|
Introduction:
Are there leverage points that peacemakers and activists can use to
influence powerful multinationals? Kristin Clay of the World Wildlife Fund describes
a successful advocacy campaign designed to encourage an Indonesian paper mill to
practice insustainable forestry.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Successful Advocacy Campaigns
Kristin Clay
Senior Program Officer in the East Asia Program, World Wildlife Fund
| |
Q: Kristin Clay, who do you work for and what do you do?
A: I work for the World Wildlife Fund, and I am a senior program officer in
our East Asia Program.
Q: Tell me about the example about an Indonesian paper mill that was
devastating the local resources and how that was leveraged into a different
situation.
A: It is in a place called Tesso Nilo, Indonesia and there is a very large
Asian pulp and paper company that has been decimating the forest there, in which
there is a lot of corruption. For many years, not just us, but a variety of
groups have been trying to put a stop to that with absolutely no impact because
the company is so powerful that the government doesn't really have influence. We
hadn't made any headway with traditional methods and then recently WWF Indonesia
actually started working with our office in Japan. Our Japan office started
talking to Japanese companies who are the buyers of a lot of the wood that this
Asian pulp and paper company, or APP, sells. There is a sense of environmental
conservation in Japan so they were able to influence those Japanese companies
will not buy the wood from APP unless APP improves their practices. Not that
they sit down entirely, but for example they are more careful about not
accepting illegal logs. Also, the APP has agreed to set aside some areas that
are really important both for the forest and for the Asian elephant, to set
those aside and not touch them at all. Those Japanese companies had the market
leverage to tell APP, "We won't work with you unless you change."
That
was the first time that APP actually made a move, and now they have literally
signed an agreement with World Wild Life Fund Indonesia saying things like,
"We are going to check the source of our wood, and be careful where we get
it. We are going to set aside 58,000 hectors of land for protection." There
is a whole series of principles in the agreement. This is continuing even
outward. The US office of WWF is talking to people like ??? and trying to get
them to sign similar agreements so we can basically have this whole kind of
chain link putting together people agreeing that they are going to only get
their products through sources that are sustainable. This was a new approach for
us, looking at the global scale to protect a site instead of just looking at the
site scale, and it has proven much more effective.
Q: Is their a relationship between those sorts of actions and
activist actions to provide more sustainable logging, and things like that? Is
there a link between that and peace?
A: There is partly. It is an example that in the peace field as well, we need
to find those leverage points that aren't necessarily within our normal view. I
was using this example for that, but part of our agreement with APP is to
actually resolve some conflicts with communities, because there are also
communities that live in this forest and they have issues about their forest
being cut down, which is their source of livelihoods, and the government is not
protecting them. The APP has agreed that they will also work on some of those
conflicts.
Q: Thanks.
|