RG '05: success stories

Oil companies looking to tap oil reserves and build permanent oil infrastructure in the remote reaches of the Andean Amazon region of South America threatening some of the most pristine and biodiverse rainforests on the planet with degradation, cultural disruption and widespread pollution. These companies are fueled by U.S. consumption and backed by public financial institutions.

What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)

In Colobmia, Peru, and Ecuador, we have partnered with indigenous communities -- the U'wa and the Achuar among others -- who are opposed to oil drilling and hold legal title to millions of acres and forced the companies to leave or to suspend the project. Our strategies have included 1) strengthening the local communities' capacity to defend their rights through community organizing, media, and legal strategies and 2) creating financial leverage -- public pension funds, banks, investors -- to weigh in on the debate using media campaign, delegations of indigenous leaders to the U.S. and delegations of investors to the Amazon.

We have been successful in removing immediate threats; the long-term challenge we face is that often these governments still want to exploit the resources, so often the battles resurface. Countries such as Ecuador are severely burdened by external debt and forced to liquidate their natural resources or go bust. Obviously high energy prices and demand by the U.S. and China help fuel the oil boom. In the face of unaccountable and corrupt governments, we need allies / constituencies with economic power to advocate for specific solutions. We need to broaden acceptance of the right to free and prior informed consent, and advocate for solutions such as debt relief, valuation of ecosystem functions, etc).

For the most part, large well-known oil companies have left the Amazon due to local resistance and political and social risks. Several oil companies that have been targeted by our campaigns have been unable to enter the territories of indigenous communities for nearly a decade. For example Occidental Petroleum left the U'wa indigenous territory; Burlington left the territories of the Achuar people in Peru. These companies have demonstrated some improvements in corporate policies and practices. Some have adopted human rights policies. These are positive results; however, these companies continue to acquire concessions in the midst of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. Their view is if the government would not auction it, we would not acquire it. In terms of anticipated achievements there is a need to hold these companies’ feet to the fire for policy implementation while working to find solutions and economic incentives on the ground that address the bigger economic forces that force governments to sell off their forests to extractive industries. One alarming trend is that many state owned oil companies develop the concessions after foreign companies are forced out. Also, Chinese and Indian oil companies are now more often the companies buying oil blocks in the Amazon. These companies offer global activists a lot less leverage and means of enforcing accountability. For our victories to be more lasting, we seek to: 1) Force key players in the oil companies to withdraw from the territories of indigenous peoples who are opposed to oil drilling 2) Advance the collective rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent 3) The Governments do not offer blocks to new companies 4) A compelling case is made to these governments for protecting their primary forests and watersheds and for establishing "no go zones." This includes economic and financial incentives (e.g., debt relief, economic development, etc.) 5) Millions of acres of the Amazon is protected from all future resource extraction and indigenous communities win title to their lands setting an important global precedent.

People’s food sovereignty. Develop a universal rights perspective regarding food and farmers/fisher folk; a viable alternative to neo-liberal policies. Transform food sovereignty into a citizen right to culturally appropriate food, including the right to produce food. Transform the debate from food security (market determined) to food sovereignty (a citizen’s right to access to resources)

What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)

1) Define more the concrete political significance of food sovereignty 2) Food and farmers/peasants/fisher folk rights are considered; 3) A rights context and not as a trade issue. Therefore WTO conference at Hong Kong is crucial and our objective is to derail it.

Via Campesina has succeeded in articulating an international, bottom/top movement, representing hundreds of millions of farmers with a common proposal and struggle which generates political change and hope.

Jobs with Justice
Submitted by: Analia Penchaszadeh

A few years ago we addressed rising xenophobia due to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the perception that Mexican workers were "taking" US jobs at the same time that there we increases in Latino immigration. We are now looking at what was successful then and applying it to relationship-building with workers in India.

What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)

We organized cross-border tours of workers and allies to visit the factories that had closed in Kentucky (for example) and re-opened in Sonora, Mexico. US workers were able to witness that their job no longer existed - wages were much lower, workplace safety standards no longer existed, and environmental controls were gone - and they were able to share information with the Mexican workers about strategies for worker organizing and for winning workplace safety. The cultural exchange also helped the US workers return to Kentucky committed to supporting Latino poultry workers in Kentucky who were facing harassment and workplace safety concerns. By connecting those most affected by globalization, we were able to break down barriers and identify corporate practices as the culprits rather than people in other countries.

The challenge with grassroots organizing is always how to bring these kinds of experiences to scale - first by engaging the people who participate in the activities to share their learning with their neighbors and co-workers and then to get the experience from Kentucky to the rest of the country. One of the ways to do this - but it is still a challenge - is through solid documentation. Another challenge is infrastructure and resources to do this work in enough places and big enough that we can get to scale.

1. Concrete victories in Mexico and Kentucky where workers are organizing to improve working conditions. It is critical to address pressing needs at the same time that we look at big picture issues of trade and corporate accountability.

2. Increased understanding among US workers that the problem lies with trade and corporate accountability rather than with workers in other countries. By linking issues of migration and immigrant rights, we are able to build greater understanding across communities.

3. In the past few years, we have helped build Grassroots Global Justice, a network that connects local organizations in the US that incorporate a global perspective into local organizing. Through this network, we are able to lift the voices of those most affected by globalization in the US - workers, people of color, and low-income communities - as leaders in the movement for global justice. Also, we are able to learn from each organization's strategies for addressing the impacts of globalization thereby increasing the scale of all of our work.

United Students Against Sweatshops
Submitted by: Allie Robbins

Issue(s) you addressed?

We forced multi-national corporations to disclose the names and locations of the factories in which they produce collegiate apparel.

What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)

We targeted college and university administrators and had students conduct simultaneous direct actions across the country in order to force them to mandate that brands disclose factory information.

We face a lot of challenges with respect to worker solidarity. Companies do not give us accurate disclosure information, they may give us information for a factory they have not produced in for a the past 3 years, or where they are only 1% of the production in a facility. That gives us almost no leverage over the factory if worker rights are being violated and we ask the company to step in. Additionally, companies have been cutting and running from factories at the onset of worker organizing.

We have achieved a number of victories with respect to factory solidarity - workers in factories around the world have organized unions. However, a number of these factories are being shut down. As such, we have launched a new campaign demanding that brands producing collegiate apparel produce a significant percentage of it in factories where workers are able to earn a living wage and have democratic representation. Brands will also be forced to pay more to the factories to that workers are able to earn adequate wages.

Issue(s) you addressed?

Consistent violations of freedom of association by Canadian garment company in its factory in Honduras. (This case forms one of those written up in the publication mentioned in resources above.)

What did you do to achieve results?
(If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)

Close collaboration with local group (research, monitoring); Maintained strong links between Canada and Honduras; Labour and NGO coalition collaboration in Canada; C combined local organizing, with campaigning, with shareholder action, with engagement (when that was possible). Stayed committed over the long haul.

Company attempted legal action and succeeded in cutting off important source of funding for the organization (past); Media assault by the company (past); Factory closed in the mist of investigation (giving workers signal that they loose jobs when they complain); Although company currently attempting organizational change, that proves difficult through the supply chain; Weakness of organization on the ground

Company accepts that it violated freedom of association and makes commitment to a program of remediation; Company agrees on "first hire" policy for workers who lost their jobs (fired for unionizing or laid-off when factory closed); Facilitated connection between company and local groups; Currently have a working relationship with company such that they take seriously (rather than deny) problems when they are brought to them.