(from an International perspective)

New problems have emerged with economic transformation. Four years ago Hungary, Poland and Czechia started to restructure their economies. Multilateral banks and Western governments gave the region credits. The main elements of the restructuring were privatization and foreign investment.

Will privatisation of the State owned enterprises bring environmental improvement?

Positively the polluter and police are now separated - if environmental legislation is enforced. If it is not there is no change, and the situation actually becomes worse.

With the restructuring of factories comes the opportunity to push clean production and not end of pipe technology.

Greenpeace amongst others sees a need for foreign investment due to a shortage of domestic funds eroded by inflation and capital flight into Swiss banks. However, the investment has to be controlled.

Examples:

1. funding institutions

2. corporations

3. importing government

Coalitions between national and international NGOs needs to be established. National NGOs can put pressure on their governments, and working with this International NGOs should pressurise corporations and funding agencies. There must be a strong connection with local NGOs who must have direct contact with the bank and corporation. Greenpeace calls for local opposition to World Bank projects.

Looking at the local environment using SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. The groups looked at the CEE Region, Poland, Hungary & Czech Republic. Below is a compilation of the analysis.

The strength of getting information in the region is that it is available from ex-underground, solidarity members, old friends may now be in parliament.

The main weaknesses are that due to changes information now costs money, NGOs can not afford to buy the information but western corporations and organisations can, and then use it to prepare their proposals. It is not clear if information is any harder to come by in the east than in the west.

This campaign began 12 years ago in the U.K. It consisted of four people already associated with other groups. The group was created when a decision in Parliament was happening regarding heavy lorries.

*Key dates

*Information

*Contacts - for and against

*Issue - when will it become visible?

Before the time of visibility (much work has to be done)

a public meeting was organised,

Five Members of Parliaments (MPs) were lobbied.

*objectives,

*target

*networks

*information/research

*fundraising

The focus of the campaign is on municipal waste. The goal is to cut waste by 10% over two years. The campaign began in Krakow, and has been spread over Poland via the Green Federation network. The level of public awareness about the issue is low.

Tactics used to raise awareness have been:

*advertisements on a tram.

*re-use, recycling pilot projects in neighbourhoods of Krakow. *waste gathering in schools, e.g. paper

*collecting recyclable materials for money,

*education.

*information can be transferred via the network, such as the good and bad points of an activity to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Local authorities have been the main obstacle, but the organisations position is becoming stronger.

*The time has come for an opinion poll to be made.

*This campaign is combined with an anti-incineration campaign.

The Danube, and the South West area of Hungary are the most polluted areas. 40% of the population suffer from air pollution. There is a centralisation of the population in the main city.

Environmental groups tend to work on the most polluted area even if they do not come from it.

History of the movement:

1980 -Movement began

-Catalyser for political changes (Danube movement)

-Lost a lot of active people

1990 -Elections

-Mistrust, inability for platforms

-Boom of beginners

-in schools

1991 -civil groups

-To become legal (registered)

-Looking for identity

-experts?

-lobbyists?

1992 -campaigners?

-government friendly?

-which issue?

1993 -Ability for cooperation

-Joint campaigns for:

-sources

-on environmental policy

-issues -traffic

-waste

-energy

-education

-etc.

-A lot of stupid competition, unnecessary fights!

The Energy club is an alliance of NGOs

Reason: Government energy policy and the threat of new nuclear power stations

Aim: to provide alternatives -efficiency

-renewable

-public awareness: information

To find: -enemies: actors in the energy arena

-allies: NGOs, industry experts

Networks: with other groups out of the region who have same aims.

Visibility: the Energy Club has been visible on a number of occasions.

All doors are open and now is the time to concentrate on parliamentary decisions regarding legislation. Although now there is a political vacuum as it is not known who will be in parliament.

Various organisations exist in the Czech republic. There are two main organisations which are very widespread and have a group in each town. They work mainly on nature conservation. The Recycling group is afraid to ask for money as no-one has any.

Long term goals stop one way packaging and PVC packaging.

-already started to gather information,

-did an opinion poll and got favourable results.

-public

-Ministry of environment, who paid for an independent study which listened to the group,

-drinks producers are in favour.

-Czech industry for the protection of the environment (CIAPE). None of the industries in this body however are Czech companies, it includes companies such as Coca-cola.

An EC directive failed and the group are looking where to go from here. There will soon be a press conference and the group are debating whether to invite the enemy? It was discussed and Greenpeace people thought that unless the group is very confident and that the meeting would be on their terms then no - a thorough assessment needs to be made.

When the ideas for the environment come from outside the region it is hard for them to be seen as environmental. As with Communism, the ecological movement came from outside and is seen as the green missionaries.

Prietenii Pamintului stemmed from the Chernobyl tragedy. On the border of Romania there is a joint venture project involving Canada to build a nuclear power plant - maybe in 1995. Energy conservation enforced by the Government meant that electricity was cut from the population. It feels inappropriate to have an anti nuclear campaign, as people want the same standards as people in the west. The media in Romania is controlled by the government.

- Anti-nuclear campaign

Romanian NGOs prefer to cooperate with Western NGOs because?

-money

-logistical help

-trust in others

-deep knowledge in -social

-political

-economical

-environmental issues

-Earth day

-Anti-traffic day

-Petitions -Cousteau

-Aspe day

-Acid rain

-A seed campaign

-To start a project only to get foreign support (funding)

-To organise an NGO meeting only to justify spending money

-Blue Danube

-Black Sea

-Danube Delta

-Educational projects

-Nature protection projects

-Institutional development projects

The Romanian public need from NGOs concrete things not (only) propaganda actions!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Hungary: they are not published for access. You can get hold of the information, but only if you know how.

Czech Republic: people have had enough of being told what to do, Romania: The same, it is good to let people think that the idea is their own. Issues can be divided but alternatives need to be provided (e.g. nuclear power)

Hungary: The same.

Poland: NGOs are in a less strong position, there is no democratic system. If an organisation was very radical it would get nothing, instead they go step by step.

Czech Republic: people are interested to listen but want to be told.

Hungary: if someone provides the process, how, what and why of getting information, people would give it a go.

Romania: access to info is free, but if you need stuff you have to work hard to get it and the data is wrong.

Poland: there is a new law to have some access to information but there is still a lot of bureaucracy, but it is possible.

If you want to make sure that your campaign will not be watered

down by anybody and really stays your campaign to the very end,

then:

Don't talk about it to anybody except your dog

Don't inform your friends abroad and at home

Avoid any contact with your enemies

Avoid media, even

Don't read any newspaper

be strictly unpolitical

That's the easiest to guarantee that nobody will take notice.

If you are opportunistic enough to realize that you need to

compromise and cooperate to get things around you changed, then:

EVERY CAMPAIGNER WANTS TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIOUR

OF HIS OR HER COUNTERPART - not just expose that they are bad !

Once upon a time there was a man shovelling toxic filter dust from the US which had been dumped on a beach in Haiti into containers to prepare a retrieval action.

This could have been a good start of a campaign but as he didn't

strategize and network he didn't make a big difference.

You don't want to sacrifice yourself.

You don't want to demonstrate that you can't change anything.

You are not going to be the loser again.

Every campaign has a limited goal and timeframe, you are not

global government (yet).

Note on Nationalist groups:

Try not to align with these groups from the beginning. It is important to always talk about other countries with similar problems/issues to avoid nationalism.

You want to stop toxic waste imports from a Western country into

(1) Ukraine (2) Poland (3) Latvia (4) Hungary (5) Czech Republic

To do this you need to define your campaign strategy and present it to a panel of trustees who potentially have funding for your campaign. The panel of trustees were participants of the skillshare. The exercise was in the style of a role-play.

This exercise focused on strategy in broad terms.

Is a chart of the forces tending to promote or to resist change. This is a useful technique in analysing a new campaign issue or the status quo of a current issue. Activities could then be designed around the potential for activating forces for change and couter-acting those that will be opposing your campaign.

Kurt Lewin model:

An issue held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

LOCAL PARENT LOCAL MEDIA (LOCAL

GOVERNMENT COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY HAS

BUREAUCRATS | | EFFECTIVELY LOBBID

| | | |

| | | |

----------------------------------------------

STOP INCINERATOR

----------------------------------------------

| | | |

| | | |

| | NATIONAL SYMPATHETIC

| HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL MEMBERS OF

FARMERS AUTHORITIES GROUP PARLIAMENT (?)

Force Field Analysis: - Other potentially constraining forces could be:

*tourism,

*academia,

*groups in other countries,

*the church +/-,

*general public,

*media,

*specific sections

These factors allow a structured approach to analysing the external factors affecting you campaign and decision making.

SOCIAL

TECHNOLOGY

ECONOMIC

POLITICAL

These forces confront the organisation or issue either directly or through influencing its operating environment.

The diagram below shows the breakdown of campaign components:

The factors below are considerations when making decisions about which campaign(s) to run? Which techniques and strategies will be most effective?

*Be able to say no

*Take your self and your issues seriously

*Be professional

*Establish time lines to reach a target, keep on reviewing them

*Is target realistic?

*Who are your friends and allies?

*What is the international and national mix of the work you are doing?

*Remember you do not need to keep on re-inventing the wheel. Check what work has already been done.

*Image - What are you trying to achieve?

*Look at all ways and options to approach a problem

*What is your campaign mix?

*Research - analyze situation

*Information - when and how to release it

*Campaign strategy - (should be developed per-issue)

*Political - local, regional, national

*Science - possible use of samples, testing, reports

*Media - plan strategy, press contacts, releases, conferences

*Actions - plan strategy clear message

*Public outreach - information exchange, media, actions, leaflets.

*NGOs, unions & allies

*local contacts - networking

2. FUNDRAISING

*Look at your organisation, is it:

*A.Single issue organisation?

*B.Multiple issue:

*People must hear about what you are doing

*Positioning of organisation: making sure that people know what you do.

*Brand image or image of organisation - what do you want people to feel about what you do i.e. technical, activist, maybe to convey different image to different groups of people

*Define your campaign objectives

*How can your campaign help you raise money

*Communication objectives - what messages do you wish to communicate to help achieve your final goal.

*Developing a strategy

- try to avoid falling in love with your arguments!

*Put your self in the position of the public to determine what reaction you want to gain from them:

*rational appeal,

*emotional appeal

*sensorial appeal.

*Use this in relation to: social, political, economic, religious and cultural environments.

Saving the whales after 30'000 people had "disappeared" in Argentina. Completely irrelevant?

a. support whaling moratorium,

b. enhance whale protection in Argentina,

c. increase membership.

Appealed mainly to the emotions. Why did this work?

*Social: acceptance of the fact that 30'000 people had been tortured and killed during 76-82 dictatorship. Generalized feeling of guilt and the need to do something positive, something in favour of life.

*Political: Huge expectations placed on fledgling democracy, creation of public hearings

*Economic: Awareness of impending economic crisis due to military mismanagement

*Religious: Irrelevant as catholic church hierarchy was completely discredited.

*Cultural: Flood of new ideas, new attitudes towards almost everything

*No mailing lists: except 700 members of the Argentine Wildlife Foundation.

*Continuous demonstrations outside the IWC meeting for 5 days

*Took advantage of the fact that Argentina was founding member of the IWC

*Argentina was not a whaling country

*Petition to have the Southern Right Whale as a natural monument strong lobby in parliament:

*3'500 letters handed over to parliament (largest amount ever of letters received on one single issue)

*Southern right whale a natural monument decree

*Membership: more that doubled to 1'500.

Please note that this list was generated by a brainstorm by the whole meeting.

*Letters:

*Mailouts:

*Telemarketing:

*Canvassing:

Used in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ.

*Petition:

Use names for mailing list

*Merchandising:

Relates to campaign, t'shirts, posters

Make campaign t'shirts to sell at all opportunities

*Large donations:

From individuals

*Test markets:

*Personalities:

*Local groups:

Always make a legal contract

*Sponsored events:

*Donation boxes at conferences:

*(Flea) markets, & auctions:

*Petitions:

Gives names of potential new members

*Always take membership leaflets with you when you go anywhere *People expect something in return for their money, a newsletter can also establish a link between you and your supporters.

*media attention - get your name & address included in articles as a contact.

*Advertising

*Send letters to mailing list

*junk mail is increasing - it helps to use hand writing on the letter.

*P.S. in hand writing at the end of letter is very effective

*NGOs logo on the envelope

*Free film showing:

*Guest speaker, to address small public meeting.

The effectiveness of mailing lists must be determined before and after use. If Greenpeaces methods are not the way for you, it is important to look at other opportunities and funding alternatives available. The list above contains possibilities, they are just examples and every country is different.

*catch their attention and keep it

*use the language of the donor

*be positive

*use action words

*be understandable

*manageable size/realistic

*use their guidelines

*focus

*credibility

*completeness

*relevant

1. Cover/title page

2. Summary

3. Goals

4. Strategy/Methodology

5. Project description

6. Project plan

7. Expected results

8. Project evaluation/follow up

9. Conclusion

10. Background

11. Financing

12. Budget

13. CVs and letters of support

The first question to ask yourself in any event (press conference, report release, demonstration, rally) you are doing is:

Do you want media coverage? Or is the event being done for a reason other than one that requires coverage? If media coverage is desired the message can reach many more people than can actually be at the event if it has the right ingredients.

There are several ways of organising your event so that you get media coverage:

*Prepare a media check list of what needs to be done well ahead of time and assign someone to make sure everything is being carried out prior to your event.

*For an action or information gathering trip, bring a journalist along who can be trusted, there are some who will meet this criteria, but you should know the person well enough to ensure that your he/she will not disclose your event before you are ready.

*If secrecy is necessary, call journalists the day before, or find out where they will be at time of action and call them there once it has started.

*If secrecy is necessary, don't tell a journalist what you are doing unless they can be trusted.

*At an action always have one person who is responsible for talking to the press, getting names and phone numbers of reporters and what media outlet they are from, so that you can keep in touch with them with any new information you have after the event.

*Remember that no matter how well planned your action may be, a bigger news event can overshadow your story so that you don't get any coverage. Try to keep up with what news stories are breaking around the time of your event so that if a big news story is happening (fire, nuclear meltdown, war) you can reschedule your event to a more appropriate time.

*It is helpful to have a still photographer and cameraman at your event to ensure coverage. Often there is no need to hire a photographer if there is someone in your group who can take pictures and video. If the media is not there to cover your event, you can then offer what you have to them, making it easy for them to cover your story.

*Safety--People act differently in front of a camera e.g. the police. A camera is a good way to protect yourselves.

*"In the field" type of camera work is becoming more popular with television (did you see the Rodney King video on TV? That was shot by a bystander with a hand-held camera). This type of video use can create a story in itself by providing photographic evidence of the issue/problem etc.

*It can be helpful if the photographer and videographer (as long as they are friends) are involved in the planning of the action.

How can you provide the Media with as much information as they need to run your story?

*Provide them with a Press Release:

At the top: The name of you organisation,

Television, news journalists, wire journalists all work to deadlines. In the region deadlines may not be so tight, so there could be more time to get information out. It is wise to check what deadlines the media whether they have hourly (the wires, TV and radio), daily (newspapers), weekly (weekly papers) or monthly deadlines (magazines).

The wire services are news brokers and are one of the most important media to contact if you are doing an event. An example in the region is the Polish Press Association. Wires have desks all over the world. They cover events and send stories to newspaper, radio and television outlets who subscribe to them. The biggest print wires are Reuters, Associated Press (AP), Agence France Press (AFP) United Press International (UPI) to name a few. The speed at which wire services are providing news and photos is increasing.

The wires are especially important to contact if you think that your story is relevant beyond your country. In some of Eastern Europe wires are state owned, however, the privately owned international wires all have bureaus or reporters in all of the world's largest cities. If you contact an International wire service with your story it could help put pressure on regional news outlets to run the story too.

There is a growing use of television wires such as Reuters TV, World Television News (WTN) and CNN which feed footage and stories to the world's TV news outlets. If your event is shot by either you or a local TV station and it has international implications, you may want to contact one of the three above to see if they would be interested in the footage. If so, they will tell you their closest feed outlet--usually the largest city or cities in whatever country--that you would have to get the footage to. If the story is big enough, it is worth it to get the footage to them by car or by plane (they will pay airlift costs if they want it) where they will pick it up and feed it. The story generally must be very strong and very visual and it is important to provide them with all the necessary information about the event--background, press release, and most importantly, A VERY SPECIFIC LIST OF SHOTS.

*Day Books - this is a service provided by the wires that lists each day's media events. If the wires in your area have a daybook, and they do for most major cities, it is important to get your event listed if you want to publicly invite the press to attend. Simply phone up the wire, ask if they have a daybook, if so, get a fax number or tell them over the event when, where and what your event is.

*Radio stations - find out which are the most important and if they have syndicated services (i.e., they provide radio stories to many stations. The BBC World Service and National Public Radio are syndicated services).

*Stringers - these are people who are not on staff for one media outlet or another but feed stories to a variety of media in their area of the world. Stringers are generally used by media outlets in smaller cities in the world where they cannot afford to keep a full time employee. If you find out who the stringer for an important paper or wire in your area is, and contact she/he about your event, you can often get extensive coverage in several outlets.

*Press advisory - if you have a public/press event coming up (rally, report release, press conference), you can send the media a press advisory -- a short announcement of when, where, and why your event will be -- out to press in advance. Be sure to call after you have sent the advisory by mail or fax to make sure they got it and check back with them to see if they plan to attend. Try to send your advisory to a specific reporter than to the general desk (unless it's to the daybooks), otherwise advisories often get lost in the mail/fax shuffle.

*Executive Summaries - do a summary or abstract of a report you are producing for journalists to help them gather the information you are releasing quickly.

*Letters to the Editor and Op-eds - you can write a letter to the editor of a newspaper if they write a bad story about you.

*Feature, Business or Entertainment Reporters - remember, news reporters are only one of the many types out there. If you have a story that can be pushed as a feature (local activist gets involved in international campaign, travels to New York to attend U.N meeting, for instance), business (report shows that nuclear power is too costly for the region, alternatives and conservation would be cheaper) or entertainment (celebrity joins rally against toxic waste dumping), find the reporters that cover those beats.

*Always be sure the information you give to the press is accurate and to the point. You put your reputation on the line as a reliable information source every time you contact the press. Be sure you have thoroughly checked you facts and that you have contacts and officials who can back up what you are saying.

*Think visually. One of the best ways to get media coverage is to provide outlets with a visual image that is creative and that tells the story in a single picture. This will give the TV and photo outlets an immediate interest in what you are doing. *Confrontation makes a story--think of that when planning your event. If confrontation does occur with police or authorities, will the media be able to cover it? That's important for safety as well as coverage.

*Plan ahead and think about the media aspects of your event from the earliest planning stages. Don't leave it to the last minute or you will appear unorganized to the media on hand.

*Remember it is your right to inform the press. Corporations spend billions doing it every year. The press wants stories, if you have one, you are doing them a favour by telling them about it. Don't be afraid to talk to the press.

That's it folks. Keep your media guide handy to refer to the next time you have an event planned. I hope this is helpful!

The presentation followed a role play the previous day and some of the comments refer directly to what was good, bad, right or wrong with the exercise.

The most powerful weapon we have at our disposal is ourselves, it is even more powerful than the truth. This is such a special weapon that it should only be used on sparingly, at the right time, the right place and for the right reasons. An organisation that only uses direct action without the back-up of support and information becomes marginalised and eventually loses.

An action is part of an overall campaign strategy it does not stand alone. Greenpeace actions are always non-violent in the sense that we would not do anything that directly threatened the life or safety of our opponents. We do at times commit criminal damage though this is always decided on a case by case basis.

Greenpeace uses direct actions usually at the end of a campaign, after all the public awareness work, lobby work and political work have been carried out.

When planning a direct action it is important to think:

*Why are you carrying out the action?

*When are you doing it?

*Where is the best place to carry out the action?

Choose your demands and slogans carefully. If the action is part of a long term plan then it will be easier to develop the demands and slogans. Do not make the demands of your action too great or impossible.

Who is the cause of the damage, Government?, Industry?

Carry out your action as near to the environmental damage or threat you are protesting about. If this is not possible then take your action to the people who are causing the damage.

Have you picked the right time, make sure that the time you do your action does not clash with other newsworthy events. Of course sometimes this is impossible but with careful planning you can make your action the top news story of the day.

**At this point we used the previous days exercise as an example*

Check out action site first. Take in all the details, think about the image you want to produce. Look at it from a photographers point of view.

What time of day do you do the action?

*Media deadlines - television, news journalists, wire journalists. If the action is done at dawn these deadlines can be met. TV - usually have noon and evening news, Print journalists send stories out in the afternoon.

*Visually - is there light.

*Where the sun going to be: for photographs. Always think about the picture.

How will you get the action out to the public - bearing witness & empowering people, are you going to use local people on the action.

Check where everything is located e.g. telephones. Are there payphones nearby, do you need to supply your own means of communication.

Where will the police be coming from? how long will it take them to arrive?

Where are the police going to take activists if they are arrested? It is very important for other members of the action team to be there. Have you alerted and briefed a lawyer.

The authority of the action coordinator has to be respected. Actions run by committees do not work. The action coordinator will generally be the most experienced person on the action and should have enough experience to deal with all eventualities.

The activists should have been split into teams, with each team having a leader. All of the activists concentrated at one point making it easier for the police to arrest everybody and even easier for the waste dumpers to get through the blockade.

The message that comes across in the media can be altered by the behaviour of people on the action. For example the message could get changed from "Stop Dumping Toxic Waste" to "Greenpeace fights the police" if people lose control. Never give the media ammunition to say that people are terrorists.

Allow the police to do their jobs; do not resist arrest. When you are arrested allow your body to go limp, this prolongs the arresting (and the action). The longer the blockade can be maintained the more newsworthy the action will be. The police will do hidden things to you that the cameras cannot see e.g. bending your thumb back, sticking their fingers in your kidneys and other methods to make you resist arrest. Never react to this violence by being violent. Think of something else, do deep breathing exercises.. In Poland one group uses psycho-drama before an action to prepare activists for the police and what they will do.

You have to be aware of accidents. Have an answer prepared, and have a back-up strategy or a Press Release available.

Protests and demonstrations should have been done before the direct action.

After the action is over make sure you know the whereabouts of all the activists and their well-being.

For the images presentation we used a number of slides and black and white prints to look at the affectiveness of different kinds of images.

Images:

2. Do not make a cluttered picture.

3. Make sure the banner is hung well

5. Do not over complicate the picture.

7. The banner is for the media

8. Design the banner to fit what you are hanging it on.

The participants of the skillshare were split into three groups.

1: The action team with an action coordinator

2: The police with a chief of police

3: Some toxic waste dumpers

The idea was for the action team to protect a part of the national park, a pond, from the activities of a number of toxic waste dumpers taking into account the fact that the police would probably try to remove them. As this was only supposed to be a light exercise no other individual roles were given.

Quite rapidly after the beginning of the game it was obvious that it was taking on the appearance of a real exercise, to such an extent that one of the action team enlisted the help of about 30 school children to participate in the blockade of the pond.

The outcome of the game was that the waste dumpers managed to get their waste into the pond and effectively won the game.

We debriefed the game and the following points were brought out.

GOOD BAD

Images No coherent strategy

Use of local population

- In the production of caustic soda - NaOH, an important raw material for the chemical industry - equal quantities of chlorine are produced. Traditional sinks for this by- product/waste are CFCs, organochlorine pesticides, solvents, PCBs, chlorine for the bleaching of paper....

- In all its uses, chlorine creates environmental problems.

Hundreds of new substances are formed. Dioxins are just one

example.

- Many chlorine-containing products are being banned or phased out. The chlorine industry is threatened and is desperately looking for new sinks for this unwanted by-product of the chlor-alkali industry. One sink for chlorine, which is not being pushed very aggressively is PVC.

- Because it contains chlorine, PVC creates toxic fumes

when disposed of by burning.

- A normal PVC product also contains heavy metals and other

toxic compounds to make it soft or to prolong its lifetime.

All these additives are finally released and spread into

the environment.

- During the production of PVC, large amounts of hazardous

waste is generated. This waste is often exported to other

countries, where treatment costs are low.

- Today, more and more PVC is to be found in the countries of CEE. PVC is seen in disposable packaging and doors and windows. A new product that is being marketed by Western firms is PVC houses.

- Several Western companies (Dryvit Systems Inc. of West Warwick, Royal Plastics Group of Ontario, Ryland Homess Systems Inc. of Columbia...) are targeting CEE for the sale of houses made of PVC and other plastics. These firms are exploiting the great need for cheap housing in the region. The houses are cheap because they incorporate a lot of PVC, which is essentially a waste bin for chlorine, which they would otherwise have to pay a lot of money to dispose of. These companies are arguing that using plastics for houses saves natural resources, eg. wood. Furthermore the use of expandable polystyrene (EPS) in these houses improves insulation and saves energy.

- Many countries in CEE produce their own PVC. The Western countries would therefore not need to import it, they would only sell licences for the technology.

- At the same time, many towns in Germany have banned the use of PVC in public buildings, as a result of pressure from the firemans' unions. The unions are concerned about attending to fires where PVC was burning because of the hazards from toxic fumes.

Other professional groups, beside firemen, that have acted

against PVC include; metal workers (PVC coated steel

products mess up the steel recycling), nurses & doctors,

architects.

- In several western countries, PVC is being phased out in

short lived products, since hazardous products are released

when PVC waste is incinerated.

Greenpeace people saw the PVC houses as a winnable campaign. However Polish NGOs thought phase out of PVC bottles or paper bleaching would be better, but agreed to the overall goal: To stop PVC houses being brought into Poland.

Forces for change: producers of alternative materials, doctors (poss. int'l conference), locals, retired workers, sick people connected with PVC, fire brigades.

Forces against change: PVC workers and the company.

1. detailed research on market/law/govt and local communities

2. make written materials connected to risks

3. Contact allies, align them

4. Organise press conference - pvc under fire

5. Contact local government & provide them with information (in Poland there are 3000 local governments

6. Fundraising to make the above (5) happen

Note: this is not the first campaign in poland against PVC

*In 1992/93 pesticide TNCs sold hazardous pesticides to the Ukrainian Authorities.

*Monsanto (USA) sold 2'000 tons of Harness (acetachlor) which is unregistered in the States and is carcinogenic.

*The Ministry of Environment was legally only allowed to buy 100 tons of Harness

*The TNCs have by-passed the registration laws and registered 300 new products.

*$18 million lost

*State prosecutor investigating case

*Stop import of all pesticides

*Stop use of all pesticides

*Transition to Ecological Agriculture

*International Experts

*Parents

*Farmers (organic)

*Scientists e.g. doctors

*Media

*Pesticide NGOs in other countries, entomologist, commercial

*in other governments with progressive pesticide policy

*members of parliament

*ministry of environment and health

*fishermen

*aware/rich consumers

*Ukrainian communities abroad

*Residues on exports

*Restructuring agriculture

*Neighbouring countries

*Monsanto

*Corrupt officials in Ministry of Agriculture

*Ukrainian pesticide brokers

*Journalists

*Pesticide registration laws are unclear

*recession - poverty

*AID

*Monsanto take pesticides back and give money back, and pay a fine (put towards loans for eco-ag)

*Law to ban import/use of unregistered/banned pesticides

*New registration: don't use pesticides that harm health and environment,

*Spend money for pesticides on a demonstration farm/centre

Street Theatre

Cartoons

Film and photo footage of pesticides

Popular figure/rock group

Leaflets to people in shops

Ministry meeting - distribute nice, pesticide free food

Use election

*Report:

*Demonstrate that Eco-ag is big business in the West

*Problems, Alternatives and Demands

*Press Conference

*Activity - popular figure to make a statement

*Support and publicity in US work with other NGOs

International Reactor to be built at Ignalina to replace existing reactors.

The US based engineering company Westinghouse Electric Corp. has proposed replacing two Chernobyl type (RMBK) reactors in Lithuania, at Ignalina with AP 600 design reactors.

The AP 600 is a new design of reactor, which has, until now, not been constructed anywhere in the world and is what is commonly know as a "inherently safe" reactor design. In the US it is commonly felt that no new reactors will be ordered and constructed unless a much safer design of reactors are employed. Electricity utilities and reactor vendors want to build 2 different reactor designs over the coming years, thus showing how they can be build to specification and economically. However, these proposals are not moving forward at speed and consequently the reactor vendors are looking for overseas markets for new designs.

If Westinghouse succeed in getting this order Ignalina will become yet another test facility for the world's nuclear industry. The RBMK reactors are the largest reactors in operation in the world.

The present proposal would involve an internationally owned reactor, with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland all being parties.

Westinghouse are hoping that a binding decision on the project will arranged later this year. It would be under the supervision of a steering committee of ministers from Lithunaia, Latvia, Estonia and Poland and representatives of the US government and Westinghouse.

IGNALINA

The two RBMK 1500 MW reactors at Ignalina have caused considerable concern about nuclear safety in the region. As a result minor alterations have been made to the operating regime and safety systems employed on site. However, a key question is how long will these reactors be allowed to operate. The present dependence of Lithuania and some of the Baltic states on the electricity (in the case of Lithuania about 60% of the countries electricity is generated at Ignalina), make early shut-down extremely difficult.

In the Baltic there are very little natural energy reserves, with Lithuania only having limited energy However, in Eastern Europe as a whole there is a huge potential for energy efficiency, with countries using between 2 and 5 times as much energy as the equivalent processes in Western Europe.

SWOT Analysis

Spain burned hazardous waste at sea until 1991 when ocean incineration was banned. In 1989 in view of this prohibition, the Spanish central government made proposals to build 3 land based hazardous waste incinerators. In their plans were also proposals for 21 municipal incinerators.

Greenpeace Spain decided to start a campaign when an incinerator was proposed near a small town called Almaden at a toxic waste dump site. The campaign was launched with one person and some information from Greenpeace International (a video, a factsheet and a report on incineration).

To construct a hazardous waste incinerator in Spain, two permits are needed, one from the municipality and one from the regional government through an Environmental Impact Assessment. This means that opposition from local citizens is necessary to stop the proposals. The local opposition rises as soon as the people are informed about the pros and cons of incineration.

GREENPEACE BEGAN THE CAMPAIGN ON TWO LEVELS:

1) Informing the people affected in the area (distributing information: video, report and fact sheet, attending presentations).

2) Pressuring regional & national governments: building up a scandal through media work, lobbying politicians and trade unions, letters to MPs...

It is hard for an NGO from the city to convince the people of a town (who consider you as a foreigner) that you speak the truth and not the persons from the company that proposes the incinerator, who also come from the city and are foreigners but offer jobs, money and gifts. Why shall people believe YOU and not the company???

To get your information to the people you have to put it in their words and in their format. Your fancy factsheets might be less credible than a article that appears in the magazine from the housewife association of the town. So you need to contact local NGOs, neighbourhood, housewives, farmers, business,...etc associations.

The campaign against this incinerator begun generating a huge demand for information, as environmental groups and citizens from places where an incinerator was proposed read in the press that we where campaigning against incineration.

To deal with all these requests (at one stage more than 30 incinerators where being proposed in Spain at the same time) information packages were prepared for the different proposals. 5 different packages where prepared and distributed: hospital, municipal wastes, sludge incineration, legislation and clean production.

The flow of information was going from Greenpeace to local groups, but no contact was taking place between the different local groups or between GP and other Spanish environmental groups.

Proposals kept appearing until GP decided to invite all groups (local, regional, national) who where fighting incinerators or could have an interest in joining the campaign to a meeting in Madrid.

In this meeting the different groups noticed that they all had the same problem (they were not alone) and begun sharing information, experiences, campaign tools, tricks ... During this meeting it was decided to create a information network. It was a network because people didn't have resources to organize a big group or platform with all the groups and what people needed was information and the liberty to join or leave whenever they wanted (needed).

The list of the participants was the first item on the list of the network. Everybody took home the list and sent any interesting stuff to the other persons on the list. A summary of activities was sent to GP each three months and GP put all together and sent it to the rest of the list, including any new information received from GP international.

Each group that attended the meeting in Madrid repeated the structure in the regional or local level. So they where in contact with the rest of the country to bring or send information. Platforms where created locally and regionally with NGOs, trade unions, neighbourhood, housewives, church, farmers,.... etc associations. A representative from each group attended a platform meeting once a week to exchange information and prepare the campaign strategies.

This way, the information from GP was being distributed locally. Each group focused on the side that interested more their members: health, economics, environment, agriculture.... The information was being "translated" to the language and format that locals understand and believe it. Information became specialised. Through these temporary structures information got through to all.

Greenpeace campaigners travelled around Spain giving presentations and talking to communities. Contacts were made with other NGOs, via these other interest groups were contacted who disseminated information to their members: one fact sheet could go a long way. If Greenpeace could not attend a meeting someone else was contacted who could attend. As an international group Greenpeace can not be local, therefore this work was done by other organisations.

Local groups also began exchanging information with similar local groups from other towns or regions in the country.

As soon as this happened (people were informed), proposals begun to stop. Local and regional politicians noticed that the people didn't want incinerators and they denied the permits.

Now there are a total of 10 proposals for incinerators. The network is still working. When the incinerator proposal was withdrawn people still wanted to carry on working on waste.

Yes, there are always problems within the NGO community but to stop the incinerator is most important.

You do not have do everything for people. You can give them the information to help themselves.

Only use the network when you need it, e.g. community platforms disappear when they are no longer needed.

Below are some points which were raised during the debate. It was agreed that interested people should meet informally to continue the discussion. Unfortunately this did not happen. [However, there have already been some developments see section 2.2. Summing up at the end of the meeting.]

*task and topic specific

*group networks - cooperation between countries

*communication (this has been lacking)

*speed of action

*a few people needed to work travelling around the region (limit $s)

*building national and personal networks

*size of NGOs

*translation of materials

*fragmentation

*dividing up responsibilities

*specialisation

*define needs

*REC database

*WISE

*SNEEZE

*FOEnetwork

*student network

*Greenway - This network was set up in 1986 by NGOs. A Bi-monthly bulletin was made, and the network moved as the political situation changed. Offices opened in CEE. In Bratislava a joint office opened with FOE, this caused huge confusion. The board does not really take the organisation seriously, it is a friendly meeting but that is all, there seems to be no strategy and nothing gets done. It is hard to get CEE people to work on one issue. Meetings have led to the publication of books, but nothing happens, there is a lack of follow-up and response. A directory was going to be made but so far there has been a lack of replies. The only solution is for one person to physically follow up. There is a culture of speaking rather than writing information down as in the past it was dangerous.

*People have to learn to say no, it is worse to say yes and not to do something.

*use international networks and vice versa

*information transfer

*use older groups

*build national and personal networks

*there is no time available for preparation

A skillshare is a two way learning process. All participants are active in this process.

To discuss and develop:

-Campaigning techniques; strategies and tactics for the region for use in all campaign areas.

-To create an NGO network

This is to be achieved by working on:

-What is an NGO and what can its function be?

-Fundraising methods

-Communication

-How to get information out to the public

-How to make the best use of resources available

GP has been active in this region since 1990. This is a new region for GP and although we have developed successful strategies for working in the West, we have few experiences of working here.

By raising environmental awareness in the West, we have forced governments to introduce more stringent laws. This eg. has resulted in high waste disposal costs, bans or restrictions on the use of certain products eg. pesticides and public opposition or moratoria for certain technologies eg. waste incineration.

Our "victories" in the West have directly caused problems for other, usually poorer, less democratic countries elsewhere in the world. eg. waste trade.

With the opening of the borders of countries in this region, CEE-CIS is new victim of the transfer of unwanted, banned, restricted products and technologies.

At the same time, we can see this region as one of immense and unique opportunities. In this time of change, it will be easier here to achieve some of our campaign goals.

GP has very few offices in this region and therefore it is very important for Greenpeace to work with NGOs in the region. You have been invited to this skillshare, because each of your NGOs is already active in the region, working on problems common to Greenpeace campaigns.

Did we succeed in reaching the objectives of the skillshare?

CAMPAIGNING TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES were covered for all issues.

NGO NETWORK the seeds have been sown & the following "networks" of information exchange have been established.

See further enclosed Action Plan, page 4.

This report is longer that was anticipated. We have tried to include as much of the information that was presented as possible. Therefore please use which ever sections of the report are relevant for you.

WHAT WAS AGREED BY WHO WHEN

a.Information exchange All on the list

Legislation (chlorine/waste trade) Per Rosander/Andreas Bernstorff

Clean Production - two way Beverley Thorpe and all on the

list 6 months

Exchange of waste trade information

and legislation Dolores Romano and all on the list

Nuclear - Videos/Information Antony Froggatt

Westinghouse proposal briefing Antony Froggatt to all those involved

Names added to energy & nuclear mailing listsAntony Froggatt

Fossil free Information Stewart Boyle

Pesticides Information Topsy Jewell

In order to better understand where GP as an NGO is coming from, it is useful to give a brief history of the NGO movement in "formally democratic" countries.

GP is living and acting in a tradition, which did not exist in the CEE-CIS region. NGOs were founded in opposition to the govt/administration to address issues which were not adequately managed by the establishment.

An NGO is political in the sense that it has a policy or a strategy to achieve a clear objective. This objective can be:

- PUBLIC INTEREST: environment, health, democracy, human rights

- INTEREST GROUP: trade union, NIMBY community, handicaped people

- A FINANCIAL INTEREST: industry-funded research institute

The common element of most NGOs strategies is that they are all trying to influence public opinion, governments and/or industry in order to achieve their own objectives.

There are often conflicts between different-interest NGOs eg. environmental NGO versus trade union (jobs).

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NGO IS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

1. Government and government officials

2. Political parties

3. Industry

4. Media

5. Other Specialist groups

6. NGO memebers

7. International Institutions

1. Government and government officials by attempting to co-opt environmental NGOs onto ministerial advisory groups. In this way they have NGOs do their work.

A balance has to be found between NGOs offering new approaches and becoming free consultants to the establishment. Ultimately government officials are paid to manage the country, NGOs are not. There is the danger of NGOs focusing on finding all the solutions and not having time to influence public opinion (to in turn influence govt.) The political will must be there for the solutions to be implemented.

2. Political Parties by asking for support and endorsement of their policies.

The danger of close alignment with a political party, even Green Party, is that the primary objectives of the 2 differ - for environmental NGOs it is the environment and for Green Party to get into power (which requires compromise).

There can of course be common debate and tactical alliances to attain short-term goals. eg. finding friends in parliament to ask probing questions on environmental issues, demand information etc.

3. Industry by offering money in exchange for endorsement and sale of "environmental" products. Their primary objective is to make money and profits.

Again NGOs need to be cautious in working with industry. The discussion can be useful and tactical alliances can be made eg. Zychlin, power engineering factory.

4. Media

5. Other specialist groups

6. NGOs member

7. International institutions such as the World Bank by cooption and culture and history.

The independence or dependence of an NGO can be influenced by the following criteria:

Greenpeace is a vision of green and peaceful world. Its objectives (below) are also shared by other groups:

*a force for global change

*nature's lobbyist

*international NGO

*the sum of the people working for it

*what it does = campaigning

*a professional TNC

*focusing e.g. on specific campaign targets.

*exposing e.g. actions against the environment through use of non-violent direct action.

*informs

*opposes - using non violence

*alternatives - we can say no even if we do not know the answers

*lobbies and mobilises - non-party political

*wins: set target that you can win; but if you win too much you've asked too little

*the campaign sells itself is financially independent (once someone has donated money they have accepted that GP is right)

*the issue id developed to form a public profile and gain momentum.

*being professional (not necessarily paid)

*focused, accepting generalist and specialists

*having clear structures = accepting hierarchies

*commitment to team work

The name Greenpeace ranks in the top 10 trade names in western countries.

Greenpeace has 30+ national offices, which give a per-centage (24% or more) of their national income to Greenpeace International which pools the money. However, in practice ten offices do this, and the others receive money from this pool.

A council (of representatives from each national office) elects a board who in turn elects an Executive Director for Greenpeace International. Not all 30 countries have a board and therefore not a vote at the council. In order to have all offices represented there is a regional structure. The council is where annually overall campaign and strategy decisions are made.

Issues moved from:

*Testing --> leading to stoping the nuclear threat now including military & civil (fuel cycle)

*Save the Whales --> leading to protecting biodiversity - oceans and forest

*Dumping into sea --> leading to stopping toxic pollution: chlorine and toxic trade

*Acid rain --> leading to protecting the climate, energy, CO2, global warming and transport

An example of a kind of negativity that paid off for Greenpeace was the acid rain problem in Austria. An effective message was, "Stop emissions now or there will be no trees in 10 years time." The emissions were decreased and the trees are still alive. It is important to get people moving and this method is a way of doing it.

Now Greenpeace also suggests alternatives, one example of this is Greenfreeze, the refrigerator made without ozone depleting chemicals.

After the removal of the Iron Curtain in 1989 GPAustria did some educational work in CSFR. The Prague office opened as did ones in Moscow, Kiev and Slovakia. This trend cannot be continued. Money is an issue and the time of expansion is over. There is a big restructuring process happening at the moment. There is a danger that expectations in the region are higher than Greenpeace can fulfil. Greenpeace needs to work in different ways. Tremelin (nuclear reator site) in Czechia is example of Greenpeace entering a country without adequate research. However, this action got big media coverage, whereas the Greenpeace bus "Energy Tour" in the CS got nothing.

At the moment there is no strategy on collaboration with NGOs, it simply depends on individuals. It tends to be that the further away from the USA and Northern Europe the more networks with NGOs there are.

Greenpeace receives no grants from industry, all money comes from individual donations with 9% of this income coming from merchandise. Greenpeaces total income amounts to 1/6th of the German car industrys advertising budget.