|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ENVIRONMENT:
Greenpeace's
Glory Days 'Are Not Over'
María Amparo Lasso*
MEXICO CITY, (Tierramérica)
- When German-born Gerd Leipold
took over as executive director
of the international
environmental watchdog
Greenpeace in 2001, there were
some raised eyebrows.
Was he the right kind of person
to head the world's best known
environmental organisation?
Greenpeace was in dire need of
fresh funds, new markets and a
renewed image. The doubts were
understandable. Leipold replaced
Thilo Bode, an economist with
experience in banking and
industry who had gone so far as
proposing to license the
Greenpeace name.
Leipold, 54, is more an activist
than an administrator. His most
spectacular move was to fly over
the Berlin Wall in a balloon in
the middle of the Cold War to
protest nuclear proliferation.
His leadership of Greenpeace has
promised a return to the
legendary beginnings of the
organisation in the 1970s. Who
doesn't feel at least a bit
inspired when they see the
group's inflatable watercraft
block the way of large whaling
ships or nuclear vessels?
However, some critics consider
radical activism the Aquilles
heel of the organisation and the
reason behind the decline in
membership, which in
Greenpeace's glory days reached
nearly five million people.
Leipold spoke with Tierramérica
in an exclusive dialogue via
telephone from Greece.
Q: When you assumed the
executive director's post, some
critics thought you would place
higher priority on protest
actions than on managing the
organisation. Has that been the
case?
A: I think we have the right
balance. Peaceful direct action
is and will be at the core of
Greenpeace, and we are very
proud of it. But what is very
key for me is that we do not see
such actions only from
Greenpeace activists, but from
ordinary people. That is why we
have put a lot of emphasis on
cyber (Internet) activism. The
environment is not a question of
specialists; it is an issue for
everybody.
Q: Greenpeace is reviewing its
current policies. Do you think
the public is tired of
Greenpeace's acts of protest?
A: The reactions differ from
country to country and continent
to continent. In Europe, for
example, environmental problems
are less visible than they used
to be. When you looked at rivers
in Europe 30 years ago you could
see the pollution, then
obviously a direct action was
very visible. But in Latin
America and Asia, where
Greenpeace hasn't been around
for very long, our actions are
still very new, very successful.
Q: Are those two regions the
priority in your expansion
strategy?
A: Absolutely, and it's not only
because environmental problems
in Latin America and Asia are so
prominent, but because economic
development is becoming much
stronger in those regions. If we
want to have an impact, that is
where we have to work.
Q: Why has the United States
been such a difficult market for
Greenpeace?
A: We indeed have substantially
fewer supporters in the United
States. One of the reasons is
that in 1991 we spoke out
against the first Gulf War and
that cost us a lot of sympathy
in the U.S. But we do the
campaigns we believe in, even if
that causes a (negative)
reaction from the public.
Q: In 1991 Greenpeace membership
reached its highest point with
4.8 million people. Today there
are 2.8 million members. What
happened?
A: I don't have the 1991 numbers
at hand; however I must say
statistics at that time were not
as good and strict as they are
now. Back then, we counted as
supporters people who gave us
just a one-time donation. Now we
only count as members those who
give us continued support. We
have grown for at least the last
five years. We are especially
proud of the growth of
supporters we have in Latin
America and Asia (69,074 and
41,522 members, respectively).
Q: Are Greenpeace's glory days
over?
A: No, certainly not. And if I
look at the state of the planet,
we definitely are needed, and
required to be a strong
organisation.
Q: What is Greenpeace's current
budget?
A: We haven't conclude our
audit, but our gross income in
2004 might be about 165 million
euros (201.3 million dollars),
which is lower than 2003, but
you have to consider the
fluctuations of currencies.
Q: Your predecessor Thilo Bode
thought it was urgent to develop
new fundraising methods, that
the door-to-door approach was
insufficient. Have you promoted
new strategies?
A: We have diversified. Internet
fundraising plays a bigger role,
other means through
advertisement are being tested,
but our major tool is still
door-to-door fundraising, what
we call ''direct dialogue.''
Q: Another of Bode's proposals
was to license the Greenpeace
name.
A: We are not Starbucks (a
U.S.-based chain of coffee
shops). We do not think we can
easily license the name the same
way as they do. Our good name is
valued because it is not
connected to money, because of
our independence, because we are
true to our values. If we tried
to turn our name into a monetary
asset, we surely would undermine
it.
Q: For many years Greenpeace has
faced criticism for its
extremism and superficiality,
for the lack of scientific bases
in its campaigns. How do you
respond to those criticisms?
A: For the last 15 years we've
had a science unit that operates
at the University of Exeter
(Britain), which produces
original research and performs
reviews of research. The
(scientific) contributions that
we deliver to the United Nations
are highly appreciated.
Recently, for example, a
prominent Japanese professor
pointed out how valuable
Greenpeace's information on
nuclear proliferation was in her
work. And I can give lots of
other examples.
(* María Amparo Lasso is
Tierramérica's editorial
director. Originally published
Jun. 4 by Latin American
newspapers that are part of the
Tierramérica network.
Tierramérica is a specialised
news service produced by IPS
with the backing of the United
Nations Development Programme
and the United Nations
Environment Programme.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
