2016 will be a decisive year of no return for the unique biodiversity and the swirling currents of a free-flowing Mekong.

The struggle of local communities, NGOs and riparian governments to prevent the the Don Sahong dam in southern Laos from going ahead appears to have failed..

The dam has just been officially launched by the Laos government. Another dam project at Pak Beng is under preparation making it number 3 in a cascade of 11 dams.

The bulldozers and earth-moving machines of the Chinese dam-builder Sinohydro, have already invaded the pristine serenity of Four Thousand Islands (Sipangdon in Southern Laos), one of the world’s finest wetlands and a paradise for eco-tourism.

Nearby a small group of Irrawaddy Dolphins must surely know their days are numbered. Less than two miles downstream from the dam-site in Laos, Cambodia, where 80% of the population depend on fish as their main source of protein, will be devastated by this dam construction that will block the main artery of fish migration between the two countries.

Scientists have been warning for many years, that the proposed cascade of 11 dams on the lower Mekong spell ecological and nutritional disaster, drastically reducing food security, and threatening the survival of the delta in Vietnam.

The (MRC) Mekong River Commission is mandated to protect the riverine environment, but is powerless to put any brakes on this headlong rush into hydropower.

The ‘sustainable hydropower’ discourse at odds with reality

The Laotian regime that tolerates no dissent at home, has been similarly dismissive of the strong opposition from regional NGOs and riparian governments.

The unilateral launch of the Xayaburi dam in 2012 and now the second dam on the mainstream of the Mekong, is turning the river away from the MRC objective of an international river of cooperation and friendship between Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, into another conflict zone over the sharing of water resources.

Video: ‘The Great Gamble’ internet trailer.

However the Lao government is not under any pressure from any of the bodies that ought to be gtrievously concerned: the World Bank, WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems, a consultancy group); the USAid-sponsored Mekong Partnership for the Environment (MPE); nor other bodies that adhere to the mantra of ‘sustainable hydropower’.

This term identifies a discourse that argues a well-mitigated ‘nice dam’, does not inflict too much damage on the ecosystem. It is a position that offers great comfort and solace to dam developers, investors and banks under fire from environmentalists and scientists.

Within this cluster of concern about water governance and claims to protect the environment of the 4,880 kms long Mekong, there is a grand silence that greets the rapid decline of the region’s longest river and the launch of another dam.

Kim Geheb Mekong region coordinator for the WLE – a research programme for Water, Land and Ecosystems argues the case for ‘sustainable hydropower’ and trade-offs.

“We all enjoy the benefits that come with electric lighting, household appliances”, says Kim Geheb, WLE. “But how do we do this without affecting food production and the health of the environment? How do we ensure that rapid, large-scale dam development is fair and equitable? Answers to these questions are at the heart of what constitutes a ‘good’ dam.”

Disastrous record, and the future looks even worse

The six dams built so far on the Mekong in China, and the two now being built on the Lower Mekong in Laos do not appear to fulfil any obvious criteria for the sustainability principle of what constitutes a ‘good dam.’

The Xayaburi and the Don Sahong dams along the Mekong are neither fair nor equitable, for the overwhelming majority of poor farming communities living downstream from these dams. These two dams both lack credible environmental impact assessments (EIAs), have failed to provide any trans-boundary studies, and have been launched in defiance of wide-ranging protest and riparian objections.

Latest data published by Catch and Culture MRC’s fisheries publication shows that threat posed to the Mekong also has hidden economic costs that result from the damming of the Mekong, which hosts the world’s largest inland fisheries valued at $11 billion.

Estimated fisheries contributed $2.8 billion to Cambodia’s economy in 2015. That’s a big part of Cambodia ‘s $16.71 billion GDP. These are figures for wild-capture fisheries directly under threat from hydro-electric dams.

Studies have shown that the projected loss of fisheries, crops and biodiversity caused by dams will result in a staggeringly high deficit, compared to the modest benefits from increased energy and electricity. The 2015 study calculates the Mekong net loss at minus $2.4 billion ( for 6 dams) and up to -21.8 $billion ( for 11 dams).

Even in economic terms it does not make good sense to build more large dams in a river blessed by such amazing ecological wealth.

The ‘anticipated mitigation’ game – who are they fooling?

Sustainable hydropower and its concern to minimise harm to the environment relies heavily on mitigation technology, and especially such devices as fish passage, fish ladders and even so-called ‘fish-friendly’ turbines.

Christy Owen, party leader of the MPE environmental partnership explained at a recent forum: “This work can help ensure that new development projects meet the needs of business, while minimizing harm to local communities and the environment.”

Her statement assumes that no matter the high stakes, and the calamitous effects of ‘bad dams’, dams are automatically destined to go ahead after a measure of mitigation and refinement

Fish mitigation technology has mostly been applied and tested in northern climes – the rivers of North America, and parts of northern Europe. Importing this technology to the Mekong and other tropical rivers teeming with a vastly greater variety of fish species than in the rivers of colder countries, is seen by most fisheries experts as highly risky at best.

Hydropower consultant working with WWF Dr Jian-Hua Meng views the mitigation carried out by Swiss consultants on the Xayaburi dam as a huge gamble with the river’s natural resources. “They are playing roulette with the livelihoods of over 60 million people. It would not be acceptable in Europe, so why is it different in Asia?”

The mitigation team employed by Mega-First, the Malaysia the developer of the Don Sahong dam, has been trying to construct a fish diversion plan to widen and deepen two much smaller channels than the Sahong channel. However the MRC panel of experts found no evidence that this engineering project would work.

Mekong specialist Dr Philip Hirsch, based at University of Sydney, commented: “After 30 years of studying dam impacts, I have yet to come across one, [dam] whose impacts have been well-mitigated. Let’s start with dams that are already there, before using ‘anticipated mitigation’ as a pretext for going ahead with new projects.”

The evidence is clear: there is nothing sustainable about large dams

A widely cited Oxford University study, published in the journal Energy Policy in March 2014, reviewed data from 245 large dams in 65 different countries, and concluded that large dams in general are not sustainable.

As the authors wrote in a statement attached to the study: “The evidence is conclusive: Large dams in a vast majority of cases are not economically viable. Instead of obtaining hoped-for riches, emerging economies risk drowning their fragile economies in debt owing to ill-advised construction of large dams.”

The global governance debate has clearly shifted business towards paying more attention to environmental protection issues, but not enough to get Thai, Malaysian and Chinese companies to rethink their on-going strategy for damming the Mekong regardless of the consequences.

From his decades of research in the Mekong region Dr Philip Hirsch concludes: “The impacts of some dams are just too great to mitigate.” The Oxford research makes it crystal clear that large dams should not go ahead, he adds.

As Thai environmentalists say: those who offer only unproven mitigation to the 60 million people who depend on a healthy free-flowing Mekong for their food security and livelihood, are selling them short, and abetting a human and ecological catastrophe.

Tom Fawthrop is a freelance journalist working in Southeast Asia. 

Petition: ‘Save the Mekong River- 60 Million people & 78 dolphins!‘ – hosted by Avaaz.

More information: Save the Mekong campaign.

Also on The Ecologist:

• ‘Death by strangulation? Hydropower threatens to kill the mighty Mekong‘ by Tom Fawthrop.
• ‘The Mekong must run free!‘ by Tom Fawthrop.
• ‘Cambodia: indigenous protests repel dam builders – so far‘ by Rod Harbinson.
• ‘Xayaburi dam divides Laos and stirs tension over Mekong hydropower‘ by Brendan Brady.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

2016 will be a decisive year of no return for the unique biodiversity and the swirling currents of a free-flowing Mekong.

The struggle of local communities, NGOs and riparian governments to prevent the the Don Sahong dam in southern Laos from going ahead appears to have failed..

The dam has just been officially launched by the Laos government. Another dam project at Pak Beng is under preparation making it number 3 in a cascade of 11 dams.

The bulldozers and earth-moving machines of the Chinese dam-builder Sinohydro, have already invaded the pristine serenity of Four Thousand Islands (Sipangdon in Southern Laos), one of the world’s finest wetlands and a paradise for eco-tourism.

Nearby a small group of Irrawaddy Dolphins must surely know their days are numbered. Less than two miles downstream from the dam-site in Laos, Cambodia, where 80% of the population depend on fish as their main source of protein, will be devastated by this dam construction that will block the main artery of fish migration between the two countries.

Scientists have been warning for many years, that the proposed cascade of 11 dams on the lower Mekong spell ecological and nutritional disaster, drastically reducing food security, and threatening the survival of the delta in Vietnam.

The (MRC) Mekong River Commission is mandated to protect the riverine environment, but is powerless to put any brakes on this headlong rush into hydropower.

The ‘sustainable hydropower’ discourse at odds with reality

The Laotian regime that tolerates no dissent at home, has been similarly dismissive of the strong opposition from regional NGOs and riparian governments.

The unilateral launch of the Xayaburi dam in 2012 and now the second dam on the mainstream of the Mekong, is turning the river away from the MRC objective of an international river of cooperation and friendship between Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, into another conflict zone over the sharing of water resources.

Video: ‘The Great Gamble’ internet trailer.

However the Lao government is not under any pressure from any of the bodies that ought to be gtrievously concerned: the World Bank, WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems, a consultancy group); the USAid-sponsored Mekong Partnership for the Environment (MPE); nor other bodies that adhere to the mantra of ‘sustainable hydropower’.

This term identifies a discourse that argues a well-mitigated ‘nice dam’, does not inflict too much damage on the ecosystem. It is a position that offers great comfort and solace to dam developers, investors and banks under fire from environmentalists and scientists.

Within this cluster of concern about water governance and claims to protect the environment of the 4,880 kms long Mekong, there is a grand silence that greets the rapid decline of the region’s longest river and the launch of another dam.

Kim Geheb Mekong region coordinator for the WLE – a research programme for Water, Land and Ecosystems argues the case for ‘sustainable hydropower’ and trade-offs.

“We all enjoy the benefits that come with electric lighting, household appliances”, says Kim Geheb, WLE. “But how do we do this without affecting food production and the health of the environment? How do we ensure that rapid, large-scale dam development is fair and equitable? Answers to these questions are at the heart of what constitutes a ‘good’ dam.”

Disastrous record, and the future looks even worse

The six dams built so far on the Mekong in China, and the two now being built on the Lower Mekong in Laos do not appear to fulfil any obvious criteria for the sustainability principle of what constitutes a ‘good dam.’

The Xayaburi and the Don Sahong dams along the Mekong are neither fair nor equitable, for the overwhelming majority of poor farming communities living downstream from these dams. These two dams both lack credible environmental impact assessments (EIAs), have failed to provide any trans-boundary studies, and have been launched in defiance of wide-ranging protest and riparian objections.

Latest data published by Catch and Culture MRC’s fisheries publication shows that threat posed to the Mekong also has hidden economic costs that result from the damming of the Mekong, which hosts the world’s largest inland fisheries valued at $11 billion.

Estimated fisheries contributed $2.8 billion to Cambodia’s economy in 2015. That’s a big part of Cambodia ‘s $16.71 billion GDP. These are figures for wild-capture fisheries directly under threat from hydro-electric dams.

Studies have shown that the projected loss of fisheries, crops and biodiversity caused by dams will result in a staggeringly high deficit, compared to the modest benefits from increased energy and electricity. The 2015 study calculates the Mekong net loss at minus $2.4 billion ( for 6 dams) and up to -21.8 $billion ( for 11 dams).

Even in economic terms it does not make good sense to build more large dams in a river blessed by such amazing ecological wealth.

The ‘anticipated mitigation’ game – who are they fooling?

Sustainable hydropower and its concern to minimise harm to the environment relies heavily on mitigation technology, and especially such devices as fish passage, fish ladders and even so-called ‘fish-friendly’ turbines.

Christy Owen, party leader of the MPE environmental partnership explained at a recent forum: “This work can help ensure that new development projects meet the needs of business, while minimizing harm to local communities and the environment.”

Her statement assumes that no matter the high stakes, and the calamitous effects of ‘bad dams’, dams are automatically destined to go ahead after a measure of mitigation and refinement

Fish mitigation technology has mostly been applied and tested in northern climes – the rivers of North America, and parts of northern Europe. Importing this technology to the Mekong and other tropical rivers teeming with a vastly greater variety of fish species than in the rivers of colder countries, is seen by most fisheries experts as highly risky at best.

Hydropower consultant working with WWF Dr Jian-Hua Meng views the mitigation carried out by Swiss consultants on the Xayaburi dam as a huge gamble with the river’s natural resources. “They are playing roulette with the livelihoods of over 60 million people. It would not be acceptable in Europe, so why is it different in Asia?”

The mitigation team employed by Mega-First, the Malaysia the developer of the Don Sahong dam, has been trying to construct a fish diversion plan to widen and deepen two much smaller channels than the Sahong channel. However the MRC panel of experts found no evidence that this engineering project would work.

Mekong specialist Dr Philip Hirsch, based at University of Sydney, commented: “After 30 years of studying dam impacts, I have yet to come across one, [dam] whose impacts have been well-mitigated. Let’s start with dams that are already there, before using ‘anticipated mitigation’ as a pretext for going ahead with new projects.”

The evidence is clear: there is nothing sustainable about large dams

A widely cited Oxford University study, published in the journal Energy Policy in March 2014, reviewed data from 245 large dams in 65 different countries, and concluded that large dams in general are not sustainable.

As the authors wrote in a statement attached to the study: “The evidence is conclusive: Large dams in a vast majority of cases are not economically viable. Instead of obtaining hoped-for riches, emerging economies risk drowning their fragile economies in debt owing to ill-advised construction of large dams.”

The global governance debate has clearly shifted business towards paying more attention to environmental protection issues, but not enough to get Thai, Malaysian and Chinese companies to rethink their on-going strategy for damming the Mekong regardless of the consequences.

From his decades of research in the Mekong region Dr Philip Hirsch concludes: “The impacts of some dams are just too great to mitigate.” The Oxford research makes it crystal clear that large dams should not go ahead, he adds.

As Thai environmentalists say: those who offer only unproven mitigation to the 60 million people who depend on a healthy free-flowing Mekong for their food security and livelihood, are selling them short, and abetting a human and ecological catastrophe.

Tom Fawthrop is a freelance journalist working in Southeast Asia. 

Petition: ‘Save the Mekong River- 60 Million people & 78 dolphins!‘ – hosted by Avaaz.

More information: Save the Mekong campaign.

Also on The Ecologist:

• ‘Death by strangulation? Hydropower threatens to kill the mighty Mekong‘ by Tom Fawthrop.
• ‘The Mekong must run free!‘ by Tom Fawthrop.
• ‘Cambodia: indigenous protests repel dam builders – so far‘ by Rod Harbinson.
• ‘Xayaburi dam divides Laos and stirs tension over Mekong hydropower‘ by Brendan Brady.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

You’d think they’d have got the message by now, but alas no.

As we enter the fourth year since the launch of the controversial New Alliance project, it continues in the face of scathing criticism and condemnation from civil society.

In theory, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, to give it its full title, is about helping countries in Africa to improve food security, reduce malnutrition and lift people out of poverty.

But in practice, it has long been clear that the New Alliance is merely a way to support multinational agribusiness companies like Monsanto continue their conquest of African markets.

Despite the criticism, the project continues to be backed by the UK’s Department for International Development with public aid money. As the initiative launches its third annual progress report serious questions need to be raised around how a publicly funded aid project can continue to avoid proper accountability.

The focus of this latest progress report remains firmly on measuring the quantity of corporate investments made, and reviewing how many of the pro-business policy reforms have been implemented, across the ten participating African countries. This is done without any analysis of how these investment or policy changes will help to improve food security and nutrition or reduce poverty – which are, after all, the stated aims of the project.

It’s all about business, for business

The progress report simply talks to business, adopting quantifiable indicators shrouded in the language of the private sector.

This prioritisation of corporate needs over and above the stated aims of the project is explicitly exposed by the fact that ‘companies’ is mentioned 113 times and ‘people’ only 4 times, even ‘farmers’ only has 30 mentions. ‘Investment’ is mentioned 101 times, whereas ‘hunger’ has only 5 references.

The failure of the report to give any serious consideration to the social and human impacts of the scheme means it presents a dishonest picture of the New Alliance’s impact. The report comes just weeks after the publication of an entirely separate review of the New Alliance authored by Olivier De Schutter, the former special rapporteur to the UN on food security.

De Schutter’s report – which marks the start of an ongoing EU enquiry in to the New Alliance – is starkly contrasted to the New Alliance’s own review. This scathing review is crystal clear in its conclusion that the New Alliance is hugely inadequate in a number of areas.

Findings included that reforms being pushed in areas such as land titling and seed law are seriously damaging to small-scale farmers. There are also grave risks that women’s rights could be negatively affected by the New Alliance. The project’s failure to integrate nutrition into agriculture means that there is a risk that it will also have long-term negative health impacts.

Crucially, De Schutter also finds that the New Alliance insufficiently conforms to international standards for responsible investment, a particularly worrying finding for a project that is committed to securing some $7.8 billion of investment from 180 private companies.

Poverty reduction? Or corporate welfare?

The misleading way that the New Alliance records its ‘successes’ shows that it considers corporate welfare to be more important to development than real poverty reduction.

The minimal attention the review does pay to the human impacts appears to be limited to measuring the numbers of farmers ‘reached’ – which isn’t explained beyond stating that farmers have primarily been reached by ‘input products and services’ or ‘financial or data services’.

What precisely these things mean is unclear but could simply mean farmers are buying new products or have been given access to finance in order to buy new inputs. All of which is really about increasing business for companies rather than addressing the root causes of food insecurity, under-nutrition and poverty.

If that wasn’t proof enough that the New Alliance is primarily about the promotion of corporate interests in Africa, the report brazenly includes the results of a survey asking businesses to identify what they have found to be the barriers they face in working and investing across the 10 African countries.

It is these business needs that have seemingly formed the basis of the report’s recommendations – almost all of which are either directly or indirectly focused on ensuring an enabling environment for business.

No such survey was carried out with the small-scale farmers who grow food about their barriers to increasing yields or their opinions on agricultural policy, nor was there any such attention given to the people and communities who are impacted by the investments and policy changes, or the intended beneficiaries.

Only one favourable assessment of the New Alliance – its own

What makes the impact of the New Alliance even harder to understand via this progress report is that this latest review has been published as a joint assessment alongside GROW Africa, a related but separate scheme set up in 2011 to galvanise private investment and financing into Africa’s agriculture.

This joint report blurs what results can be attributed to each project, which surely makes it difficult for donor countries such as the UK (who support the project with £600 million in UK aid money) to properly assess where its money has gone, and to what effect.

Despite these inadequacies with the progress report, this is what will be used by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) to continue its justification for supporting the project. Global Justice Now has been calling on DFID to withdraw its support from the New Alliance for a number of years.

What is particularly concerning is that De Schutter’s report is far from the first critical review of the New Alliance. A scheme that is only three years old has attracted copious amounts of critiques including reports that expose how the New Alliance is actually detrimental to food security in Africa, reports documenting land grabs happening in the name of the New Alliance and numerous stories of angry communities including in Tanzania and Nigeria who are feeling the negative impacts of corporate investments.

It appears that every other organisation and group that has looked in to the New Alliance comes away clear in their criticism of the scheme.

Which makes it increasingly suspicious that the only assessment of the New Alliance that comes out favourably is its own review.

Aisha Dodwell is campaigns and policy officer at Global Justice Now, working across the food, energy and trade campaigns. Follow Aisha on Twitter @aishadod.

This article was originally published by Global Justice Now.

Greenpeace has surprised its millions of supporters worldwide by appointing not just its first woman executive director, but two women who will share the role.

The decision shows just how hard it has been for the international environmental campaign group to replace Kumi Naidoo, its leader until 31st December.

Naidoo, a charismatic and effective veteran of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, last March announced in retirement by the end of 2015 “at the latest”.

However the new directors, Jennifer Morgan and Bunny McDiarmid, will only take over on 4th April 2016 with the previous deputy director Mads Christiansen, formerly of Greenpeace Nordic, serving in the interim.

According to Board Chair Ana Toni, “We knew that both of these proven leaders could do the job on their own. But, when we looked at their amazingly complementary skills and experience, the blend of knowledge they would bring, and the challenges we know this job presents to any single individual, we looked back over the literature of co-leadership and were compelled by one of its core advantages: resilience.

“And so, we decided to seize the amazing opportunity of the two of them co-leading the organisation. It’s a move consistent with our general shift away from being a highly centralized, hierarchical organisation, to one that is leaderful: one in which everyone is empowered and where responsibilities are shared.”

Bunny McDiarmid: Rainbow Warrior crew member from New Zealand

Bunny is a 30-year veteran of the organisation as an activist, ship’s crew member, and most recently the executive director of Greenpeace New Zealand which, under her leadership, became a powerhouse of innovation in the Greenpeace world.

She was a deckhand aboard the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, when Greenpeace moved the people of Rongelap from their island home that had been contaminated by radiation from decades of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Since then Bunny has walked the decks of nearly every Greenpeace ship.

“I saw a confluence of connection in the violence we do to Earth and the violence we do to people, and I was witness to how little it mattered to those who were doing it. The story of Rongelap was a tiny metaphor for a far bigger story that drew me in, and bonded me to the ideas that Greenpeace stands for.”

Born in New Zealand, Bunny says she tried lots of ‘-isms’ while she was at Canterbury University to explain the world she was growing up in. She wasn’t won over by anything – until she found herself, at 21 years old, on a wooden boat, replacing rotting pieces of timber below the waterline in preparation for going to sea with a community of 12 people.

“I had no carpentry or sailing experience, and this was a job that could mean sink or swim if I got it wrong. But people trusted me, believed I could do it, and I learned then and there that you can be more than what a piece of paper says you can be.”

Jennifer Morgan, organisational leader, US-born, German resident

Jennifer has walked the corridors of power. As Global Director of the Climate Program at the World Resources Institute she’s dealt with heads of state and CEOs. She’s been a leader of large teams at major organisations, a climate activist, and a constant innovator. Her other ports of call have included the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Climate Action Network, and E3G.

Jennifer Morgan was born in the US, lives in Germany, and got her masters degree in International Affairs at American University. She remembers clearly the day she found a slim book, Fighting for Hope, by Petra Kelly, founder of the German Green Party, in the student lounge.

“I didn’t move for the next several hours. I read the entire thing in one sitting. Kelly linked systemic problems and the need for new ways of thinking, she talked about the role of violence in society and the importance of reconnecting with nature as if someone had written down everything in my heart and mind that I hadn’t been able to express. I found her incredibly courageous, and she became a role model for me in a way that changed my life.”

“I know this sounds corny, but coming to Greenpeace feels like coming home. I’ve been out in the world, I’ve walked among government leaders and the halls of the corporate world. Greenpeace is much closer to my roots, and has this incredible advantage in its independence: the policy of refusing government or corporate donations means there’s no need pull punches for fear of offending anyone.”

Jennifer has been described as an ‘anti-bureaucrat’, building nimble teams within large structures. “It’s about the right people, matched to the right goal, rather than structures or organograms. And it’s about building a vision together, step by step, rather than having it imposed.”

Meeting for the first time during the recruitment

Ana introduced the two through a series of meetings beginning in October, where Jennifer and Bunny have gotten to know each other and found their visions, their ideas about leadership, and their people-centered styles compatible: their ease with one another is obvious.

“We’re both trust-builders. We both encourage respectful challenge cultures. We both believe you create highly effective teams by harnessing diversity of thought and approach”, said Bunny.

“What we need is to make the creative space and find the confidence to figure out how we combine and aggregate the power of everyone who believes in ‘Greenpeace the idea’ – not ‘Greenpeace the organisation’. Not the bricks and mortar, but the idea.

“How do we combine our rebellious creativity with the rebellious creativity of the millions of people and organisations around the world who believe a better world is possible. How do we empower and accelerate that with humility and urgency?”

“This whole approach is new and I’d be worried if we weren’t both excited and a little scared by this”, Bunny continues. “But in a sense, shared leadership isn’t just about me and Jennifer splitting the job of International Executive Director between us: it’s about sharing leadership among Greenpeace’s worldwide offices, it’s about sharing leadership with our supporters.

“This arrangement is an evolutionary reflection of Greenpeace International’s entire approach: it’s all about sharing – globally – the power, the responsibility, and the challenge to rise, to become the best we all can be in a time of environmental threat and existential opportunity.”

“If we bring out the best in each other, we get a better organisation. If we can bring out the best in humanity, we get a better world.”

Speaking truth to power

Jennifer notes that women are particularly good at sharing power. “We’re good at bridging diversity. We’re good at focusing on outcomes and a cause. And while there are plenty of men who could share the helm of Greenpeace, there is something that Bunny and I can do through our leadership to empower young women to dream about their futures – that they can do anything and rise to anything, be it the head of Greenpeace or a head of state.”

She adds that Greenpeace must keep on finding its ‘new edge’ that will inspire and engage new generations of environmental campaigners. “People are hungry for a new story that they can believe in, one with a better take on the nature of humanity, the fate of our future, and our connection to the earth and the air and the oceans.

“Greenpeace is so well positioned to deliver that – you’re genuinely working across global divisions of North and South, your commitment to civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action gives you unique credibility in speaking truth to power that few institutions enjoy.”

“Neither of us knows what that new edge looks like yet. And it may look different in different places. But if there’s a single mission that will mark our leadership, it’s finding that, it’s trying new things and working together through the entire organisation to find it.”

Principal source: Greenpeace.