped with the Gandhian worldview of development based on justice and ecological stability, they contributed silently to the growth of women power and ecological consciousness in the hill area of Uttar Pradesh. The influence of these two European followers of Gandhiji on the heritage of struggle for social justice and ecological stability in the hills of Uttar Pradesh has been immense and they generated a new brand of Gandhian activist who provided the foundation for the Chipko movement. Sunder Bahuguna is prominent among the new generations of the workers deeply inspired by the Gandhian thought. Influenced by Sri Dev Suman, he joined the independence movement at the age of 13. Later, he worked with Meera Behn in Bhilanga Valley and was trained in her ecological vision.

Mira Bhen had thus identified not merely deforestation but change in species suitable to commercial forestry as the reason for ecological degradation in the Himalayas. She recognized that the leaf litter of Oak forests was the primary mechanism for water conservation in the Himalayan mountain watersheds. The Banj leaves, falling as they do, year by year, create a rich black mould in which develops a thick tangled mass of undergrowth (bushes, creepers, and grasses), which in their turn add to the leaf mould deposit and the final result is a forest in which almost all the rain water becomes absorbed. Some of it evaporates back into the air and the rest percolates slowly down, to the lower altitudes, giving out here and there beautiful sweet and cool springs. It would be difficult to imagine a more ideal shock absorber for the monsoon rains than a Banj forest.

The Chir pine produces just the opposite effect. It creates with its pine needles a smooth, dry carpet, which absorbs nothing and which at the same time prevents the development of any undergrowth worth the name. In fact, often the ground in a Chir pine forest is as bare as a desert. When the torrential rains of the monsoon beat down on these southern slopes of the Himalayas, much of the pine needle carpet gets washed away with the water and erosion invariably takes place, because these needles, being non-absorbent, create no leaf-mould, but only a little very inferior soil, which is easily washed out from the rocks and stones.

Inheriting these early lessons in ecology, Bahuguna was later able to transfer this ecological perspective to Chipko. The rapid spread of resistance in the hills of Uttar Pradesh and its success in enforcing changes in forest management was also largely due to the awareness created by folk poets like Ghanshyam Raturi, and grassroots organizational efforts of a number of people including Man Singh Rawat, Chandi Prasad Bhatt and Dhoorn Singh Negi Bhatt, who later became well known for his work, became an activist at the behest of Bahuguna in 1959 when they met at a bus station in Gopeshwar where Bhatt was working as a booking clerk and Bahuguna, along with Rawat and Raturi, was waiting for a bus during an organizational trip through Gopeshwar. Having found Bhatt a promising activist, Bahuguna invited him to join them.

The Chipko movement is the contemporary expression of a continuing heritage of peaceful resistance by the people of Uttarakhand. In the post-independence period, under the coordination of Sarala Behn, the Gandhians organized themselves into the Uttarakhand Sarvodaya Mandal in 1961. The Sarvodaya movement in the sixties was organized around four major issues:

(1) The organization of women.
(2) Fight against alcohol consumption.
(3) Fight for forest rights.
(4) The establishment of local, forest based small industries.

While the fight against alcohol consumption provided the platform for the organization of women, the increasing conflict over forest produce between the local and non local industries provided the rallying point for popular protest during the studies. In 1968 the people of Garwhal renewed their resolve to fight for their forests in a memorial meeting held at Tilari on 30 May.

The platform for the organization of women was thus ready by the seventies and this decade saw the beginning of more frequent and more vocal popular protests on the rights of the people to protect and utilize local forests. In 1971 Swami Chidanandji of Rishikesh undertook a month-long march to bless the people in their struggle. The year 1972 witnessed the most widespread organized protests against commercial exploitation of Himalayan forests by outside contractors in Uttarkashi on 12 December, and in Gopeshwar on 15 December. It was during these two protest meetings that Raturi composed his famous poem describing the method of embracing the trees to save them from felling:

Embrace the trees and save them from being felled,
The property of our hills;
Save them from being looted

While the concept of saying trees from felling by embracing them is old in Indian culture, as was the case of Bishnoies, in the context of the current phase of the movement for forest rights in Uttarakhand this popular poem written in 1972 is the earliest source of the now famous name ‘Chipko’. In 1973 the tempo of the movement in the two centers Uttarkashi and Gopeshwar reached new heights. Raturi and Bhatt were the main organizers in these two places. While a meeting of the Saryodaya Mandal was in progress in Gopeshwar in April 1973, the first popular action to chase contractors away erupted spontaneously in the region, when the villagers demonstrated against the felling of ash trees in Mandal forest. Bahuguna immediately asked his colleagues to proceed on a foot march in Chamoli district following the axe men and encouraging people to oppose them wherever they went. Later in December 1973, there was a militant nonviolent demonstration in Uttarkashi in which thousands of people participated. In March 1974, twenty seven women under the leadership of Goura Devi saved a large number of trees from a contractors axe in Reni. Following this, the government was forced to abolish the private contract system of felling and in 1975 the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation was set up to perform this function. This was the first major’s achievement of the movement and marks the end of a phase in itself.

Bureaucratization however, cannot replace a civilizational response to the forest crisis. The ecological limits of forest extraction was hardly recognized and estimated. Ecological problems were accentuated leading to increased suffering of women who were responsible for bringing water, collecting fodder, etc. During the next five years Chipko resistance for forest protection spread to various parts of the Garhwal Himalayas. It is important to note that it was no longer the old demand for a supply of forest products for local small industries but the new demand for ecological control on forest resource extraction to ensure a supply of water and fodder that was being aired. In May 1977 Chipko activists in Henwal Valley organized themselves for future action. In June of the same year, Sarala Behn organised a meeting of all the activists in the hill areas of Uttar Pradesh, which further strengthened the movement and consolidated the resistance to commercial felling as well as excessive tapping of resin from the Chir pine trees. In Gotars forests in the Tehri range the forest ranger was transferred because of his inability to curb illegal over tapping of resin. Consciousness was so high that in the Jogidanda area of the Saklana range, the public sector corporation, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, was asked to regulate its resin tapping activity.

Among the numerous instances of Chipko’s successes throughout the Garhwal Himalayas in the years to follow, are those in Adwani, Amarsar and Badiyargarh. The auction of Adwani forests took place in October 1977 in Narender Nagar, the district headquarters. Bahuguna undertook a fast against the auction and appealed to the forest contractors as well as the district authorities to refrain from auctioning the forests. The auction was undertaken despite the expression of popular discontent. In the first week of December 1977, the Adwani forest was scheduled to be felled. Large groups of women led by Bachhni Devi came forward to save the forests. Interestingly, Bachhni Devi was the wife of the local village head, who was himself a contractor.Chipkos activist Dhoom Singh Negi supported the women’s struggle by undertaking a fast in the forest itself. Women tied sacred threads to the trees as a symbol of a vow of protection. Between 13 and 20 December a large number of women from fifteen villages guarded the forests while discourses on the role of forests in Indian life from ancient texts continued non-stop. It was here that the ecological slogan was born:


What do the forest bear?
Soil, Water and Pure Air!!!

The axe men withdrew only to return on 1 February 1978 with two truckloads of armed police. The plan was to encircle the forests with the help of the police in order to keep the people away during the felling operation. Even before the police could reach the area volunteers of the movement entered the forests and explained their case to the forest laborers who had been brought in from distant places. By the time the contractors arrived with the police each tree was being guarded by three volunteers who embraced the trees. The police, having been defeated in their own plan and seeing the level of awareness among the people, hastily withdrew before nightfall.

In March 1978 a new auction was planned in Narendra Nagar. A large popular demonstration was organized against it and the police arrested twenty three Chipko volunteers, including women. In December 1978 a massive felling programmes was planned by the public sector Uttar Pradesh Forest Development Corporation in the Badiyargarh region. The local people instantly informed Bahuguna who started a fast unto death at the felling site, on 9 January 1979. On the eleventh day of his fast Bahuguna was arrested in the middle of the night. This act only served to further strengthen the commitment of the people. Folk poet Ghanashyarn Raturi and priest Khima Shastri led the movement as thousands of men and women from the neighboring villages joined them in the Badiyargarh forests. The people remained in the forests and guarded the trees for eleven days, when the contractors finally withdrew. Bahuguna was released from Jail on 31 January 1979.

The cumulative impact of the sustained grassroots struggles to protect, forests was a rethinking of the forest management strategy in the hill areas. The Chipko demand for the declaration of the Himalaya forests as protection forests instead of production forests for commercial exploitation was recognized at the highest policy-making level. The late Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, after a meeting with Bahuguna, recommended a fifteen year ban on commercial green felling in the Himalayan forests of Uttar Pradesh.

Poribesh Andolan Bangladesh

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

Green Belt Movement Kenya

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 (1) To promote environmental conservation and sustainable development. (2) To avert desertification process throughout Africa through planting of trees. (3) To encourage tree planting soil rehabilitation, water harvesting, reforestation. (4) To protect the catchments areas, many of which have been deforest rated. (5) 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.

Ogoni Peoples Movemnt Nigeria

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 in India

Greenpeace in India Bhopal Tragedy and Greenpeace On the night of the disaster, December 1984, an explosion at Union Carbide’s pesticide plant caused 40 tones of lethal gas to seep into the city of Bhopal, six safety measures designed to prevent a gas leak had either malfunctioned, were turned off or were otherwise inadequate. In addition, the safety siren, intended to alert the community should an incident occur at the plant, was turned off. Bhopal is an ongoing disaster. One hundred twenty thousand people still face serious health problems and children born to survivors are also affected. The toxic chemicals abandoned in Bhopal by the chemical company have contaminated the groundwater that is used by thousands of people who live around the abandoned factory Greenpeace and Bhopal survivors. Union Carbide responded to the disaster by paying survivors inadequate compensation and abandoning the plant, leaving tones of dangerous toxic chemicals strewn around the site and the people of Bhopal with a toxic legacy that is still causing injury today. In 2001, the company shed its name by merging with Dow Chemical. The government of India unexpectedly started proceedings to dilute charges against Anderson from culpable homicide to negligent to homicide. But yesterday, the judgment of a Bhopal Court rejected the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation’s plea to dilute charges against Anderson. Greenpeace called on the U.S. State Department to arrest and extradite international fugitive and Bhopal corporate criminal Warren Anderson, who has been found by a UK newspaper and Greenpeace living a life of luxury in New York State. Anderson, the former Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide[1]has been, hiding in the United States since an explosion at his company’s plant in Bhopal, India, caused the worst industrial disaster in history in December 1984. Greenpeace paid Anderson a visit at his U.S. home and handed him an arrest warrant. He has been facing charges of culpable homicide and an extradition order from the government of India for the past eleven years. He has never appeared in court to face charges for crimes in Bhopal or even to explain why his company did not apply the same safety standards at its plant in India that it operated at a sister plant in South Charleston, the U.S. State of West Virginia. Opposition to Dumping of Used Mercury in India Greenpeace and activist groups in India and the U.S. have called on D.F. Goldsmith and Metal Corp. to stop the export of a 118 ton stockpile of used mercury from the United States to an undisclosed destination in India. The mercury stockpile, which is the largest in the country, was recovered from Holtra Chem., a Maine-based chlorine-caustic factory. D.F. Goldsmith and Metal Corp., an Illinois-based trader, has purchased the stockpile, allegedly for shipment to a secret recipient in India. Companies and federal government agencies in the U.S. do not want the stockpile because of environmental risks and liability associated with storing the metal, which is known to be a deadly nerve poison. Mercury affects the human brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver. Following protests by Maine-based environmental organizations, the Governor of Maine, Angus King, approached the federal government to prevent the export and instead add the stockpile to the existing store of used mercury in the Department of Defense's (DOD) stockpile. Neither Maine nor any of the neighboring states have any facilities to store the material. The U.S. refused to accept the mercury, claiming they lack authority to do so. In the past, Greenpeace, Basel Action Network and Toxics Link have highlighted numerous cases of toxic trade, hazardous waste dumping and the export of obsolete products or technologies by industrialized countries to India. Indian activist groups have raised the matter with the U.S. Embassy and the Government of India, and have alerted the trade unions, including the dockworkers unions of the impending toxic shipments. Enough is enough of USA toxic imperialism that dumps unwanted and dangerous substances, technologies and wastes on industrializing countries. Investigation on Industrial Sectors in Kerala Greenpeace published a report “Corporate Crimes”, has listed the Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK) in Kottayam and Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (HIL), Eloor, as companies responsible for causing pesticide pollution in the State. According to the report, aerial spraying of the persistent toxic chemical, Endosulfan, has affected around 20,000 people spread over 15 villages in Kasargod district. Surface water sources such as tanks, streams, ponds and soil have been continuously poisoned with Endosulfan. Very high residues of pesticide have been reported to be found in drinking water resources and soil, Greenpeace has held the PCK responsible for the aerial spraying of extremely hazardous chemical for more than two decades and violating recommendations and safety measures in the process. The Department of Agriculture was also responsible for failing to intervene despite complaints since 1980. According to the report, the Central Insecticides Board of India has failed to implement an important shared recommendation of two Government appointed committees to stop the use of Endosulfan near water bodies. The Pollution Control Board had failed to take measures to protect water bodies and the public while the National Research Center for Cashew and Kerala Agricultural University have been found to be responsible for advocating the use of Endosulfan in crops in Kerala The final Greenpeace statement demanded that State owned corporations be made liable and accountable to the public like privately owned multinational corporations. In the case of HIL, Eloor, the report said that the company had released effluents contaminated with DDT and metabolites, Endosulfan and derivatives, BHC and other chemicals, including highly toxic organ chlorines into a public stream. According to a Greenpeace investigation conducted in 1999, the effluent stream shared by this factory with Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore (FACT) and Merchem Ltd., contains 111 toxic chemicals of which 39 are organ chlorines. The contaminants were linked to releases from HIL. The primary effluent reaches Periyar, which is the drinking water source for the entire city of Kochi and Aluva. Periyar was also the source of livelihood for thousands of fisher folk; the report said that the contaminated stream had directly affected around 20000 people as it flowed into a river that was used for drinking water. The stream also contaminated wetlands, vegetation and domestic animals in the area. Around 80% of the people in the area were reportedly found suffering from respiratory diseases. The Greenpeace has held HIL and the PCB responsible for causing extensive damage. Hindustan insecticides Ltd has been manufacturing pesticides at its Udyogmandal site (Kochi) since 1956 and, according to the Ministry of chemicals and Fertilizers, continues to produce DDT and Endosulfan. The plant located adjacement to a wetland, apparently discharges its effluent to an open channels. Greenpeace international visited Udyogmandal Industrial Estate on 22nd may 1999 and collected samples of water and sediment from the creek and of soil/sediment from the adjacent wetlands, for analysis of organic containment and heavy metals. The results of this analysis demonstrate that, Sediment from the creek sampled 10m downstream from HIL contained more that 100 organic compounds 39 of which were organ chlorines, including DDT and its metabolites Endosulfan and several isomers of hexacholorocyclohexane (HCH).DDT and HCH were also detectable in the water/effluent sampled downstream from HIL, indicating that production of these insecticides, and their realize to the creek, is continuing. DDT and its metabolites were also detectable in the wetland surrounding the Udyogmandal estate. Although it cannot be ruled out that the presence of these residues might result from direct application of DDT for malaria Vector control, the presence in these samples of other chlorinated chemicals also identified in the creek and/or other uncontrolled discharge from the estate might be leading to more widespread contamination of the wetland. In summary, the results of this investigation strongly support the conclusion that the manufacture of DDT and other pesticides at the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd plant is ongoing. And is resulting the continued release of these and diverse mixture of other organocholorine chemicals to the environment. Determination of the source of containment in the surrounding wetland demands further investigation. The Kuzhikandom Thodu Effluent Creek The Kuzhikondom thodu creek flows through a number of different industrial units on the Udyogmangal estate. According to local source, many plants discharge uncreated or partially treated wastewaters in to this creek. Immensely upstream from the HIL site, this creek flows through the Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore (FACT) site. Immensely downstream from HIL the creek flows through the edge of the MERCHEM site. According to local source, there are no regular discharges to the creek from Mercham plant. Two samples of sediments collected from this effluent creek. One samples (IT9011) was collected at the point at which the creek enters the HIL site, in order to determine the nature of containment inputs from plants situated upstream from HIL. At this location, the air above the creek was choking, making it impossible to breath close to the level of the water. The second samples (IT9010) was collected from the creek at its point of exit from the Merchem site approximately 10 meters downstream from its exit from the HIL site, as it was not possible to gain access to the creek closer to the HIL boundary. These samples consisted of a black and oily sludge, a sample of the water effluent following in the creek (IT9009) was also collected at this point. These two samples were collected in order to give an indication of the type of effluent being discharged in to the creek by HIL. At the time of sampling, however, there was no clear indication that effluent was being discharged. Moreover as a result of the preceding monsoon rains, any effluent discharge to the creek would have been considerably diluted with rainwater flow at the time of sampling. The result of brief investigation give a strong indication that activities at the Hindustan insecticides LTD plant in kochi, Kerala have resulted in substantial contamination of the Kuzhikondoam Thodu creek with DDT, Endosulfan, HCH (BHC) and a wide range of other hazardous organocholorine chemicals to the environment. DDT and other organchlorine were also detectable in the wetland surrounding the plant, although the verification of source of this contraindication would require further research. Greenpeace and River Keeping Programme Periyar is one of the most polluted rivers in Kerala; the water pollution in the lower reaches of the Periyar system has reached alarming levels. Over a month back, dozens of buffaloes had died allegedly after drinking the river water polluted by effluents dumped by the industries in Eloor and Edayar industrial belts. In the past five years, several incidents of large-scale `fish kill' have occurred in the river system. Greenpeace, which has declared Eloor as an environmental hotspot, will launch the `river keeper' project in the fourth week of November2002, Manu Gopalan, toxics campaigner of the agency, told, it would coincide with the arrival in Kochi of the Greenpeace ship ‘Arctic Sunrise’ and the Bhopal bus tour, which are part of the agencies 1000 Bhopal’s global campaign against industrial pollution. Local environmental and river protection NGOs will back up the keeper will ride in a boat from Eloor to where the river meets the sea to look for originating points of industrial effluents as well as other pollutants. They will be photographed for fool proof evidence against the culprits. Since most of the dumping is done at night, the keeper will be provided with a night-vision camera to capture it on film. Water samples collected will be chemically examined daily. Mr. Gopalan said this way the `fish kill' or ‘buffalo kill’ could be predicted and steps taken against it. The Greenpeace would fund the project initially and later on the local NGOs would take care of it[2]. It was modeled on fishermen’s experience in Hudson River, New York. In the 1980s, fishermen living off the Hudson were hit by the water pollution caused by industrial and other effluents. They decided to appoint a river keeper to keep a watch on the polluters. The local Government had equipped the keeper with administrative authority to punish the polluters. The drive was a big success, which helped reduce water pollution and thus protect the fishermen's livelihood. Chaliyar: The Struggle In the villages of Vazhyoor and Vazhakkad in Kerala, the Chaliyar River has been polluted by an industry built on its banks, the Grasim Mavoor Rayons factory. Growing paddy and coconut on its fertile banks, the people who lived there were also happy, naturally. The turnaround began on 30 May 1958 when the state government of Kerala leased out 1000 hectares of the surrounding Nilamboor forests to the Birla group of industries. The idea was to allow the Birla group a source of bamboo for their pulp industry. What began as 0.1 million tones of bamboo requirement, doubled within four years by 1962. It was in 1963 that the Grasim Mavoor Rayons factory, established on the riverbank, went into production. And they, few hundred jobs offered to them, but the poisoning of their beloved river. Untreated factory effluents were polluting the river and seeping into the ground. The river soon became a cursed fount of skin diseases, cancers, even asthma and tuberculosis. The 1960s and early 1970s were a painful time for the people of the region, and ironically, the factory faced closure too for a while in 1974 when the river got so polluted that it lost its very flow. Since the water was being pumped into the factory too, the high level of effluents in it made production difficult. Finally, under the leadership of K A Rahman, President of the Panchayat of Vazhyoor village, the movement bore fruit. Working relentlessly for the Chaliyar, Rahman finally succumbed to cancer, even while dying, that his people should continue the struggle. Anguished by his loss, the villagers went on an indefinite hunger strike from 26 January 1999. Although the company posed the threat that 3000 people would be rendered jobless in the struggle, the villagers knew what they were doing. After all, 9000 fishermen had lost their livelihoods because fish no longer flourished or even survived in the Chaliyar. And what of the health impact, intangible and immeasurable. The factory was closed in August 1999; the rest followed suit. Universities and research institutes joined hands with the people to record and analyze the pollutants and were aghast with the results. Greenpeace, the global activist organization, stepped in demanding that the ‘polluter must pay’. Finally, the court asked the factory to pay 90 days of wages as compensation to the workers. The factory doors were permanently locked on 30 June 2001 and compensation dues were cleared by July 2001. It was a small beginning and one that promised to be little more than a footnote in the history of the environmental movement. Yet, when the Phyllis Cormack set sail from Vancouver in the afternoon of 15 September 1971, something quite new was launched: a force for change. In the years that followed Greenpeace would become a global symbol for people seeking to challenge those who pollute and damage the planet. Its hard to imagine that from such small, even disorganized, beginnings, Greenpeace has become an organization with the ability to shake established power brokers and influence the international environmental agenda. But that is what it has done. Greenpeace cannot claim to have single handedly changed peoples thinking about the world they live in. However, in adopting its special non-violent, direct action approach of 30 years ago it set a pattern for others to follow, not just in the environmental world, but beyond. All over the world voices of protest have been heard: by politicians, governments and businesses. Arguments that would otherwise be dismissed have been listened to and accepted. In countries where the opinions of those in power were dominant and seldom challenged, the right to have an opinion and take action has become accepted, even established. In Lebanon, ravaged by civil was in the 1970s, in the Soviet Union and later Russia, in China and in Turkey to name only a few, Greenpeace has pioneered civil, peaceful protest. It has shown that, when something is important enough, it makes a difference to stand up for principle and challenge the decision makers. Also in countries where democratic rights have long been established, Greenpeace has developed a new style of campaigning and shown there are effective ways to raise a voice, to be heard, to make a difference. Greenpeace activists have been jailed, their campaigns have changed laws, but in the end it is the arguments that underpin Greenpeace’s actions that have won the day. The news media has, of course, recorded these changes as incidents and events. They are already history. Only when reflecting on how things might look today had Greenpeace not existed at all.

Greenpeace Campaign

Greenpeace and their Campaigns Greenpeace Campaign against to the Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste Greenpeace has been campaigning against the disposal of radioactive waste into the oceans since 1978, when it drew the world’s attention to the routine practice of dumping radioactive waste from ships into the sea. Fifteen years later, in 1993, the international community finally moved to ban sea dumping of radioactive waste from ships. However, the campaign to protect the world’s seas and coastal communities from radioactive contamination continues. Every year millions of liters of radioactive waste are being routinely pumped into the sea from nuclear reprocessing plants. Each year, the total amount of radioactivity discharged into the environment from Europe’s giant reprocessing plants at sell a field, in the United Kingdom, and La Hague, in France, exceeds that dumped in many of the world’s 80 known ocean dumpsites. National governments, which finally recognized the danger of dumping radioactive waste into the sea from ships, continue to allow the same waste to be pumped directly into the ocean. This practice poses a health risk to millions of European citizens and a threat to the environment. It must be stopped. Discharges of radioactive waste into the north-east Atlantic are regulated by the OSPAR Commission which consists of: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (a) Radioactive Waste Dumping Greenpeace first encountered a vessel routinely and deliberately dumping radioactive waste at sea, approximately 400 miles South West of Cornwall in July 1978. The area had been specified by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), an offshoot of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as the designated dumpsite of the western European nuclear industry. In the late 1940s, the nuclear industry had chosen the oceans as a convenient place to dispose of its inconvenient wastes. The USA, the then USSR, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and other states used the sea as a radioactive dump, both in the Pacific and the Atlantic, and they were determined to continue. The Oslo Convention was the first regional treaty to regulate the dumping of wastes at sea the countries bordering the North-East Atlantic negotiated it in 1972. The nuclear industry successfully blocked efforts to include radioactive wastes within the auspices of the convention. Consequently, while the Convention regulated the dumping of sewage sludge, dredging spoils, and organ halogen compounds (amongst others) for almost twenty five years, the signatory nations had no right to even comment on the dumping of radioactive wastes. Yet, paradoxically, the OECD/NEA designated dumpsite for radioactive wastes was inside the area covered by the Convention. A few months later in 1972 the negotiations on the London Dumping Convention were concluded. This was the first global treaty to regulate the dumping of wastes at sea. This time the negotiations were less dominated by the Western European nuclear states, and, as a result, the dumping of so-called high-level radioactive wastes was banned. However, the London Convention did not provide adequate protection for the public or the environment because the classification of radioactive wastes as high, medium, or low level had been drawn-up under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) primarily for ‘handling purposes’ (for the protection of nuclear workers). It had little to do with the radio toxicity and the isotopic composition of radioactive waste and their possible impacts on the health of the general population or the protection of the environment. Even today, there is no internationally accepted definition of what constitutes high, medium or low level radioactive waste. Hence, among so-called low-level radioactive wastes, can also be found extremely radiotoxic and persistent isotopes such as plutonium and strontium. Dumping at sea was taking place out of sight and out of mind. Apart from those involved in the narrow circles in which ocean dumping operations were planned and executed, no one had any real knowledge of what was going on out in the open ocean. It was virtually impossible to question operations of which no one had any real knowledge. But, from 1978 onwards Greenpeace campaigned to make sure that ocean dumping became increasingly visible, thus making it more and more difficult for the nuclear industry to portray itself as a responsible industry searching for the best all round solutions for radioactive waste management, its number one problem (b) Dolphin Safe Campaign To stop the changing of current stringent U.S. dolphin protection laws and prevents a huge renewed kill by the tuna industry. The campaign for a dolphin the campaign for a dolphin safe tuna fishery, which Greenpeace Foundation has worked on as a core issue since 1976, now has Emergency status. Dolphins are in grave danger once again, due to a U.S. bailout of dolphin-killing nations, and U.S. legislation passed in 1997, which guts U.S. dolphin-protection law. Dolphins are in grave danger once again, due to a U.S. bailout of dolphin killing nations, and U.S. legislation passed in 1997, which guts U.S. dolphin-protection law and would fraudulently re-define the term ‘dolphin safe’. (c) Japan Dolphin Kill Campaign Greenpeace Foundation originally defined the Japan dolphin-saving issue for the world. Greenpeace are working to end "drive kills" and "harpoon fisheries". And also working to expose and end the growing practice of selling dolphin as "whale meat", which defrauds the Japanese consumer, creates a lucrative black market, and encourages international trade in dead dolphins. (d) Driftnet Campaign Drift netting is the most destructive form of fishing ever devised. 40 mile long nets are laid in a straight line, 50 feet deep. Laid perpendicular to fish and marine animal migrations, they float like invisible unbreakable spider webs, catching everything which cannot swim .Driftnets can strip mine the life out of an area in only a few seasons, leaving a lifeless watery desert. Greenpeace Foundation created the fight to ban them, a fight still in progress to save whales, seals, dolphins, seabirds, turtles, and hundreds of other species. (e) Anti-Whaling Campaign Whales are incredible, intelligent animals whose numbers have been cruelly decimated by industrial whaling. Greenpeace Foundation is dedicated to an end to all whaling. It was a founder of the global anti-whaling movement, and has worked for 22 years in this cause, seeking out, uncovering, and exposing the reality, cruelty and often illegality of whaling. (f) Sea Turtle Campaign To prevent the killing of 150,000 endangered sea turtles each year in unmodified shrimp nets like the dolphins, the sea turtles have been sold out by the U.S. in the name of "free trade". Turtles are caught in scrimping nets around the world, but "turtle excluder devices" can release over 97% of sea turtles unharmed. USA law until 1988 mandated the use of these devices on all shrimp sold in the U.S., saving huge numbers of turtles. But now the U.S. government is bowing to the World Trade Organization, which says such U.S. laws are not allowable. (g) Monk Seal Campaign The most endangered seal species on earth actually an endangered genus is the Monk Seal. All global populations are now considered extinct except for fragile populations based on remote isles in the North Pacific and in caves in the Mediterranean. Although living in remote areas, their populations have been brought to the threshold of extinction by man's activities. We're working to help them survive (h) LFA/Ocean Environment Campaign The seas and their inhabitants are subjected to many stresses from man's activities. One, which is little known but potentially destructive is noise pollution, which can disrupt the lives of or physically harm sea animals. The U.S. Navy, NATO, and other navies are blasting the oceans with enormous sound pressures as part of systems designed to detect enemy submarines. We're trying to end this assault, and recommending alternate approaches (i) The Green Freeze Refrigerator In 1992 Greenpeace Germany commissioned a prototype refrigerator with a hydrocarbon-cooling agent instead of the ozone-depleting CFC substitutes, HFCs and HCFCs. Large chemical companies were highly sceptical, declaring that the development of such technology was many years off. Yet Greenpeace persuaded a struggling East German company, Forum, to start commercial production of refrigerator in 1993. Sales in Germany took off rapidly and within months major manufactures such as Bosch began shifting to the new technology. By 1997, almost 100% of German and approaching 80% of production in Northern and Western Europe was green freeze.

Concerns of Greenpeace Movemnet

Major Concerns of Greenpeace Movement (a) Save the Whales It was not until 1975 that Greenpeace first launched the campaign that was to be its most famous for years, there was widespread concern about the unchecked commercial hunting of whales. Species after species had crashed to near extinction as a result of centuries of rampant over hunting. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), founded in 1946 to prevent further over exploitation, had instead presided over some of the worst excesses in wailing’s history. A near unanimous call for a ten year moratorium on commercial whaling by the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment had been ignored by the whaling nations. Greenpeace decided to take the fight directly to the whalers, basing their plans on footage of the French buzzing the Vega with small inflatable boats or Zodiacs. Greenpeace planned to use Zodiacs to block the whaler’s line of fire. They would place themselves directly between the whales and the whaling harpoons. Greenpeace chose as its target a Soviet fleet hunting sperm whales in the North Pacific. The ship they used was once again the original Greenpeace vessel, the ‘Phyllis Cormack’ At the end of June 1975, the ‘Cormack’ found the Soviet fleet about 80 kilometers west of Eureka, California and Greenpeace’s first whaling protest began. The Greenpeace ship set off in pursuit of a whaling ship chasing three whales. Zodiacs were deployed with crew prepared to place themselves between the whales and the harpoons. As one of the Zodiacs pounded through the waves ahead of the whale catcher, there was a loud crack, and a harpoon flew just over the crew's heads. The harpoon cable lashed a few feet away while the harpoon plunged into the back of a nearby whale. Greenpeace had been unable to save that whale, but the footage of the harpoon being fired so close to the protesters became the defining image of the campaign. The ‘Phyllis Cormack’ returned to California to a hero’s welcome. Over the ensuing years, Greenpeace conducted further actions against whaling fleets from Japan, Norway, Iceland, Spain, Australia, the Soviet Union and Peru, in places as far flung as the Mediterranean and the Antarctic. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission voted to adopt an indefinite moratorium on commercial whaling, and in 1994 declared the Southern Ocean a sanctuary for whales. (b) The Toxic Threat Toxic pollutants are now found around the world. From developed countries where many toxic chemicals are produced through industrial processes to developing countries, where toxic waste is often exported and where multinational corporations have established new factories to avoid pollution control measures in industrialized nations, toxics are ever present. In places as diverse as the depths of the ocean and the ice of Antarctica, ocean currents and winds have transported contaminants far and wide. Many such compounds have been identified as causing a significant number of reproductive and immune suppression health problems in a wide range of species, including humans. Some Cancers and certain cases of infant mortality have also been linked to environmental pollution. Greenpeace believes that attempts at pollution control are nothing more than ‘band aid’ solutions. Greenpeace advocates instead taking serious measures towards pollution prevention. These measures include: bans and phase outs of existing toxic technology and compounds; the development and use of alternative, safe materials and production methods; and the adoption of a more precautionary approach to developing and producing potentially harmful substances. In particular, Greenpeace is working to bring about a complete phase out of the use of chlorine in all industrial processes since alternatives to most chlorine processes already exist. Chlorine based chemicals are some of the most toxic chemicals known and have recently been linked to hormone disruption in human development. Greenpeace continues to campaign for the elimination of other toxic chemicals and to end the global trade in hazardous waste. (c) Nuclear Threat The existence, testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons remain one of the greatest threats to human survival. Greenpeace has continually and forcefully pushed for disarmament measures and for a comprehensive nuclear test ban as a way of eliminating nuclear weapons and ending the global arms race. For 25 years Greenpeace has protested directly against nuclear testing by all five of the declared nuclear powers Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States and has played a major role in the cessation or suspension of testing activities by several of those countries. Beyond this, Greenpeace continues to work for elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide. Nuclear power is the Siamese twin of the nuclear arms race. The reprocessing of waste from nuclear reactors is a critical element of the production of plutonium, which is used for nuclear weapons; the transport and disposal of radioactive waste, poses potentially catastrophic risks to human life and the environment. At the same time, incidences of cancer around nuclear power stations remain worryingly high, as does the risk of further catastrophes such as the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Greenpeace campaigns for a complete phase-out of nuclear power and for responsible management of nuclear waste. (d) Diminishing Bio-diversity Never before in the history of the planet have so many resources been consumed, diverted and wasted for the benefit of just one species. Humans are now appropriating 40 percent of total food resources on land; the remaining 60 percent must be divided up among the millions of other species. After decades of increasing fish catches, we have virtually reached the limit of what can be extracted from our rivers, lakes and seas. Some scientists now believe that, as our activities, consumption and population growth continue to accelerate, half of the Earth's species are likely to disappear within the next 75 years. Greenpeace’s campaigns to protect the Earth's biodiversity focus on: the global fisheries crisis; the destruction of the planet's natural forests; the commercial whaling industry; and the threats to the global environment posed by genetic engineering. Greenpeace also continues to campaign to protect Antarctica, the world's last, and largest, wilderness area. (e) Atmosphere Thereat Life on Earth would be impossible without the ozone layer, an extremely thin shield in the atmosphere, which protects the planet's surface from the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation, or UV-B rays. But chemical compounds such as CFCs and HCFCS, millions of tons of which continue to be pumped into the atmosphere, are destroying this shield. At the same time, the level of so-called "greenhouse gases" entering the atmosphere is also increasing, leading to already-observable increases in the earth's temperature and shifts in global weather patterns. Greenpeace is working for a phase out of greenhouse gases, primarily through changes in the energy and transport sectors, by improving efficiency and opting for renewable energy sources such as solar, Wind and biomass. We have also campaigned for an end to the production of all ozone-depleting chemicals and to bring about solutions to existing ozone depleting refrigeration. In the early 1990s, Greenpeace initiated the development of an ozone-friendly refrigerator. This prototype is now being mass-produced by international manufacturers in many countries. (f) Oceans Oceans are more than just water; they are intricate ecosystems and a vital part of the Earths life support system. Yet they are under threat from many directions including toxic pollution, nuclear waste discharges, and climate change, over fishing and whaling. Over fishing is the biggest single threat to marine biodiversity. Most of the world’s major fisheries are being over exploited or even depleted altogether as industrial scale fishing fleets vacuum the oceans in the rush to fish into cash. Greenpeace campaigns vigorously for conservation measures to protect fish stocks and the livelihoods of the fishing communities who depend upon them. Greenpeace also works to maintain the moratorium on large scale commercial whaling, which was imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986. But Norway and Japan are both aggressively pushing to have this ban overturned and may yet succeed. (g) Ancient Forests Ancient forests are living expressions of billions of years of evolution, and are home to up to 90% of the worlds land based species. But many of these will not survive the ongoing plunder of their habitat. Nor will the worlds many groups of indigenous people for whom the ancient forests of South and Central America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific are home. Massive timber and mineral extraction programmers are destroying their livelihoods, and the preservation of their cultural traditions is in the balance. Greenpeace has identified large scale commercial tree felling as the main but not the only contributor to the destruction of ancient forests. Amazingly, these unique and irreplaceable wild places are being systematically logged to make cheap and disposable products such as toilet paper, milk cartons and phone books. (h) Climate Climate change is the single biggest threat facing the global environment. The world’s ongoing addiction to the burning of oil, coal and gas is causing the climate to change at rates faster than any time in human history. Early in 2001, the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that the global climate was changing and that the burning of oil, coal and gas was the primary cause. Global efforts to confront this issue are being met with opposition. In November 2000, the US, Australia and Canada helped stall the international climate talks taking place in the Hague; and just four months later the newly installed American president, George W Bush, rejected the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, sparking global protest. Greenpeace is campaigning globally to pressure corporate America and George W Bush to work with the rest of the world to save the climate.

Greenpeace Movements

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.