Issuu on Google+

International

2010 Annual Report


2010 Greenpeace International Annual Report


3 5 7 9 11 13 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 42 44 46 52 54 56 58 60 62 64

Table of Contents

A Message from our CEO Supporters News From Around the World Section 1: Energy [R]evolution

Catalyzing an Energy [R]evolution

The Legacy of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Nuclear Power Goes Solar

Greenpeace’s 2010 Environmental Report

Section 2: Stimulating Growth

Campaigning for Sustainable Agriculture

GE Maize Myths

Protecting Our Forests

Greenpeace Victories: The Finnish Pine Forests

Section 3: Defending Our Oceans

Defending Our Oceans 2010

Saving Our Last Ocean

Our Ships

Creating a Toxic-Free Future

Section 4: Financials

Financials: International

Financials: Worldwide

Financials: Funds

Financials: Reserves

Financials: Growth & Change

Financials: Expenses

A Message from Our Chairman Board of Directors


A Message From Our Executive Director

2010 was marked by the devastation that the relentless and reckless pursuit of profit can cause: a human tragedy and enormous environmental, social and economic devastation that will last a generation or more. We watched in horror as oil poured from a blown-out deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil industry appeared to be both unprepared and powerless to stop it. > > The Deepwater Horizon disaster provided yet another reason why the world should end its reliance on dwindling fossil fuels and embrace an Energy [R]evolution based upon smart use of energy and renewable energy sources. Following the crushing disappointment of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, where over 120 world leaders failed to seize the historic opportunity to agree on a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate protection treaty, we challenged corporations to become leaders in the struggle to avert catastrophic climate change. We challenged them to clean up their supply chains and address their roles in environmental destruction. We demanded that they champion policies to protect the environment and the climate. > > Throughout the year, we harnessed the power of consumers, urging them to vote with their pockets and demand goods and services that do not cost the earth. We have been increasingly campaigning with our supporters to let major brands know that we won’t buy environmental destruction. Big businesses have already been compelled to take action to end their role in supporting environmental destruction. For example, when we exposed Nestlé’s role in Indonesian rainforest destruction due to its reliance on unsustainably produced palm oil, the resulting social media firestorm saw hundreds of thousands of people join us in demanding that the company put policies in place to ensure that it no longer contributed to the forces driving deforestation and

the extinction of the orang-utans and Sumatran tigers that depend upon Indonesia’s rainforest. A strong, clear message was sent to the palm oil and paper industry that rainforest destruction is an unacceptable practice in today’s global marketplace. > > As thousands of tiny boats and massive clean-up vessels struggled to control the spread of toxic, suffocating oil slicks in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, oil giants eyed up the Arctic for deepwater drilling.They hope to take advantage of climate change, which is making this region more accessible. The self-styled cowboy oil company Cairn Energy is blazing a trail and drilling exploratory deepwater oil wells in Arctic water off western and southwestern Greenland. Our ice-class ship Esperanza and a dedicated crew tried to prevent the dangerous drilling, pointing out that a BP style deepwater blow-out in the remote and fragile Arctic environment would be all but impossible to stop and clean up. > > As I write, we are approaching the 40th birthday of Greenpeace and this leads us to review our past activities, campaigns and victories. It leads us to ask if we are still relevant. Do we still have a job to do? Over 40 years we have been honing our campaigning skills, by constantly innovating and adopting new tactics and strategies we have stayed at the cutting edge. We are ready for the greatest struggle of all: the struggle to avert climate chaos.

> > Construction began on a new Rainbow Warrior, a purpose-built campaign ship that will meet the most stringent and exacting environmental standards, a sailing ship capable of travelling the world with a minimal carbon ‘footprint’. To be launched in November 2011, she will provide focus and leadership for the ongoing struggle to protect our planet. She will become a beacon of hope for men and women of good conscience world wide who are prepared to stand up and take action to protect the environment.

Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International


SECTION 1: Energy [R]evolution


catalyzing an

ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION Bold non-violent direct action took the struggle against climate change to one of its frontiers in 2010 – the Arctic Ocean. Companies such as the UK’s Cairn Energy see the Arctic’s receding ice sheets as an opportunity to make profits from risky oil drilling operations. Greenpeace couldn’t disagree more. In August, our activists evaded Danish navy commandos and scaled Cairn’s exploration rig off Greenland, halting the operation – we knew that, due to very tight deadlines, even a minor delay could have a major effect; Cairn didn’t find oil in 2010. Extremely difficult conditions have deterred oil companies from attempting exploration in the Arctic in the past, but there is a danger that Cairn’s project could spark an Arctic oil rush, with potentially devastating implications for marine life, and for coastal ecosystems and communities. The disastrous consequences of an oil spill had already become apparent when, earlier in the year, the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico. The leaking well was finally closed after three months, but many of the spill’s impacts – for endangered wildlife, the region’s ecosystems and its fisheries – would only become clear with time. Therefore, we sent our ship the Arctic Sunrise to the Gulf to document these impacts. Over the course of three months, teams of international scientists examined everything from the plankton on the surface to the subsurface plumes and the deep-sea

corals on the floor of the Gulf. Our evidence provided a poignant contrast to the official line that down played the environmental damage, and would go on to add to our expanding pool of knowledge about oil spills and their impacts. Scientists were also at the heart of our ‘Arctic Under Pressure Tour’. Aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, the German marine science institute IFM-GEOMAR carried out the largest ever experiment on ocean acidification. Caused by the ocean’s absorption of CO2 pollution from industrial emissions, this process is changing the oceans’ chemistry, and could cause a breakdown of ocean ecosystems as we know them. Our two-month expedition yielded the most comprehensive data set ever on the impacts of ocean acidification in Arctic waters, as well as breathtaking images of previously unseen areas of the sea floor north of Svalbard. In July, a Greenpeace team provided international media with arresting first-hand images of an oilspill in Dalian, China. Amid official underestimations of the spill’s size, predictions of a rapid cleanup, and promises of minimal environmental damage, our images showed the real extent of the disaster and the severe threat it posed to the area’s coastal ecosystem. As oil kept gushing into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform, Greenpeace put the operator, BP, on the spot back home in the UK. Activists temporarily closed petrol stations across London, while supporters redesigned the BP logo to better reflect the company’s polluting reality. We called on BP to turn away from high-cost and environmentally reckless sources of oil, like deepwater drilling and the Canadian tar sands, towards an energy revolution based on clean energy sources. An investigative Greenpeace report exposed how Koch Industries – a little known company despite being the second largest privately-held US company – is funding climate denial. The billionaire owners, Charles and David Koch, were found to be paying vast sums to groups working to prevent climate action. In Gorleben, Germany, in early November, the CASTOR (Cask for Storage and Transport of Radioactive material) nuclear waste tranport finally reached an interim storage facility. Over a period of some 92 hours the nuclear transport faced more resistance and peaceful direct action from the local population and their supporters than ever before; their clear demand

was that Germany confirm its commitment to a nuclear phase-out now. On the final night of the transport, the train was stopped for several hours by acts of nonviolent direct action on a scale never before seen in the region, which has been the site of similar protests against transports of nuclear waste since 1997. Approximately 10,000 demonstrators – including local residents, politicians, environmental groups, football clubs, unions and supporters coming from all over Germany and beyond – occupied the railway tracks near Dannenberg a small town approximately 10 kilometres from the final destination. In one spot alone 5,000 people spent a cold night, sitting and sleeping on the tracks in order to stop the passage of the dangerous radioactive convoy. Farmers – who have always played an important role in the anti-CASTOR protests – aided the sit-ins on the tracks by blocking police supply lines. Even seasoned nuclear campaigners participating in this blockade were awestruck by the size and power of the resistance around Dannenberg. Greenpeace took peaceful direct action alongside these thousands of anti-nuclear demonstrators. In one instance, the nuclear waste transport found its


way barred by a truck belonging to Greenpeace, which was disguised as beer truck and blocking the road leading to Gorleben. The truck successfully held up the transport for 12 hours as police worked to remove several anti-nuclear activists locked to the truck and then finally removed the ‘beer truck’ itself. These combined efforts blocked the radioactive transport at every stage. The delays and police efforts in clearing the blockades illustrated clearly to the German government and the nuclear industry that their actions to prolong nuclear energy in Germany were taken undemocratically – without the consent of the German people. In fact, a decision reached in 2001 to phase out nuclea r by the end of 2023 had received a wide consensus in German society, but the current government had blown this consensus for the sake of extra profits for large utilities and the nuclear industry. It was now facing the outcome of its short-sighted policy decision. The anti-CASTOR protestors sent out a clear and strong

message to the German government, the nuclear industry, and the world that nuclear energy is not an option. They also set an example for the whole world of the raw power of peaceful protest to challenge both government and the nuclear industry. Their historic resistance will no doubt continue to be an inspiration for all of us working towards a future where dangerous nuclear energy is a thing of the past. Greenpeace’s campaign to phase out the climatechanging gases which are used in heating and cooling had a major success this year. 650 of the world’s biggest global brands, who met as the Consumer Goods Forum, made a joint commitment to stop using F-gases in their refrigeration technologies. This was the result of years of campaigning by Greenpeace to persuade the first movers, Coca Cola, Pepsi and Unilever, to become champions for change across the whole sector. Our efforts in this field gained recognition in 2010 with an award from the US Environment Protection Agency made to Janos Maté for decades of campaigning against ozone– destroying gases. Greenpeace had demonstrated that there was a solution for domestic refrigeration with Greenfreeze in the 1990s, which is now the technology of choice in over 40% of the global refrigeration market.


Greenpeace investigates the legacy of the

DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

or that they strove to make the whole thing just ‘go away’. It was this desperation that seems to have led to some seriously wishful thinking about the oil that they could Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Greenpeace sent the not see: in early August, the US government claimed that Arctic Sunrise to the Gulf of Mexico; we wanted to learn the truth 74% of the oil was quite simply ‘gone’. According to the about long-term impacts to the environment, rather than merely White House on 4 August, the vast majority of the oil accept what was being spun by BP or the US government. On board from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had either evaporated was Dave Walsh, who writes about Greenpeace’s work in the region, and reveals how or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead the ‘official’ story just wasn’t adding up... Writing this story, eight months after the or dispersed. Some 26%, it was said, had become ‘light sheen or Deepwater Horizon disaster, and five months since the well was capped, the oil weathered tarballs’, and had washed ashore where ‘it may spill might seem like ancient history. After all, it’s no longer dominating the New York have been collected, or is buried in sand and sediments Times front page or the BBC. But - just like the oil itself - the story is still out there. A at the sea bottom’. The US science community reacted quick search on Google news tells me that many victims of the spill are still seeking with bemused and exasperated scepticism. A University recompense, animal rehabilitation is ongoing and there are more calls for improvements of Georgia team issued a statement estimating that some to Gulf seafood testing procedures. It seems clear that while the world has moved 80% of the oil was still in the Gulf. Later, during the Oil on, the consequences of the oil spill will be felt for a long time, both by humans and Spill Commission hearings in Washington DC, biological by the Gulf environment they interact with every day. Greenpeace teams had been oceanographer Dr. Ian MacDonald said that, while some of in the Gulf since right after the spill, spending the summer bearing witness, investigating the oil had been dispersed, evaporated, burned or skimmed, impacts, and taking media to the places others daren’t reach. One of those people “the remaining fraction - over 50% of the total discharge - is was my colleague Joao Talocchi, who was pictured in the last Quarterly with his a highly durable material that resists further dissipation”. gloved hands covered in the crude oil that clogged the marshes of Louisiana. The image, Dr. MacDonald suggested that at least 2.5 million barrels by photographer Chuck Cook, was just one of the countless items of visual evidence remained in the Gulf’s ecosystem, and that “much of it is depicting the extent and effects of the oil that spewed from Macando wellhead, now buried in marine and coastalsediments”. He added following the explosion on 20 April. Aerial images showed abstracted clogged there was scant evidence for bacterial degradation of this coastlines, while down below, footage of oilspattered, white-suited cleaning teams competed material prior to burial. Note that this wasn’t an argument with heartbreaking images of oiled pelicans.This oil could be seen and touched, over the fine details. It was a massive and fundamental and was so TV-and-photo-friendly that it was no surprise that both BP and the US disagreement about what was really going in the Gulf. government wanted to control access to the affected areas, The US government was saying that 74% of the oil was gone, the scientific community was saying that 50%-80% was not gone. They couldn’t all be right. Let’s break this down a bit. A pretty unimaginable 4.9 million barrels of crude oil, (about 750 million litres) were released into the Gulf following the explosion on 20 April. Of this, it seems that some 900,000 barrels were pumped into tankers by BP. Another 400,000 were burned or skimmed, leaving somewhere between three and four million barrels of oil unaccounted for in the Gulf. It’s important to remember that the Gulf disaster wasn’t really an ‘oil spill’ in the usual sense; it was a release of oil from hundreds of metres below the Gulf’s surface. Left to its own devices, a proportion of the oil might have made it to the surface (some did), while the rest may, for instance, have hung in a suspended cloud

before gradually degrading into something that we would not immediately recognise as oil. It was clear, however, that BP wanted to the oil to ‘go away’ as quickly as possible, regardless of any longterm effects. The company proceeded to use the controversial dispersant Corexit at the release point itself – despite orders to desist from the US Environmental Protection Agency - and despite the fact that Corexit had never before been used to disperse oil at such a depth. A couple of days after the US government made its ‘74% gone’ claim, our ship the Arctic Sunrise steamed into the port of St. Petersburg, near Tampa, on the east coast of the Florida ‘panhandle’. In the course of three months, the little green icebreaker would provide a platform for several teams if independent scientists who, like us, wanted to get to the bottom of what was really going on in the Gulf of Mexico. Captained by Pete Willcox, the Arctic Sunrise headed to the reefs of the Dry Tortugas, via Key West, at the southern end of the Florida Keys - the oil sheen had reached this far south. Scientists Jose Lopez and into the Gulf – at one point getting close to Deepwater Horizon Chuck Messing, from Nova Southeastern University, joined Greenpeace USA oceans ‘ground zero’ itself - working with Caz Taylor and Erin Grey from campaign director and marine biologist John Hocevar to investigate the health of the Tulane University to look at impacts to blue crab larvae. As a result sponges. Sponges soak up all that passes by, filtering thousands of litres of seawater of the hot, sweaty and backbreaking work of carrying out plankton a day, and this makes them crucial bioindicators of the present and future health of a tows – literally dragging a small fine net behind the ship to collect reef. Fortunately, large quantities of oil have not yet made it to this region, but with tiny organisms - the scientists identified mysterious orange blobs studies like these it is possible to assess the full range of potential impacts of even inside the larvae, which appear to have been caused by exposure low concentrations of oil. Although the divers saw no visible signs of oil, time will tell to oil and dispersant. If this turns out to be the case, it will be whether the overall ecosystem will be affected by any long-term ‘sub-lethal’ impacts bad news for more than blue crabs: its bad news for the Gulf’s from the oil spill. From the Tortugas, the Arctic Sunrise headed north food chain in general. From tiny larvae, our attention moved to big mammals – the whales of the Gulf of Mexico. Sue Rocca of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation society had been carrying out cetacean surveys from the Arctic Sunrise and by the time I arrived


on the ship in Gulfport, Mississippi, in early September, we also had with us a team lead by Natalia Sidorovskaia of the Littoral Acoustic Demonstration Center (LADC). Working with Natalia and her colleagues, the crew of the Arctic Sunrise stationed three sets of recording devices to listen for the phonations of sperm and beaked whales. As beaked whales are extremely elusive and hard to identify visually, scientists use these acoustic methods to track their whereabouts and gauge their populations. The Arctic Sunrise crew had several sperm whales sightings that week, with several small pods appearing within a hundred metres or so of the ship. Natalia and the LADC team had been recording in the Gulf for many years, and by chance actually had nine years’ worth of data for whales from within just 15 kilometres from where the Deepwater Horizon disaster had occurred. By mid-September, the Arctic Sunrise was on its way out of Galveston, Texas, with a team led by bio-geochemist Rainer Amon on board, in search of the ‘oil plume’, a cloud of partially dissolved oil and gas reported to be drifting westwards from the spill site. Despite reports of the plume from several researchers and media, BP had initially refused to accept the plume’s existence. In late September, finding the plume was no simple matter; the scientists took measurements and seawater samples from points in the water column, at multiple depths and at a range of locations. This was a major job for the Arctic Sunrise crew; lowering and recovering the sampling equipment was a 24-hour operation. The water samples retrieved by Rainer and his team are still undergoing analysis, but the immediate electronic data obtained showed a clear indication of an oxygen deficiency in the Gulf’s waters, in an area stretching from around the Deepwater Horizon disaster site to 300 miles (500km) to the west. Bacteria needs oxygen to metabolise petrochemicals, and this lowers the level of oxygen in the

water – but in this case, not enough oxygen had been metabolised to account for all the missing oil. So where was it? Rainer suggested that the oil might be on the sea floor. One of Rainer’s colleagues, Cliff Nunnally, had brought device called a ‘box core’ on board, which he used to take sediment samples from the floor of the Gulf; even from one location just a few miles from the spill site. After dropping the core as deep as 1,400m we would haul it back on to the ship and start stuffing the mud into sampling bottles – messy, but fun. The deck of the Arctic Sunrise quickly became a very muddy place, and on a couple of occasions it was actually possible to smell and see the crude oil that was mixed with the seafloor sediment. After Rainer and Cliff departed with their samples for their laboratory in Galveston, the Arctic Sunrise picked up a submarine. Yes, a submarine! We took the tiny, two-seater submarine, capable of diving hundreds of metres beneath the ocean’s surface, out towards the oil spill area, to investigate the state of the Gulf’s deep sea corals. The sub’s tight confines were not to this writer’s taste, but my cabin mate John Hocevar is a trained submarine pilot. Together with Steve Ross from the University of North Carolina Wilmington and Sandra Brooke from the Marine Conservation Biology Institute and the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, John took the submarine on deep dives many times over our week at sea, carrying out numerous video transect surveys, gathering live coral specimens and water samples, and recording water Amon on board, in search of the ‘oil plume’, a cloud of partially dissolved oil and gas reported to quality data with a high tech instrument. They saw live, healthy-looking coral, as be drifting westwards from the spill site. Despite reports of the plume from several researchers well as a lot of dead coral. The deep-sea corals of the Gulf are so little-studied that and media, BP had initially refused to accept the plume’s existence. In late September, there is very little baseline data available to allow for meaningful comparisons finding the plume was no simple matter; the scientists took measurements and seawater of what is normal and abnormal. Hopefully, the work done by Steve and Sandra samples from points in the water column, at multiple depths and at a range of locations. will help contribute to this body of knowledge. The scientists wanted to investigate This was a major job for the Arctic Sunrise crew; lowering and recovering the sampling whether the whales been affected by the oil spill - and if so, had some died, or had any equipment was a 24-hour operation. As the one year anniversary of the disaster grows closer, left the area? With a population of between 1,400 and 1,660 sperm whales in the Gulf, the research to understand the impacts of the oil on the Gulf environment will continue in there have been serious suggestions that due to the naturally slow reproduction rates laboratories across the US. In December 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that scientists of whales, the removal of as few as three sperm whales due to human causes could from the University of South Florida had discovered a thick residue of oil lying on the Gulf prompt the collapse of the population. Good news, however - preliminary results floor, and many dead worms and other organisms. Their tests showed identical chemical from Natalia’s research suggested that while whales left the immediate area of the signals with the oil from BP’s Macando well. Despite what BP and the US government oil spill (possibly due to the oil and noise), the average number of whales in the would like us to think, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill’s impact is not ‘over’. Scientists know better, northern Gulf doesn’t seem to have dropped. By mid-September, the Arctic Sunrise fishermen know better, the people of the Gulf know better - and certainly, the clean-up crews was on its way out of Galveston, Texas, with a team led by bio-geochemist Rainer endlessly picking up tar balls know better. It’s time to make the switch to an Energy [R]evolution, instead of allowing our oil addiction continue to foul our environment.


Nuclear Power

Goes Solar

The Zwentendorf nuclear plant was never operated and has been mothballed since the 70’s. Today it is to open as On July 24th, Greenpeace a solar power station: our banner simply stated: “Energy was invited by the Austrian Revolution – Climate Solution.” A nuclear power station authorities to hang a banner in Austria now uses clean, safe nuclear energy -- the from a nuclear power station, sun! The plant’s operation was fiercely contested and unlikely but true. in 1978 a national referendum sealed its fate. Nuclear fuel rods were never inserted into the reactor and the concrete plant on the edge of the Danube River in western Austria never produced electricity. It has stood dormant as a testament to Austrian concerns over nuclear energy. Now, a 1.2 million Euro project has turned the nuclear power plant into the largest solar power station in Austria. A testament to the fact that the only safe nuclear power comes from the sun. At a ceremony hosted by the State of Lower Austria, the head of our climate campaign, Thomas Henningsen, received an award presented by American actress Andie MacDowell, for our work to raise alarm over climate change and the promotion of climate solutions. The ‘Save the World Awards’ are the first international awards that honour

exceptional individuals and organisations working toward a sustainable future. “Among all threats that human societies and cultures are facing, we believe that climate change is by far the most serious”, said Thomas. “If we do not act right now, we will see billions of people fighting for drinking water and new land to settle. This alone will put the whole world into chaos. But we will also lose half of our species and almost all of our rainforests and coral reefs.” We are convinced that we can avert climate chaos and an energy revolution is essential if we are to radically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. When the banks were saved during the crisis, billions of Euros were made available overnight and laws were passed by decision making bodies at a speed whichwas never seen before. This is the kind of political will we need to see this year as an historic opportunity to place the world on the path of a low carbon economy draws closer. In just 135 days - world leaders

have to agree on a global climate deal at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen. This must include crucial mid-term targets and a commitment to provide developing countries with 140 billion US$ annually - to help them tackle climate change and fund forest protection. If a nuclear power station can go solar, then why can’t our entire energy system be diverted to clean and safe renewable energy sources, backed by energy efficiency and conservation? If we can bail out the banks, then why can’t we provide the 140 billion US dollars a year needed to help the developing world adapt to and mitigate climate change: that includes 40 billion US dollars needed to end tropical deforestation which is responsible for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.


Environmental Report

The worldwide total figures reported below include the emissions from Greenpeace International and all 28 Greenpeace National and Regional Offices around the globe.

Greenpeace Worldwide GHG Emissions (in CO2 equiv. metric tonnes)

2010 2009

SCOPE 1: Direct GHG emissions

Direct emissions for marine transportation Direct emissions for inflatables Direct emissions for helicopter transportation Direct emissions for natural gas Direct emissions for vehicles

Total Scope 1 :

6,145 70 53 312 524 7,104

5,948 163 67 329 806 7,313

Indirect emissions for office electricity Indirect emissions for server electricity

Total Scope 2:

SCOPE 3: Other indirect GHG emissions Indirect emissions for business travel Indirect emissions for paper consumption

Total Scope 3:

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS:

our greenhouse gas emissions. While increasing the size of our activities during the year, we were able to hold greenhouse gas emissions steady. We reduced our travel

SCOPE 2: Indirect GHG emissions – electricity

We continue our efforts to reduce

1,005 887 15 x 1,020 887

emissions in part via a programme to install video conferencing in all our offices. The second main contribution to our greenhouse gas emissions is attributable to our marine operations. During

9,423 9,699 1,948 1,712 11,371 11,411

19,495 19,611

2011 the new Rainbow Warrior will be delivered, while her predecessor will be retired. We expect a

major greenhouse gas reduction in the future from the

operation of this sailing vessel, which is designed for energy efficiency. In 2011, we are implementing a global ‘100% Renewable Electricity’ policy, aimed at converting our office and technology consumption of electricity to renewable energy – as it becomes possible in local markets.


Se

cti

on

2:

St

im

ul

at i

ng

Gr ow

th


Campaigning for Sustainable Agriculture

In 2010, Greenpeace helped deliver the strongest show of opposition against genetic engineering (GE) from Europe’s citizens yet, in cooperation with Avaaz, a web-based global campaigning community. We collected over 1 million signatures from across 27 European countries, asking John Dalli, the EU’s Commissioner of Health and Consumer Policy, to implement a GE freeze. It was the EU’s first ever European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), and our presentation assured attention: a 3D pavement artist, Kurt Wenner, was commissioned to created colourful 3D artwork, showing an ecological farm and the names of all those that had signed, which was then printed on a record-sized, ecofriendly canvas, using non-toxic inks. In December, Greenpeace placed a banner right in front of the building where the future of GE in Europe is being decided – the European Commission in Brussels. Unfortunately, the EU President, José Manuel Barroso, has been found to be pushing a pro-GE agenda. In 2010, we made clear that we want the Commission to come up with real solutions to the dead-end of industrial agriculture instead. This entails a radical shift of the funding of science and technology towards ecological agriculture, which ensures healthy food for today and tomorrow. Ecological farming protects soil, water and the climate, promotes biodiversity, and excludes outdated technological fixes such as genetic engineering. We made our point with large billboards of John Dalli and José Manuel Barroso depicted as chefs cooking up “GE recipes for disaster”, which we placed prominently around the city centre banning the GE potato ‘Amflora’, but also prompted these three EU member states filing a of Brussels, and by handing out a ‘GE Cookbook’, which provided recipes such as ‘Angry legal case against the European Commission for authorising the Amflora without conducting a Farmer Antipasti’ or ‘Food Insecurity Tacos’, under the headline ‘A t(h)reat for the whole proper risk assessment. And incredibly, Brussels, the EU capital, declared itself GMO-free in EU family’. Our GE-free Future Tour, meanwhile, took the message by bus through Europe, September. In India, Greenpeace’s work lead to the Ministry of Environment and Forests with activities in Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, France and Spain. Ministers, implementing a moratorium on the so-called Bt Brinjal (eggplant), thus not allowing the GE chefs, farmers and members of the public visited the bus during its three-week voyage to voice crop to contaminate Indian agriculture. Victory was also celebrated in Brazil; discouraged their opposition to GE. Hard EU lobbying not only led to Austria, Hungary and Luxemburg by 8 years of continuous Greenpeace campaigning, the German agro-chemical company Bayer finally gave up trying to introduce GE rice to Brazilian farmers. And in Mexico Greenpeace protests directed at the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), prevented the FAO and the Mexican government from rolling out a planned promotion and legitimising of the use of transgenic maize. Over 500 activists from all over Germany gathered to eat a GE-free lunch at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in March – in a protest against the GE-friendly policies of the German government. The banquet was set up so that the tables spelled out the word ‘NEIN’ (‘NO’) when seen from above.


In 2010, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development – the first and most comprehensive global assessment on this subject - published its report, ‘Agriculture at a Crossroads’, proposing changes in agriculture policy. We published our own review - ‘Agriculture at a Crossroads: Food for Survival’ - joining the IAASTD in calling for fundamental change in farming practices, in order to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. In China, we exposed scandals of contamination of pesticides and GE in food, while campaigners in India focused their work on challenging the country’s fertiliser policy. In both countries we have set up platforms for the discussion of agriculture, to encourage the debate around and the promotion of ecological farming methods and national policies to encourage the uptake of agriculture among farmers. Globally, Greenpeace worked towards protecting rice – the crop most vulnerable to contamination by the commercial growing of genetically-engineered (GE) rice. In particular, we established Greenpeace as a key player in the promotion of ecological farming in Asia. A key achievement of this work throughout the year was ensuring that there was no approval of GE rice for commercial cultivation in China, Brazil or Europe. We applied pressure on governments and decision-makers so that the timetables for commercial planting of GE rice were rolled back. Because of the several scandals we had exposed in China that involved GE rice, investment was successfully diverted back into research. Greenpeace organised a petition against the potential legislation that would allow the introduction of GE rice in Europe. The petition was presented to the EU Commissioner for Health in Brussels by farmers from Spain, Sweden and Thailand. The Thai farmer was 62 year old Samnieng Huadlim, the owner of the organic rice field in which Greenpeace mapped out and planted a giant ‘rice art’ picture; the picture depicted a traditional Thai rice harvest, and became the symbol for our campaign. Samnieng had switched to organic farming over the last five years. As well as being better for the environment - when she stopped using chemical pesticides, she saw the earthworms returning to her

fields - she also found that she was able to increase her income and reduce her costs. Momentum is now growing in Thailand for achieving the first ban on GE rice globally. Thanks to Greenpeace’s work, these farmers were able to bring their message to EU decision-makers: Ecological farming is the choice they have made to produce healthy, good quality food and to sustain their families. With their personal accounts documented in the Greenpeace report ‘Testimonies of Contamination’, the farmers were able to reveal some of the disastrous consequences of GE contamination, as well as promote the benefits of switching to ecological farming. Ecological farming with practices based on biodiversity and without use of synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, can produce as much food per hectare as the conventional agriculture systems, and even increase yields, especially in developing countries. A recent meta-analysis showed that globally, ecological farming can produce, on average, about 30 percent more food per hectare than conventional agriculture, and in developing countries organic farming can produce about 80 percent more food per hectare. Ecological farming is the most promising, realistic and economically feasible solution to the current destructive agriculture model. In a recent UN study, in depth analysis of 15 organic farming examples in Africa have shown increases in per-hectare productivity for food crops, increased farmer incomes, environmental benefits, strengthened communities and enhanced human capital. Organic agriculture can increase agricultural productivity and can raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage. Ecological farming is a profitable farming system. Across Europe, for example, a region-wide analysis indicates that profits on organic farms are on average comparable to those on conventional farms. In apple orchards in the west of the US, when compared with the conventional and integrated farms, the organic farms produced sweeter and less tart apples, higher profitability and greater energy efficiency. In a decade long study in Wisconsin (USA), scientists have shown that farming with high diversity and with no pesticides or chemical fertilisers is more profitable than farming with monocultures and chemicals. An example of economic benefits of ecological farming is the success of the Non-Pesticide Management program in Andhra Pradesh (India) in reducing the costs of cultivation and increasing the net incomes of the farmers. The cost of cultivation was brought down significantly, with savings on chemical pesticides ranging between 600 and 6000 Indian Rupees (US$ 15 - 150) per hectare without affecting the yields. This success has received the Indian Prime Minister’s attention and was selected under a National Agriculture Development Project to scale up non-pesticide into organic farming in 5000

villages over the next five years covering 10 million hectares. Ecological farming represents a significant net saving for citizens. For example in the UK, if the whole farming system shifted to organic farming, environmental costs savings would be of about 1 billion £ per year (1.5 billion US$) . Ecological farming practices are ideally suited for poor and smallholder farmers, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress. As the UN Agriculture Assessment (International Assessment of Agriculture Science and Technology for Development) states about food security: “policies that promote sustainable agriculture (…) stimulate more technology innovation, such as agroecological approaches and organic farming to alleviate poverty and improve food security.”


Genetically Engineered Maize

the reality behind myths

Maize, it’s one of the world’s largest commercial food crops and is grown in many countries around the world. We use it on a large scale and it’s in many of them common foods we eat, from soft drinks and bread through to processed foods, in the form of syrup and starch. Large quantities are used as animal feed for poultry, cows and pigs. Many people in countries such as those in Latin America and eastern Africa are reliant on maize as their main staple food crop. And right now multinational agrochemical companies are trying to get control of this staple food crop through promoting genetically engineered (GE) varieties of maize. Currently the world’s big agrochemical firms that produce GE seeds – notably Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta(1)

- are investing millions of dollars every year to promote so-called benefits of the use of their GE technology. But the truth is that many farmers that have grown GE maize have yet to see any benefits promised by the agrochemical companies. Furthermore GE maize poses a serious threat to the environment, animal and human health. Genetically engineered organisms (GE organisms) also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are new life forms which have never before occurred in nature, and which cross species barriers, unlike traditional plant breeding or traditional biotechnology. GE have repeatedly failed to perform as intended in the field and have given rise to new agronomic problems. Commercialised GE crops depend upon the consistent expression of inserted herbicide resistance and/or toxin genes in order to perform. If these genes do not function as intended, crop losses may result. GE varieties have also demonstrated new susceptibility to pests and diseases, for unknown reasons. Genetically engineering plants to resist insects also has an impact upon pest populations, since troublesome new pests - that require heavy use of insecticides – can emerge as a result. In China, scientists have demonstrated that high temperatures can lead to problems with cotton varieties genetically engineered to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxins. Investigating reports of Bt cotton failing to control bollworms, scientists noted that the problem appeared to correlate to periods of high temperature. They hypothesised that heat may reduce the Bt plants’ resistance to insects. To test the theory, the Yangzhou University-based group grew GE cotton under controlled conditions. At key stages, such as flowering, they exposed the plants to high (37°C) temperatures encountered in China’s cotton-growing areas. The plants exposed to heat produced 30-63% less Bt toxin, making them less resistant to the caterpillar pests. Control plants not exposed to the heat did not show the same problem. The experiments were repeated a second year with similar results. Scientists are uncertain why the GE cotton varieties react to high temperatures in this fashion, showing once again that the consequences of genetic engineering are not fully understood. In glyphosateresistant ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, there is growing evidence that heat and water stresses cause reduced herbicide resistance (Cerdeira & Duke 2006). When their resistance is reduced, plants are damaged when Roundup is sprayed to control weeds, resulting in crop losses. Cotton farmers in Texas report that they have experienced this problem and that Monsanto has failed to warn farmers of it. Charging the company with ‘a long-standing campaign of deception’, Texas farmers have sued Monsanto, alleging deceptive trade practices (Musick v. Monsanto Co. 2006). According to the Texas farmers’ complaint, GE cotton planted in 2004 and 2005 was damaged by glyphosate: “In truth, even [glyphosate] applications applied strictly

in compliance with Monsanto’s instructions can, and often do, significantly damage the reproductive tissues in the cotton plants. This damage substantially reduces cotton yields from otherwise healthy plants…” (Musick v. Monsanto Co. 2006). Texas farmers additionally allege that Monsanto knew that the cotton would be damaged by glyphosate, but failed to disclose this fact. “We feel like Monsanto’s been lying to us all along,” one farmer told Reuters. Another said that glyphosate damage to his Roundup Ready cotton reduced his yield by nearly 40%(Gillam, 2006). The case is pending in US federal court in Texas. Unanticipated susceptibility to disease and insects Chinese and Norwegian scientists have compared the susceptibility of GE and non-GE cotton to infection by the destructive fungus Fusarium oxysporum. They found that conventional Chinese soya varieties resisted F. oxysporum better than the same varieties when they were genetically engineered (Li, 2009). Similarly, Swiss and UK scientists have found that insect-resistant GE maize varieties are more susceptible to the corn leaf aphid than the conventional parent plants (Faria, 2007). The genetic mechanisms of these disease and insect susceptibilities are not understood. It is clear, however, that they are related to genetic engineering because in both cases conventional parent varieties of GE plants do not show the same susceptibility as the GE types. All major field crops are threatened by not just one but many pest species. These threats are unevenly distributed; a major pest in one region may be of little concern elsewhere, and vice versa. GE crops do not incorporate complex transgenic traits that allow plants to respond to changing pest threats and to resist a wide variety of their enemies. For example, Bt cotton, which kills bollworms (Helicoverpa), has succumbed to a related genus, armyworms (Spodoptera) in Colombia (Lopez Gonzales, 2008). Thus, even if successful at controlling a target pest species, other pests (called ‘secondary pests’) may then emerge as more prominent threats to the plants, resulting in crop loss and the need to apply additional pesticides. For example, Bt cotton is designed to resist bollworms and reduce the need for pesticides to control them - but researchers have found that Chinese farmers spray as many pesticides on Bt varieties as conventional ones. What has prompted farmers to do this is the increased prevalence of secondary pests that Bt toxins do not control. The cost of additional spraying made Bt cotton less profitable than its conventional counterpart in five provinces surveyed: “Economic gains experienced by adopters of Bt cotton seed in 1999-2001 evaporated by 2004 largely due to the rapid increase in the pressure from secondary pests.” (Wang, 2008). Genetic engineering breaks the natural boundaries that exist between species. A fish and a strawberry will not breed in nature, but in the laboratory, scientists can take a gene from a fish, insert it into a strawberry, and essentially create an entirely new organism. Genetic engineering can manipulate genes from animals, plants, and even humans. Once these man-made organisms are released into the environment and the food chain, they reproduce and contaminate conventional and organic (food) crops. No one knows what the long-term effects of GE organisms on the environment will be, as before the mid-90s they had never been released into the environment on a large scale.


“GE maize brings economic benefits” >>> Reality: The worldwide rejection

DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MAIZE

of GE food by consumers, retailers and food companies has turned the production of GE crops into a risky business. After the introduction of GE maize in the US – by far the largest producer of GE crops in the world – many US maize farmers and traders lost their exports to key destinations. For example, the export of maize from the US to Europe has declined from 3.3 million tonnes in 1995 to just 25,000 tonnes in 2002.(6) The negative economic impact of GE maize and other GE crops falls heavily on the most vulnerable, the rural poor in developing countries. GE seeds are often aggressively marketed and presented as miracle seeds by agrochemical companies such as Monsanto. These companies offer loans to resource-poor farmers in order to allow them to buy the GE seeds, which are often much more expensive than conventional seeds. Then it turns out that the seeds are not a miracle and that they do not have yields that are substantially higher than non-GE seeds. Consequently the farmers end up with a large debt and have to take out even more loans to buy new seeds (agrochemical companies do not allow farmers to save GE seeds for the next growing season as this is considered to be an infringement of the agrochemical companies patents).

“Coexistence OF GE & non-GE crops is possible” >>> Reality: Scientific research has demonstrated that GE crops contaminate conventional and organic crops, foods and honey. And when GE crops are planted in the open environment - even with stringent laws in place – it is impossible to control insects, pollen drift and wind flow. GE contamination not only poses a risk to food safety, but also to biodiversity and to food security, especially in the centres of origin and centres of diversity for maize. The primary centre of diversity of maize is found in Mexico and Central America, but farmers throughout the western hemisphere are the keepers of traditional varieties of maize grown for millennia by their ancestors. If GE maize contaminates the original maize plants that are grown in these regions, humanity may lose the “mother plants” from which all maize varieties originate. This would be a major disaster, since diversity is essential to ongoing breeding programmes and the development of new varieties that can resist pests, diseases, drought and other agronomic challenges. Wind and insects spread pollen and genetic information to other plants.

“GE MAIZE IS SAFE FOR the environment” >>> Reality: Most of the GE

maize grown around the world is a variety called Bt maize. This maize has been genetically engineered to produce its own toxin. This toxin is harmful to certain beneficial insects which kill pests. It has also been demonstrated that Bt maize is harmful for butterflies, and there are concerns for the long term health of the soil as the Bt toxin can accumulate in the soil. The genetic engineering industry has also created so-called herbicide tolerant (HT) maize, such as maize T25 from the German agrochemical conglomerate Bayer. Cultivation of the GE herbicide tolerant maize will undoubtedly lead to increased weed resistance resulting in more and more herbicide being applied - a pattern that has been seen with other GE herbicide tolerant crops. The herbicides sprayed on GE maize are often extremely harmful for the environment. For example the herbicide sprayed on Bayer’s T25 maize – gufosinate ammomium – has been described as “a high risk to mammals” by the European Food Safety Authority.

Reality: Hunger is <<< “GE maize will help to reduce a problem of food distribution, lack of access to land, water and income, not the availability of food. In India - for example - millions of tonnes of grain are rotting away, while 300 million people go to bed hungry every night. The real problem is that too many people do not have enough income to get access to the available food and too few people have the land to grow food for themselves. These problems are not solved by introducing GE seed. On the contrary – GE crops are likely to aggravate the hunger problem and indebtedness of small farmers, because they require high investments in expensive seeds and huge amounts of pesticides. GE seeds are not designed to solve the hunger of the poor, but the hunger of greedy corporations and their shareholders for more profits.

hunger”

Reality: The GE <<< “GE MAIZE IS SAFE TO EAT” industry has for years promoted GE foods as safe to eat but they have been reluctant to disclose vital information to the public that clearly shows potential problems with the consumption of GE foods. In 2005, in a case that was initiated by Greenpeace, a German court ordered agrochemical company Monsanto to publish studies of effects on rats that had been fed GE Bt maize (MON 863). Monsanto’s studies were then re-assessed by independent scientists, with shocking results.(3) Among other things the scientists revealed that Monsanto had failed to disclose negative effects (“signs of toxicity”) on the internal organs of the rats. Nevertheless, the GE was already approved in more than 10 countries around the world including the EU, Japan, Canada and the Philippines. The authorities in all these countries had completely relied on the genetic engineering industry’s own research and allowed a high risk product to slip through the authorisation system. The case again emphasizes the urgent need for more independent research into the health effects of GE maize and other GE food crops. Reality: When <<< “GE maize is needed to fight climate biomass is used to generate energy in an efficient and sustainable way, it has a role to play in the fight against climate change. However, independent studies confirm that ethanol fuel based on maize is an unsustainable form of bio energy. Firstly, the use of maize for ethanol drives up food prices and threatens the food security of the poor in certain regions; this is currently happening in Central-America. Secondly, there is wide agreement that the CO2 savings from corn ethanol are small or even negative depending on the production techniques used and source of energy inputs.(4) Thirdly, the use of GE maize for biofuels is a even riskier prospect, GE maize designed for industrial fuel contains proteins that are not normally present in the human diet. These proteins have the potential to be toxic and to cause allergies, as was recognized by the South African department of agriculture, who – in March 2007- rejected Syngenta’s application for the approval of its GE maize ethanol. GE ethanol maize could easily contaminate the food chain, as more than a decade of experience with GE maize has shown. (5) In other words, if the agrochemical industry gets its way your breakfast cornflakes could soon contain GE ethanol maize, an energy boost you don’t need! Native Mexican maize would be threatened by the introduction of GE maize.

change”


Following a short but highly effective Greenpeace campaign targeting the Kit Kat brand, in May 2010 the food giant Nestlé agreed to stop purchasing products that come from rainforest destruction. The commitment capped eight weeks of intense campaigning against a carefully chosen target. Greenpeace combined massive consumer pressure via social media with non-violent direct action and the ongoing provision of satellite images and photographs as evidence of deforestation. Hundreds of thousands supported the campaign by emailing Nestlé, by calling them, or by spreading the campaign message via Facebook, Twitter and other social media profiles. A Greenpeace video parody (‘Have a Break?’) was removed from YouTube, sparking online calls of censorship, resulting in hundreds of thousands of views of the video within hours of it being uploaded again elsewhere. In preparation, Greenpeace had clearly established that palm oil being used in the Kit Kat chocolate bar was produced by Sinar Mas, an Indonesian company that has been found, again and again, to destroy carbon-rich peatlands and rainforests in Indonesia. Just how bad the group is for the planet was documented in our Empires of Destruction report, which we released in July. Photographic evidence, aerial monitoring and field analysis showed how Sinar Mas continued to clear rainforest containing priceless biodiversity, such as orang-utan habitat, and peatlands – despite public promises it had made to clean up its act. The revelations also highlighted the group’s ambitions to expand its pulp and palm oil empire into millions more hectares across Indonesia. Investigating and exposing unscrupulous palm oil and paper production – and the naming and shaming of companies that benefit from it – is a core element of Greenpeace’s forest campaign. In 2010, these activities continued to build upon our ongoing lobby work to get governments around the world to take the co-ordinated international and local political action needed to protect the world’s forests, the rights of the people who depend on them, biodiversity and the climate. Our ultimate aim – zero deforestation, globally, by 2020 – saw another significant step forward in December, when 80,000 hectares of pine forest in northern Finland were declared off-limits to industrial logging. The agreement with Metsahallitus, the Finnish government’s

forest enterprise, followed an eight-year campaign by Greenpeace and Finland’s indigenous Saami to protect the Earth’s northernmost forest ecosystem from Europe’s hunger for paper. In 2010, Europe also closed its doors to the destructive illegal timber trade. The new law – which bans illegal timber from one of the world’s biggest markets – is a great success for a decadelong Greenpeace campaign that saw activists blockading ports, halting wood shipments and going undercover to expose illegal logging in the Amazon, Central Africa, Russia and Southeast Asia. Greenpeace provided Russian citizens and the international media with up-to-date information on the real extent of the dramatic forest fires that savaged the country during the summer, including detailed maps and satellite images of the fires’ actual spread and locations. A team of six staff and 14 volunteers tracked the situation on the ground. A process to transform an area of the Canadian Boreal Forest twice the size of Germany into vast protected areas and sustainable forestry sites was begun in May, when 21 member companies of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and nine leading environmental organisations, including Greenpeace, signed an unprecedented

agreement. The coming together of two traditional adversaries marked a new commitment to a common goal. “The Indonesian government must also take tough action against deforestation. It must protect our country’s carbon rich peatland and rainforests as well as the reputation of the palm oil and paper industries by establishing a moratorium on forest destruction and full peatland protection.” After a 3 year undercover investigation by Greenpeace into Brazil’s booming cattle industry – the single largest source of deforestation in the world, and Brazil’s main source of CO2 emissions – Greenpeace released ‘Slaughtering the Amazon’. This report showed how top food, sports and fashion brands were unwittingly driving the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. We had managed to track beef, leather and other cattle products from ranches involved in destroying the heart of the Amazon all the way back to the supply chains of top brands. The report was extensively covered in global media, and the reaction to it was fast and furious. Within weeks, Nike, Adidas, Timberland, Clarks and Geox announced they would not buy leather from the Amazon until their suppliers committed to an immediate moratorium on any further cattle expansion in the rainforest. Walmart Brazil committed to a zero deforestation supply-chain policy and, in October, four of the biggest players in the global cattle industry (JBS-Friboi, Bertin, Minerva and Marfrig) joined forces and signed an agreement to stop buying cattle from newlydeforested areas of the rainforest. This was a significant step in the battle for Amazon protection, and built on the moratorium we achieved in 2006, to stop companies buying soya from newly deforested areas in the Amazon. Meanwhile, in October we opened a Climate Defenders camp in the heart of the Indonesian rainforest to highlight the need for a good plan and substantial funds for international

PROTECTING OUR FORESTS

forest protection as part of the global plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Working with local communities, Greenpeace stopped carbon-rich peatlands from being drained and destroyed by building a series of dams. The destruction of peatlands releases millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases each year and destroys river ecosystems. Greenpeace also took direct action against Indonesian pulp and paper giants APP and APRIL, raising international awareness of the plight of the threatened Kampar Peninsula and the inextricable connection between forest destruction and global climate disaster. In December, we also welcomed the news that Unilever had agreed to drop its palm oil contract with the Indonesia’s notorious Sinar Mas, 18 months after we exposed its connection to the company. In Canada, the Great Bear Rainforest protection agreement came into force, protecting an area of Canadian forest half the size of Switzerland from logging. This was a result of one of Greenpeace’s longest running campaigns. It was won through the use of non-violent direct action on the ground, consumer pressure, stakeholder actions, meeting face-to-face with government and industry officials, and by thousands of online activists worldwide. Kimberly-Clark - the world’s largest manufacturer of tissue products and best known for popular brands like Kleenex, Scott, Andrex and Cottonelle – announced an environmental policy that placed it among industry leaders in sustainability, bringing Greenpeace’s five-year Kleercut campaign to a successful end. The company agreed to use FSC-certified and recycled pulp and to end the use of fibre from endangered forests. In Europe, the Finnish government-owned logging company Metsähallitus agreed to not log 100,000 hectares of old-growth forests in northern Lapland and a further 200,000 hectares of non-productive forests were put off-limits to logging following seven years of pressure by Greenpeace.


greenpeace victories

The Finnish Pine Forests > > The Finnish pine forests north of the polar circle form the northernmost forest ecosystem on the Earth. Europe’s hunger for paper has decreased their size continuously over the last decades, up to a point where only a tiny fraction remain in a natural state in some parts of Northern Lapland. Some of the best parts of this true natural wonders were being threatened big time by forestry operations – along with every winter’s snow and ice came the logging trucks, and more of the forest’s unique pine trees ended up as weekly magazines on the coffee tables of Europe. Oliver Salge, now head of Greenpeace Germany’s forest and oceans campaign, leads us through the story of the long struggle to save the Finnish forests from destruction... > > The golden light of the setting sun hits the top of the pine trees and

makes the whole atmosphere of the forest a magical one. The thick old trees show all its patina during summertime, when the sun sets only for an hour. Complete darkness is absent this time of the year. I am with Matti, my colleague from Helsinki, in one of the most magnificent old growth forests in northern Lapland, south west of the large Lake Inari. We are here to join some of our friends and partners from the Saami community, to celebrate the protection of the large forests that we have achieved together – from Day 1 until the final steps to victory - and to share stories about how it all happened - stories about a 10-year long campaign to protect this unique old growth forest. > > Apart from the dangers it posed to a large number of threatened and red-listed species who still find a habitat up here in the north, continuing forest clearance was particular negative for the indigenous Saami people, who live in northern Finland and have practised reindeer husbandry for hundred of years. Every time the logging company took a piece of the valuable old growth forest it decreased the area in which the Saami’s reindeer could find their winter food. The reindeer are dependent on tree-hanging lichens, particularly towards the end of winter, in February and March. The lichen only grows on older trees, and if these are taken, less and less lichen is left for the reindeer. > > This system of forest destruction in Northern Finland was neither accepted by the Saami people nor by Finnish environmentalists, but the power of the state-owned forest enterprise Metsähallitus was too strong to challenge. In early 2001, Matti and I looked at the facts and figures and we decided we had to at least try to challenge this ongoing nightmare. Greenpeace has just reopened its office in Helsinki and Matti was hired to take on the challenge. I had just started with Greenpeace Germany as forest campaigner. He contacted me after studying the statistics of Finnish paper exports and realising that the bulk of the pulp and paper produced in Finland made its way to Germany and other European destinations; this was most likely also true for the pines from the old growth forests. At this time I was unaware that the campaign to save Finland’s old growth forests would engage my time for nearly a decade - I’ve now been to Finland so many times, I’ve lost count. > > I started contacting the leading magazine and newsprint publishers in Germany, telling them that one of their suppliers was involved in ancient forest destruction, and arguing that the trees were most probably ending up in their own paper supply chains. I explained all the negative impacts of biodiversity and people, and how Greenpeace was demanding change, but I knew that letters and telephone calls weren’t going to be enough to change the world this time.

> > So I and other Greenpeace activists jumped into action and into our Zodiac inflatables to protest against the destruction of the old growth; not in Finland - where Greenpeace and others have demonstrated numerous times for the protection of the woods - but this time in the market place! The Northern German port of Luebeck, where paper arrived from Scandinavia to be distributed to many European countries, was the place to be, and one day in April 2001 Greenpeace activist climbed a bridge and unfurled a banner; the ship from Finland carrying the paper couldn’t pass the bridge as the banner and the climbers were in its way. To our surprise, the police closed the bridge due to our protest, shutting off one of Luebeck’s arterial roads and bringing traffic to a stand still. Thanks to the police action, our protest gained even more attention and Greenpeace became prime time news. > > Greenpeace has had a good history with some German publishers – at this time, we’d previously been in dialogue with them about forest destruction in Western Canada in the mid 90s, and it was only a matter of months after this first action in Germany before Matti and I were hosting a whole delegation of publishers in the woods of Northern Finland. Our idea was simple - if the managers of these publication companies saw with their own eyes what was going on in the woods, it would change their attitudes to forest protection forever – and simple as it was, it worked. There we were, in the middle of beautiful old growth forest with a handful of managers and a world-leading scientist to explain why these few remaining old growth forests were important to sustain biodiversity, particularly in times of climate change. Also with us was the president of the largest Finnish nature conservation association, sharing its own views on forestry and demanding change. The managers went away, and for the first time asked their suppliers how logging operations in these pristine places - where trees were up to 700 years old – could be supported. A few months after the field trip, all logging plans for the areas we had been visiting with publishers were put on hold. Two years later, these and a few other old growth forest areas were protected. > > However, logging in many other old growth forests continued, particularly in the Saami homeland, Inari. How were we to stop this and pave the way forward, towards a solution in this long-running forest conflict? I was inspired by a tree-top protest that Greenpeace activists had once carried out in Tasmania. They had established a type of platform 70 metres high in the gigantic Eucalyptus trees of the pristine Styx Valley, which enabled them to stay there for several weeks successfully protesting the logging of the trees. I thought - that’s what we have to do in Lapland, too! The trees might not be so tall, but there would be other challenges - such as the minus 35 degrees we’d need to deal with during the Finnish winter! Combining the lessons learned from the Styx Valley tree protest with the experience of Greenpeace camps in the ice in Alaska, when we were protesting against BP’s oil drilling a little later, lead us on to the establishment of a Forest Rescue Camp in Lapland. To find out what the Saami thought about our plans, Matti and I travelled to Inari and talked them over with the Saami who were standing up against the injustice of logging. Although the idea of a protest camp in the middle of the forest was a new one for them, they immediately understood the value of such a protest and agreed to help us manage the logistics around it. > > The day the logging started, early in March 2005, I arrived in Inari, together with some 50 other Greenpeace activists from many different countries, and established the Forest Rescue Station, consisting of two 20 foot containers and a traditional red tipi. A windmill supplied some energy and our flag fluttered from a huge tower. We had come to stay!


> > This was also clearly understood by the paper producer Stora Enso, who sourced the timber to make its paper from these forests. The day after our arrival the logging stopped – Greenpeace forest campaigners across Europe had contacted leading magazine and newsprint publishers, calling on them to speak to their suppliers and demand a halt to the logging. Days later, our presence and even more telephone calls convinced the supply chain manager of Stora Enso to meet with us and some Saami people in the middle of the forest. After some hours talking to us, sitting in a traditional tipi, the manager said that his company would stop buying the timber from the forests that Greenpeace and the Saami indicated on the maps. A big first step, but not the solution saving the forests for now and future generations. > > Matti and I were sceptical as to how long this logging moratorium would last. Our experience with the Finnish state enterprise Metsähallitus had taught us to be prepared. We organised a truckload full of branches and parts of trees from logging that had taken place previously. When logging started again the following winter, together with other Greenpeace-activists I arrived in front of the Finnish embassy in Berlin. We placed the branches and logs we had collected in Lapland in front of the embassy, and demanded an end to the logging. That same morning, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHCR) ordered the Finnish government to stop the logging until a legal case against it had been properly dealt with (see side bar). I was aware of this, but the ambassador wasn’t. As I was speaking with the ambassador, Matti was getting the first media calls from Finnish journalists about the UN case. The story made its way back to the government. The letter from the UNHCR was now taken seriously. The Finnish cabinet met ad hoc about the issue and by the time I was on my way home again, I heard that the logging had been ordered to a halt. I knew that this UNinduced halt of logging could last for 10 years, so it was an exciting day for me, and a good day for the old growth! In August 2009, a contract between the reindeer herder Kalevi Paadar, two of his brothers and Metsähallitus was signed, ending the court case and protecting the old growth forests for 20 years. > > To document the crisis of the old growth forests, Greenpeace – together with other environmentalists - started to draw up maps in 2002, covering all remaining old growth forest in Northern Finland, using scientific data from the environmental protection administration, responsible for protecting nature as well as its own data from field research. Unfortunately, this administration could not enforce all of its own recommendations, as the forest administration mostly voted against further forest protection and the logging continued. > > Greenpeace sent the forest maps to publishers in Germany who were buying paper from Finland, and asked them to take urgent action and stop sourcing from the mapped areas. The first set of maps came in two large folders, and were literally drawn with a pen. They contained over 400 old growth areas with names, locations the sources of public scientific data recommending their protection. The maps became known as the Greenpeace maps, as they set the bar much higher than the so-far unnoticed scientific advice given by the state environmental bodies. Our maps landed up on the desks of the paper buyers - and this made all the difference.

> > The Finnish constitution pays special attention to the livelihood of the indigenous Saami people - it states that logging should not endanger Saami peoples’ traditional livelihood. Despite this plain language, logging continued and the state-owned company behind it simply claimed that it does not endanger Saami livelihood. No legal case had successfully challenged this. One case opened in 1993 and progressed to the UN Human Rights Committee. In 2005 it was declared that logging - if taken on a larger scale - may threaten the livelihood of the Saami, but no legal case was ever started taking logging on this larger scale. > > This all changed when Kalevi Paader, a Saami herder from Inari, joined by two of his brothers opened a court case against logging on the day it started in the old growth forest he and his reindeer herd needed to survive. The logging was a breach of human rights and Mr. Paadar called the court to rule on it. Knowing that the Finnish local court more often than not ruled in favour of the logging industry, Mr. Paadar’s lawyer sent an application for action to end human rights violation to the UN Human Rights Committee. > > The case was about the very same forest in which Greenpeace activists had stopped logging just a few months earlier by establishing a protest camp. The UNHCR called the Finnish government to refrain from any logging in the given forests until the case has been handled properly at court. The legal challenge Mr. Paadar and his brothers had started effectively stopped the logging from 2005 onwards, because it was clear that other Saami would open up similar legal cases if logging were to start in any other areas of old growth. In August 2009, Kalevi Paadar and the Finnish state-owned logging enterprise ended the case by signing a contract that protects the forest for 20 years. > > Meanwhile, the conflict over the forests of the Saami homeland had been put on hold, de facto. But logging in the eighth largest old growth forest south of Saamiarea continued. We had been calling for the protection of this forest since 2001. I kept up my relationships with leading publishers and, each time that logging took place, I informed them and called for urgent action; shortly after information was made public to the paper buyers, logging was put on hold. But no final solution was reached.

> > This all changed when the new CEO of Stora Enso invited Greenpeace to talk at the shareholder meeting in Helsinki. Some activists had climbed the Stora Enso headquarters unfurling a protest banner right in front of his office windows, and this triggered the CEO’s invitation. I’d talked to Stora Enso staff several times, which had never yielded any meaningful results, but I was more than willing to try again. A little later in 2009, Sini and Mads - two colleagues from Helsinki - and I, met with this new Stora Enso CEO to discuss how the forest conflict his company was involved in might be ended. Some months later a process designed to agree on areas of protection and areas open for forest management began. Greenpeace has been part of this process, which ended with a formal agreement about the protection of some 100,000 hectares of wilderness. > > In December 2010, all the other Saami reindeer cooperatives signed contracts with Metsähallitus, protecting the forests for 20 years. After 10 years, the forest conflict - often called the war in the woods - officially came to an end. > > Walking recently in the pine forest lit by the setting sun, seeing reindeer on the horizon and knowing that it was all protected forever now, neither Matti nor I could really find the right words to convey our emotions. So we just stayed silent and simply enjoyed it all.


Section 3: Defending Our Oceans


growing by the day. Greenpeace continued its campaign to transform the global seafood industry and defend the Pacific in 2010. >> Around the world, Greenpeace pressure on supermarkets helped deliver commitments by major retailers in Australia, Austria and the Netherlands to source responsibly-caught tuna in order to restore dwindling Pacific fish populations. Many retailers also came out in support of Greenpeace’s proposal for largescale marine reserves in the Pacific. Lobbying for these marine reserves brought new successes in 2010; eight Pacific island nations decided to set aside 4.5m sq km of ocean as off-limits to the most destructive tuna fishing methods, to enter into force on 1 January 2011. >> In the Mediterranean, Greenpeace has focused efforts to move two proposed marine reserves forward: the Balearics and the Sicilian Channel, both important tuna spawning grounds. The overfishing of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean is the most visible example of how politics and fisheries management have failed our oceans. All over Europe, North America and Australia, Greenpeace’s seafood red lists and rankings of retailer sustainability and seafood sourcing policies were the main tools used to move supermarkets towards sourcing seafood from sustainable sources only. In 2009 Greenpeace’s Polar Marine Reserves team spent much of the year conducting research and networking with scientists, Arctic indigenous peoples, other non-governmental organisations and officials. 2009 saw the first marine reserve established in the Southern Ocean, close to the South Orkney islands, an important precedent. In 2010, Greenpeace will continue to campaign for the entire Ross Sea to be established as amarine reserve, and will also build upon its work in the Arctic region. >> Our Emergency Oceans Rescue Plan left no doubt about the severity of

governments again agreed to protect only 10% of the world´s oceans – a far cry from the

the oceans crisis, or the urgency with which we need to act, but the report – launched ahead

network of marine reserves covering 40% of the oceans necessary to allow them to recover from

of the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan – also provided

years of degradation and exploitation. During 2009, Greenpeace pushed for the creation of

policy-makers with a detailed roadmap to solve the problem. Marine reserves are the single

pilotmarine reserve areas in the Pacific and the Mediterranean. Greenpeace is campaigning

most powerful way available for marine conservation, restoring biodiversity, alleviating food

for a global network of marine reserves-areas of ocean off-limits to fishing,mining, drilling

investigation by Greenpeace Japan had sentence – a disproportionate, unjust and politically motivated punishment. >> But, as proceedings

insecurity and poverty, and building resilience to climate change. The creation of a global

and other extractive activities - to cover 40% of the world’s oceans. This is a necessary step

revealed evidence of an embezzlement came to a close, it was very clear that a seismic shift in the Japanese media was taking place. For the first

network of marine reserves covering 40% of the world’s oceans lies at the heart of our

if we are to restore our oceans and fish stocks back to health. Greenpeace’s work to expose

ring involving crewmembers on board the time, a progressive discussion about whaling and the merit of the country’s fraudulent ‘scientific’ whaling

campaign. In 2010, the Rescue Plan showed world leaders the specific roadmap of how

illegal fishing and overfishing in the Pacific helped prompt a decision to close two out of four

Japanese factory whaling ship Nisshin programme had begun; the traditionally one-sided reporting on the issue could be seen making way for

it can be done. >> In 2010, at the CBD in Nagoya, Japan, Greenpeace pushed governments

priority high seas pockets to purse-seining as of January 2010. Greenpeace’s work to mobilise

Maru, who were taking the best cuts of a more balanced, at times critical debate. In the end, the Tokyo Two were seen not as an enemy of Japan,

on major issues, including a new 10-year Strategic Plan to halt biodiversity loss by 2020. This

consumers in keymarket countries for Pacific tuna products also increased demand for tuna

whale meat during the so-called scientific but as environmental and social activists whose human rights were being trampled on (as the UN Human

new plan features 20 targets to be achieved by 2020, such as halving and – where possible

coming from sustainable and equitable sources. This helped to restart ’pole and line‘ tuna

whaling hunt and bringing it ashore Rights Council also recognised). The trial paved the way for more in-depth, constructive reporting on

– halting the loss of natural habitats, sustainable fisheries and the elimination of harmful

fishing industries in several Pacific Island Countries, which have the potential to deliver

disguised as boxes of personal belongings. whaling and, as a result, the pressure on Japan to end its whaling programme, from within the country, is

subsidies. No new money was put on the table to implement these pledges, however, and

socio-economic benefits for the coastal communities who live there.

ceans

O ur

O Defending

> > > It might have been two However, it was Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki of Greenpeace Japan who were subsequently arrested and Greenpeace activists standing in a Japanese court in 2010, but it was the country’s whaling programme that was really on trial. Corruption inside the Japanese government, its adherence to international law, freedom of speech, the right of individual protest and the senseless killing of thousands of whales all came under the spotlight during the trial of the ‘Tokyo Two’,

charged with theft of the whalemeat they had presented to the authorities as evidence, and with trespass at the transportation depot handling the boxes. In November 2009, over 3,000 lawyers, individuals and organisations – including Amnesty International – wrote to the Tokyo Supreme Court in support of the defendants’ appeal that important evidence - including police files and statements by the owners of the embezzled whalemeat – should be disclosed during the trial. The appeal was rejected, depriving the Tokyo Two of important means of proving their innocence. The trial of the Tokyo Two would have begun in February 2010, but in January the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention already found that, in Sato and Suzuki’s attempts to expose a scandal in the public interest, their human rights had been breached by the Japanese government. Corrupt government practices, Japan’s adherence to international law, freedom of speech and the right of individual protest came under the spotlight,

the two activists who exposed widespread alongside the commercial killing of whales. Whaling itself must be put on trial. During the eight-month corruption in Japan’s whaling programme proceedings, the prosecution’s witnesses severely contradicted themselves, each other and police in 2008. A four-month undercover statements. On 9 September, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were handed a one-year suspended prison


saving the last ocean

How seafood markets can help save Antarctica’s Ross Sea Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that bathes its icy shores are often described as distant, barren, and inhospitable. However, the waters and coastline of the Southern Ocean support as many as 75 million different marine species, many of

which are found nowhere else on Earth.

The Antarctic’s diverse and unique ecosystem is dependent on a healthy environment. Due to its remoteness and harsh climate, it has been spared from many of the impacts of human development that have degraded most other regions of the Earth. The Antarctic has often been called the last great wilderness. Unfortunately, this unique and beautiful region is no longer pristine. Human activity has been increasing over the past 50 years. Scientists and their support staff from as many as 28 countries and 176 institutions are involved in research projects across the continent, and tourism has increased dramatically in the last decade. Ironically it is the beauty and the near pristine ecosystem that attract both scientists and visitors. It has been further protected by the Antarctic Treaty and its later additions, which together protect the Antarctic as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. The Antarctic Treaty was signed by 12 countries on the 1st December 1959 and entered into force on the 23rd June 1961. Since then, 47 countries have become parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which establishes the legal framework for the management of Antarctica. Provisions in the treaty have lead to the Antarctic becoming the only continent that is used exclu sively for peaceful purposes – no military activities are permitted – and one where international co-operation in scientific investigation is actively promoted. Since the signing of the original treaty, three other complementary international agreements have been negotiated and together these constitute the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The three international agreements are: the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (1972), the Convention on the Conservation of Marine Living Resources (1980), and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid Protocol (1991). Under the ATS, any activities in the Antarctic must be carried out in a way that limits any harmful impacts, and any future activities must be planned with sufficient information to make informed judgements about their possible impacts. The agreement prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources except for scientific research, but does not prohibit fishing. Despite this protection, the Antarctic still faces numerous threats: climate change, ocean acidification, increasing numbers of human visitors, the Japanese whaling programme, and - most recently - fishing. Having taken so many fish from the seas closer to home, fishermen are now venturing to the ends of the Earth, down to the dangerous and inhospitable waters of the Southern Ocean, in order to maintain our insatiable appetite for seafood. Fisheries first appeared in the Southern Ocean in the early 1960s, where they repeated the patterns of exploitation seen around the world – new populations of fish and krill were discovered, exploited and depleted, stock after stock. Fisheries in the Southern Ocean are now under the control of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

Living Resources (CCAMLR). Although CCAMLR is considered an international leader in its approach to fisheries management, it struggles to protect the sensitive Antarctic ecosystems from the impacts of fisheries. One particular problem is the fishing vessels that take advantage of the vast size and isolation of the Southern Ocean to fish illegally, ignoring all the of CCAMLR’s rules that aim at minimising the impacts of fisheries on the ecosystem. The problem of fisheries in the Antarctic has recently come to a head in one of the most unique and unspoilt regions of the Antarctic – the Ross Sea, the one remaining ocean region in the world that has been little affected by human activities.The Ross Sea is home to an amazing array of creatures that form one of the Antarctic’s most unique and complex marine ecosystems. Some of its special features include the richest diversity of fish in the Southern Ocean, including seven species found nowhere else, and disproportionately large populations of particular species of seals, whales and penguins. The Ross Sea’s value, in evolutionary terms, has been compared to that of the Galapagos Islands and other places designated as World Heritage Sites for their exemplary fauna. Unlike other marine ecosystems, there are large and healthy populations of top predators – larger fish, birds and mammals – in the Ross Sea, and the relationships between all levels of life have remained relatively intact. Therefore, the Ross Sea is of extraordinary value to scientists as a ‘living laboratory’, to learn more about marine ecosystems and where climate change and its impacts can be investigated without interference from other, more direct human impacts.


Until recently, the Ross Sea was one of the last areas in the world not targeted by commercial fishing. In 1998, vessels from New Zealand led the charge into the Ross Sea, and it has become a longline fishing ground for Antarctic toothfish. Up to 12 countries have legally sent vessels to this fishery since 2000. Antarctic scientists now believe that this fishery is a threat to the Ross Sea ecosystem. Antarctic toothfish are the largest fish in the Antarctic and take a long time to reach maturity – two key indicators that a fish species is highly vulnerable to fishing with a high risk of being fished to extinction. The rest of its life cycle remains a mystery, as scientists have never found eggs, larvae or young toothfish. Without this vital information, monitoring of toothfish populations is very difficult, and an accurate evaluation of the impact of fisheries is not possible. This situation highlights the need for extreme care in allowing any fishery to target such a species, especially with the additional threat of IUU fishing in the region. And, regretfully, there is evidence that the fishery is already having a negative impact. Adult toothfish have disappeared from the area of McMurdo Sound, the southern edge of the species’ range. As an important predator and prey species within the Ross Sea, any declines in Antarctic toothfish populations are likely to have detrimental impacts on the whole ecosystem. In fact, disappearance of Antarctic toothfish from this area has already been linked to a decline in the numbers of fish-eating ecotype-C killer whales in the area, and a change in the diet of Adélie penguins. In recognition of its ecological value, the Ross Sea has been named by CCAMLRas one of 11 priority areas for the development of a representative network of marine protected areas spread across the Southern Ocean. The key opposition to the protection of the Ross Sea is likely to come from those countries that fish for and trade in Antarctic toothfish. Data shows that fleets from about 20 nations have been fishing for both toothfish species in recent years. The five fleets taking the largest catches in 2007 were from France, Chile, Uruguay, Australia and the UK. In 2008, the top five exporters of toothfish were Uruguay, France, Chile, New Zealand and Mauritius, while the top five importers were the USA, Japan, China, Korea and Singapore. From 2004 to 2008, over 40% of toothfish were imported by the USA, and the Asian markets imported an almost equal proportion. Consumption figures for toothfish are not readily available but it is clear that the five main importing countries mentioned above also represent the top consuming nations. Unfortunately, many consumers are probably unaware that they are eating Antarctic or Patagonian toothfish. Retailers and restaurants have given toothfish more marketable names, such as Chilean sea bass or Antarctic cod, and rarely provide information on where their fish was

caught. Toothfish is expensive and unusual, and therefore tends to be sold in the more high-end, exclusive seafood restaurants, as well as speciality seafood shops and seafood markets. It is uncommon in most European supermarkets, except in France where it is sold by some supermarket chains. In the USA it is found in many supermarket chains, but with recent changes to seafood sourcing policies, the only major Canadian supermarket chain still selling toothfish after September 2010 will be Sobeys. With the increasing development of sustainable seafood sourcing policies by retailers globally, toothfish is disappearing from supermarket shelves. In the UK, retailers have not sold any toothfish for many years, and Canadian retail chains that sold toothfish (as Chilean sea bass) until recently have now removed it from their shelves or have set a date to do so. The movement is also growing in the USA. Ahold-USA has publicly stated that it will not sell toothfish products, and Wegmans will not sell any seafood products sourced directly from the Ross Sea. Famous US chefs Kin Lui and Hosea Rosenberg refuse to serve Ross Sea toothfish and are publicly supporting the campaign to protect the Ross Sea as a marine reserve. Finally, the major global shipping company, Maersk, is also now refusing to offer transportation for a variety of unsustainable fish species including toothfish any fish that might be from illegal operations. Closing the Ross Sea to fishing and making it into a Marine Reserve will give the ecosystem a chance to recover from any impacts the fishery has already had. It will also provide the ecosystem with better chance of adapting to the changing environment caused by climate change and ocean acidification. While any fishery remains in the Ross Sea, it can undermine the political processes that put marine reserves in place as countries try to protect the interests of their fisheries in the region. Greenpeace is asking consumers, chefs and retailers to make a make a public commitment not to buy, sell or serve any toothfish, certified or otherwise, and to support the call to turn the Ross Sea into a fully protected Marine Reserve to preserve this unique and threatened ecosystem for the future. Retailers around the world are joining the growing sustainable seafood movement by removing the most unsustainable choices from their freezers and counters and developing strong policies to ensure that they source sustainable seafood. Toothfish is disappearing from supermarket shelves. In the UK for example, retailers have not sold any toothfish for many years, and leading sustainable seafood retailer Waitrose lists toothfish (Chilean sea bass) on its banned list. In Canada, retail chains that until recently sold toothfish (as Chilean sea bass) like Loblaw, Safeway and Overwaitea have removed it from their shelves, and Metro plans to do so by September 2010. Sobey’s will be the only major Canadian supermarket chain still selling toothfish after this time. The movement is also growing in the USA. Ahold-USA have publicly stated that they will not sell toothfish products, and Wegmans will not sell any seafood products sourced directly from the Ross Sea “due to unresolved concerns over the fisheries.” 74 Famous US chefs Kin Lui and Hosea Rosenberg refuse to serve Ross Sea toothfish and are publicly supporting the campaign to protect the Ross Sea as a marine reserve.


our ships

In 2010, Greenpeace started the construction of a new Rainbow Warrior – 25 years after two bombs planted by French secret agents sank the first Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand. The new ship will be the world’s first purpose-built, environmentally-advanced, campaigning vessel (and the first purpose built ship in the Greenpeace fleet). Designed to sail, her striking A-frame masts will rise 54m above the water, helping Greenpeace reduce its carbon footprint and serve as an example to others of smart environmental investment. Among other design features is the built-in satellite uplink, which will have a 24/7 broadband connection, providing the world with access, images and contact with the crew as the ship carries out her missions. Specially designed cranes will allow for the rapid deployment of inflatables – a key tool in confronting environmental abuse. Technically our inflatables are called Rigid Inflatable Boats or RIBs. To our crew who drive them they are just inflatables or to many people ‘Greenpeace in their rubber boats’. The RIB is one of the safest small offshore boats manufactured. Though we refer to them as “inflatables”, they are far more sophisticated than they appear or their name suggest. Though they come in a great variety of sizes and configurations, they all have a few things in common:below the water is a hard fibre glass or aluminium hull that allows the boat to travel at high speeds through rough seas. A specially constructed rubber tube that runs along the bow and sides of the hull gives the boat exceptional buoyancy and stability in the water. A powerful engine makes the boat fast and maneuvrable. While we have been using them for actions for over 25 years, the inspiration for their use came from unusual source. During the 1972 voyage of the Greenpeace yacht Vega against French nuclear testing, French commandos used inflatables to board the Vega and badly beat the skipper, David McTaggart. The effectiveness of the commando’s boats was not lost on our tactical mastermind at the time, Bob Hunter. If they were effective for the French commandos surely Greenpeace could put them to good use. A couple of years later, in 1975, the inflatables were out to challenge the Soviet whaling fleet and protect the whales from explosive harpoons, as they are still doing 31 years later. Many inflatables have come and gone over the years, had barrels of radioactive waste dropped on them, been squashed by ships transporting illegal timber, impounded by police or just plain worn out. But all the inflatables onboard our ships have names. Some mundanely named after their colour or manufacturer. But some are more imaginatively named. Currently onboard the Esperanza is one nicknamed the African Queen, after the ship

which ferried Humphrey Bogart and Kathryn Hepburn up the Congo in the movie of the same name. The keel laying ceremony took place at the Maritim Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, in July. In November, the ship’s hull arrived by tug in Fassmer Shipyard in Bremen, Germany, where construction continued. Once completed, the new Rainbow Warrior will become an essential part of our fleet, helping Greenpeace to protect the world’s oceans (when confronting destructive fishing fleets, for example), in the fight against climate change (monitoring the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, or stopping dangerous new oil drilling), defending forests (tracking illegal timber shipments), or the effort to end the nuclear age (obstructing the transport of radioactive waste). Greenpeace commissioned a replacement for the current Rainbow Warrior, which has reached the end of its life. The new ship will cost €20.3 million to build, and while this is a large sum of money, it is also a massive investment to protect the planet. To raise the necessary funds, Greenpeace launched an innovative new website, where supporters can ‘buy’ specific parts of the ship. The names of all donors will appear on the ship itself. The new ship is scheduled to set sail in 2011, in time for the 40th anniversary of the founding of Greenpeace. All Greenpeace ships are special, but our new Rainbow Warrior is one of a kind. She plays a key role in our campaigns, allowing us to bear witness and take action to prevent environmental crimes around the world. “Since setting sail in 1978 the Rainbow Warrior has been on the frontline of the struggle against environmental abuse,” Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International’s Executive Director, said at the keel laying ceremony, which took place on 10 July 2010 – the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior.“She is an icon of non-violent direct action and a beacon of hope for millions of people around the world.” The existing fleet, meanwhile, played a crucial part in our 2010 campaigning. After chasing nuclear transports from France to Russia, the Esperanza took scientists to the Arctic as part of the ‘Arctic Under Pressure’ Tour and, after a short break, returned north to confront reckless oil drilling off Greenland and then off Shetland, where Greenpeace swimmers put themselves in front of a drilling ship. The Arctic Sunrise joined the Rainbow Warrior for the ‘Defend the Mediterranean’ Tour, before it made its way to the Gulf of Mexico to examine the aftermath of the BP oil spill. In it last months before retirement, the Rainbow Warrior embarked on a two-and-a-half month ‘Turn the Tide Tour’ across Southeast Asia to promote a green and peaceful future.


CREATING A TOXIC-FREE FUTURE

Over the past four years Greenpeace has played an integral role in changing the way the electronics industry does business. Vital steps have been made in offering greener products by major industry players, including Philips, Nokia, Sony Erickson, Apple and Samsung. ‘Green IT’ became a buzzword in media around the world.

During 2010, Greenpeace kept up the pressure on IT companies to live up to their promises on the elimination of toxic chemicals. Key targets were the Korean electronics giant Samsung and the world’s third largest PC maker Dell, both of whom had been found lagging or even backtracking in their efforts to eliminate key toxic substances from their products. In March, Greenpeace climbers scaled Samsung’s Benelux headquarters, sticking the message ‘Samsung = Broken Promises’ in giant letters onto the front of the building. The company had been the first to publicly commit to eliminate polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from new models of all its products.Yet, weeks before it was due to deliver new greener products, Samsung admitted it would fail to do so. Greenpeace made clear this was not acceptable. PVC is the single most environmentally damaging of all plastics during production, use and disposal, while BFRs are highly resistant to degradation in the environment and are able to built up in animals and humans. Halfway through 2010, the PC maker Dell had yet to meet its original 2009 deadline for the elimination of the two chemicals – and it didn’t look as though the company would meet its deadline of 2011 either. Greenpeace activists showed up at Dell headquarters in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bangalore and Austin, while more than 40,000 cyberactivists around the world emailed the company to demand a phase-out. As a result of Greenpeace’s ‘Green My Apple’ campaign, Apple cleared the last hurdle in removing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic from its products, paving the way for other companies to follow suit. We were also able to use Apple’s example to push companies like Hewlett Packard (HP) who had started to backtrack on their commitments to eliminate toxic chemicals from their products and take full responsibility for the recycling of their own products that have reached the end of their useful lives. After a successful protest at its US HQ, HP became the second company to put a greener PC on the market. We will continue to push for Dell and Samsung, the top market leaders of the electronics industry, to deliver on their own promises and commitments for 2010 and beyond. An undercover investigation revealed that electronic waste – e-waste - was not being

responsibly recycled as it should have been but was instead being disguised as secondhand goods. We took a broken TV in the UK, fitted it with a tracking device, and took it to be recycled. We discovered that it was actually shipped off to Nigeria, where it would be sold, scrapped or illegally dumped. Our exposé made headlines globally. It put the e-waste issue firmly back on the agenda of European governments, with the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK all acting to restrict illegal shipments of ewaste. In India, Greenpeace India together with IT industry stakeholders submitted a daft e-waste regulation to the central government, to control e-waste generation and management in India.The regulation includes clear standards for the elimination of hazardous substances from electronic products, producer responsibility for the collection, recycling and treatment costs of e-waste, and a ban on the import of any kind of second-hand electronic or electrical equipment to India. In May, we launched the fifteenth version of the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, our league table that ranks companies on both eliminating toxics and recycling efforts. While companies such as Samsung and Dell picked up penalty points, several competitors could be seen makingreal progress by offering a range of greener electronics.The Guide also showcased companies that use their influence to advocate for climate-protection legislation – a key part of Greenpeace’s effort to set the entire industry firmly on a pathway towards a toxics-free future. In China, meanwhile, Greenpeace started to work on what will become one of our most important international campaigns. With as much as 70% of the country’s rivers, lakes and reservoirs affected, water pollution has become one of China’s most critical environmental problems. As the main manufacturing hub for products ‘Made in China’, the Pearl River Delta – where Greenpeace campaigned in 2010 – is particularly affected. Greenpeace is asking governments in China and other developing nations to create and

enforce strict laws to prevent factories from dumping toxic waste into our critical and life sustaining waterways. Three toxics Greenpeace activists around the world marked World Water Day on 22 March by highlighting the growing threat of industrial pollution of the world’s water supplies with hazardous chemicals. In Buenos Aires, the artist García Uriburu and Greenpeace ‘painted’ the waters of the Riachuelo green in a protest against toxic pollution. In Russia, a Greenpeace expedition found that rivers are being poisoned by hazardous chemicals, which at times exceeded hundreds of times the limit set as safe by authorities. During our fourweek tour in June, the crew took samples close to industrial wastewater discharge pipes from Moscow to St Petersburg, which were then sent on for lab analysis.


SECTION 4: Financials


Organisational Support

2010

2010

2009 Interest

2009

2010

2009 2009

INTERNATIONAL

2010

FINANCIAL REPORT

Grants to National and Regional Offices

Campaigns & Campaign Support

Statement of Income and Expenditure, Years ended 31 December 2010 and 2009 Greenpeace International

1,497 743

Total Income less fundraising expenditure

climate & energy

58,358 53,432

Statement of Financial Position ASSETS Fixed & Financial Assets Due from National & Regional Offices Other Current Assets Cash & Cash Equivalents

Total

Total

14,974 10,442 7,542 8,369 1,111 1,464 32,857 28,051

56,484 48,321 9,782 10,392 4,755 5,471 41,947 32,463

56,484 48,326

Expenditure Grants to Greenpeace National & Regional Offices

oceans

peace & sustainable disarmament agriculture

Campaigns and Campaign Support

Liabilities and Fund Balance Due to National & Regional Offices Other Liabilities Fund Balance

forests

9,663 8,437

climate & energy forests oceans peace & disarmament sustainable agriculture toxics

2010 2009 7,303 11,389 3,906 3,876 2,723 3,004 743 46 1,818 1,773 982 689

Marine Operations & Action Support Media & Communications

9,160 8,638

Organisational Support Interest Costs Foreign Exchange (Gain)/Loss

7,815 7,843

Total non-fundraising expenditure

Surplus for the Year

5,257 4,571

271 188 (767) (153) 48,874 50,301

9,484 3,131

2009 2010

2,669 2,831

2009 2010

2009 2010

33 27 61,027 56,263

2009 2010

515 546 2009 2010

Fundraising Expenditure

58,982 54,947

2010

Grants from Greenpeace National & Regional Offices Other Grants & Donations Interest Income Other Income Total Income

2009

2010 2009

income

toxics


2010

2009 These financial statements of the the year 2010 consist of the combined financial statements of Greenpeace

Standards for Small & Medium-sized Entities as adopted by the EU. The compilation of the financial statements

FINANCIAL REPORT has been reviewed by Ernst & Young.

WORLDWIDE

2010

Organisation Support

have been presented in accordance with International Financial Reporting

2009

International and the Greenpeace National and Regional Offices, and

Campaigns and Campaign Support

worldwide Greenpeace organisation for

Income: 2010

Grants and Donations Interest Income Merchandising and Licensing Other Income Total Income Fundraising Expenditure

226,277 1472 97 2,711 230,557 68,837

Expenditure: 2010

2009

195, 876 1,744 150 2,087 199,857 63,149

Total Income less fundraising expenditure 161,720 136,708 Statement of Financial Position: Assets Fixed Assets Other Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents

Euros thousands 44,347 17,123 146,961

Total 210,451

Liabilities and Fund Balance: Other Liabilities Fund Balance

Euros thousands 37,761 14,173 135,828

187,762

Campaigns and Campaign Support

2009

Climate & Energy 25,027 27,506

Forests 9,798 9,340

Oceans 7,277 7,365

Peace & Disarmament 2,390

178

Sustainable Agriculture 4,944

4,737

Toxics 3,781 3,237

Other Campaigns 1,461 2,234

Marine Operations and Action Support 23,880

22,046

36,290 174,161

Total 210,451

35,828 151,934

187,762

Media and Communications 21,183 18,870

Political, Science and Business 1,946

2,046

Public Information and Outreach 11,893

11,434

Organisational Support

31,883

Foreign Exchange (Gain)/Loss

(5,970)

31,067

(1,604)

Total non-fundraising expenditure 139,493 138,456

Surplus/(deficit) for the year

22,227

(1,748)


2010 Gro

ss Inco me

50 ,0 00 30

,0

00

35

,0

00

40

,0

00

45

,0

00

donated funds

00

0 5,

0

to increase their income in 2010. A decline in Australia-Pacific was due to difficulties

parties, governments or corporations.

in securing new donors. As ever, the great majority (95%) of our income came from

Our independence is a core Greenpeace

individual supporters, who donated an average of €77 a year to Greenpeace. The

principle, and the credibility and authority

remainder came from foundation funding. Although our offices in Europe continue to

that comes with it plays a large role in making

generate the majority of our funds, we are working to build our presence in strategically

our campaigns so successful. In 2010, our

important countries and regions, including Brazil, India and the US, Africa, East Asia and

supporters gave more than ever. Worldwide,

Southeast Asia. In 2010, these offices experienced strong growth, increasing both our

Greenpeace raised over €226 million – an

reach and our impact in these parts of the world. We believe in the power of the many.

increase of more than 15% on 2009. This meant

The future of the environment rests with the millions of people around the world who

we could commit significant resources to our

share our beliefs. Together we can tackle environmental problems and promote solutions.

fight against dangerous Arctic oil drilling, get

Over 2.8 million people worldwide made a donation to Greenpeace in 2010. Importantly,

companies to stop buying palm oil from rainforest

over 80% of Greenpeace supporters have made an ongoing commitment to fund our

destruction, and challenge bluefin tuna fishing in the

work. Their support enables us to plan our campaigns into the future. We are grateful to

Mediterranean, for example. Our supporters’ money

each and every one of our supporters, who made our work possible in 2010.

240

n

millio

220

n

millio

200

n

millio

180

n

millio

160

n

millio

140

n

millio

120

n

millio

100

n

millio

2007

Germany Netherlands US Switzerland Nordic UK France Austrailia-Pacific Central & Eastern Europe Canada Spain Belgium New Zealand Italy Argentina China Southeast Asia Brazil India Mediterranean Mexico Greece Luxembourg Japan Czech Republic Chile Russia Africa

kept gripping many countries throughout the year, most Greenpeace offices were able

do not accept funding from any political

2008

0

and strengthen our campaign for sustainable agriculture. Despite the recession that

on grant support from foundations. We

2009

00

also meant we could keep up the pressure on companies to eliminate toxic chemicals

2006

2010 2009

Greenpeace relies entirely on voluntary donations from individual supporters, and

2010

10

,0

00

15

,0

00

20

,0

00

2

5,

r

0G

201

e

com

In oss


2010

LICY

RESERVES PO

Greenpeace International’s reserves policy, which has changed since 2009, requires us to hold available reserves to

s

e rv se

adequately cover risks to its operations. These risks are assessed annually. In this context, available reserves equals the fund balance less fixed assets and less reserves held for restricted or designated purposes. The reserves level is calculated as shown in the table. Net reserves are

r

Fo

10

20

e

th

re

r st

d

an

New Rainbow Warrior Support of a priority Regional office

Fundraising initiatives of Regional and National offices Support the implementation of global strategic initiatives at National and Regional Offices Long-term loans in support of infrastructure requirements of Greenpeace National and Regional Offices US legacy reserved for investment activities. 6 million

5.5 million

5 million

6,825

4.5 million

20,410

4 million

Euros thousands Euros thousands Fund Balance 41,947 32,463 Less: Fixed Assets (9,808) (6,438) (19,200) Less: Designated Reserves (11,729)

3.5 million

2010 2009

3 million

2.5 million

2 million

2009

1.5 million

2010

1 million

less loans payable (€5.7 million). The resulting net reserve position of €14.7 covers risks according to our risk policy, provides adequate working capital coverage, and also gives us ability to pursue unforeseen opportunities. Net reserves are calculated as available reserves (€20.4 million) less loans payable (€5.7 million). The resulting net reserve position of €14.7 covers risks according to our risk policy, provides adequate working capital coverage, and also gives us ability to pursue unforeseen opportunities. Net reserves are calculated as available reserves (€20.4 million) less loans payable (€5.7 million). The resulting net reserve position of €14.7 covers risks according to our risk policy, provides adequate working capital coverage, and also gives us ability to pursue unforeseen opportunities.

t

ic

calculated as available reserves (€20.4 million)

ed

re

g

si

de

d te na

p

m

co

..

e.

s ri


LAN

EUROPE

00

0

&

EASTERN

C -2 ZE ,0 C RUSSIA00 H R -1 EP ,8 U AUSTRA 00 BL -1 IC ,6 J 0 -1 APAN 0 LIA ,3 -PACIFIC G 0 -1 ER 0 , M ITA 00 ANY -5 L 0 00 Y

U -1 .K. 0, 10 0

, NETHER 15 -

S

D

L

00

,0 CENTRA -9

What is covered by Greenpeace International’s fundraising budget (direct vs. indirect fundraising costs)

Change

REECE ITERRANEAN +5 CHINA 5 0 +1 06 6 SW M +1 ITZER EXICO18 1 +1 L 20 NE +1 AN 5 W SPAIN78 D ZEA + 9 3, LAN 26 5 + BR 5,1 D 34 A + CANA 7, ZI SOUTHEAST 23 L +7 D 4 , A 7 +8 IND 82 ,0 IA +9 ASIA 00 FRANCE ,1 34 + NOR 9,4 AR 7 G +9 D 7 ENTINA ,6 IC +2 00 3, 1 4 +3 USA 3 9, 47 6

G

ED

B

M IU 72 G +1 L E

M

Greenpeace International’s fundraising department is the coordinating body within Greenpeace that supports and facilitates Greenpeace national and regional offices in raising as much income as possible with preferably the highest return of investment (ROI). This support consists of general office support focusing on monitoring and reviewing of the fundraising activities of the office, and support directed towards specific programmes; direct dialogue, new media, upgrade, retention, supporter relations, legacies, middle and major donors. Greenpeace International raises some income through major donors and foundations, legacies, and from donors in countries where there is no Greenpeace office.

2010 Growth &


Telecommunications

Information

equipment expense

equipment rent

Photo & Video

postage & Courier

printing

19,587 58,820

26,678 219,167 215,564 113,238 184,849 180,174

26,849 36,968

52,569 4,950

4,174 3,782

62,634 3,886

1,595 199

41,702 164,180

61,599 206,691

Public Info & Education

$2,945,902

62,940

94,702

462,694

162,216

50,425

76,377

21,020

9,382

13,068

140,372

181,081

Oceans

$3,070,537

76,363

145,371 295,636

293,842

50,143

9,706

11,942

6,410

3,840

213,671

273,736

Toxics

$660,642

20,257

39,797

67,636

56,659

11,055

1,250

1,695

4,992

1,858

57,280

72,499

Action Resources

$952,924

7,298

x

95,516

112,442

61,044

3,734

30,752

60,784 3,164

5,230

5,688

Outreach Services

$17,273

279

269

10,802

24,139

561

171

791

27,839

Other

$2,537,608

15,298

x

185,121

158,333

58,670

12,241

11,129

1,936

17,907

1,917

Total Program

$2,384,730

73,915

146,297 191,662

142,867

36,427

3,810

1,992

4,182

13

209,571

831,050

$13,751,026

261,115

420,055 1,522,421 1,203,369 295,715 160,998

86,680

152,183 25,977

641,133

263,965

$341,244

11,089

x

3,849

1,786

4,731

15

$16,477,000

346,119

566,352

168,657

90,458

161,096

26,005

8,814

2,000

3,070

2,000

918

N/A

21,083

813

222,893

323,205

5,016

70,651

690,829

272,223 1,573,674 19,821 100,390

285,379 (218,393)

$26,589,874

13,688 28,648 $2,350,660

Total Expenses

Climate

15,929

99,538

4

7,600

34,860

3,451

29,303

24,252

9

8,153

131,808 30,653 177,572

21,068

(40,077)

$3,618,113

Forests

9

9,876

115,287 40,757 208,165

27,826

30,299

$4,778,658

Public Info & Education

11,746

170,168 47,472 243,193

29,320 (40,239)

$5,035,229

Oceans

808

x

2,886

35,117

87,449

1,803

x

4,430

39,970

71,057

299

x

1,213

9,329

8,296

3

2,960

45,927

10,563 56,126

6,467

454

x

x

x

132

6,984

4,561

16,303

266,016

116,759

36,827

$1,798,445

Action Resources

175

x

3,824

2,077

4

6,304

8,415

46,606

159,056

20,320

191,741 $3,489,674

Outreach Services

8

x

8

2,532

365

(994)

Other

7,535 1,071 23

2,000 16,625 x 4,458 x x

161,916 33,000 27,977

10,833 21,040 395

62

4,839

x

316

442

771

$62,675

235,813 179,297 $22,244,042 22,522 (92,259) $3,867,893 27,044 (305,431) $477,939

allocated overhead

PENALTIES & FINES

511,468 212,946 1,213,050 168,317 34,225 197,946 11,044 25,052 162,678

property costs

53,939 8,697 8,015

Bank Fees

292,731 5,000 30,474 11 x 5

(26,215) $1,110,588

total expenses

1,102,813

Data Management

Year ended December 31, 2010

853,800

7,798

Other Grants

Schedule of Functional Expenses

346,948

3,096

depreciation

1,815,660 1,377,565

14,806

Office Supplies

31,329

TAXES, PERMITS, FEES

Total Expenses

101,577

4,030

317

communicatons

Management

65

merchandising

Fundraising & General

2,816

Miscellaneous

Consultants

Employee Benefits

PUBLIC INFo

$1,292,181 $2,273,959

Climate

travel & Meetings

Salaries & Taxes Forests

Toxics

Total Program Fundraising & General Management


A Message From 2010 was a critical year for Greenpeace. took us back to the frontlines of some of our most challenging campaigns; working the Board Chair, Ittirelessly to introduce the Energy [R]evolution around the world, and fighting to stop

deep sea drilling and overfishing of tuna stocks on the brink of collapse. 2010 Ana Toni Arctic was also critical because Greenpeace decided it needed to profoundly adjust the way it operates globally.

The economic balance in the world has shifted. We live in a world that is facing a multitude of interconnected societal, economic and environmental crises. Eastern and southern countries have reached new levels of economic growth, while the US and Europe are struggling with huge financial downturn. Consequently, we have seen a growing power shift in global decision-making - for example, at the Copenhagen climate conference at the end of 2009, and in many fora since, BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – have played a fundamental role in the outcomes of the negotiations. These emerging countries now have the great opportunity, as well as the huge responsibility, to push for development paths that can truly combine environmental protection with social and economic wellbeing. Greenpeace’s effective presence in these countries is therefore an even more urgent priority for the organisation, since the decisions made by these countries and their peoples will determine the course of the next century.

With this in mind we have embarked on a very ambitious ‘Global Strategic Initiative’, which will put Greenpeace in a much stronger and effective position to face, together with others, the most pressing and urgent environmental problems confronting us all. The Global Strategic Initiative involves more effective and courageous ways of campaigning and making governments and companies accountable. It also involves a major shift on how we allocate our resources globally, how we communicate and how we structure our operations in order to strengthen our strategic presence and our partnerships around the world. It will make Greenpeace an even more effective global organisation that respects and embraces the cultural, social and economic diversities of peoples and countries as key assets to deal with the essential environmental and socialproblems faced by us and our planet. Together with millions of others – in the North, South, East or West – we want to make sure that the voice of all future generations and of nature is heard when decisions about the future of the planet are made. At this important time in the organisation’s history, I feel very honoured to be Board Chair of Greenpeace International. The courage and determination of Greenpeace staff and volunteers mirrors the support and encouragement of our supporters. I am grateful, therefore, for the important support you give us as we rise to the new challenges ahead in building a more sustainable, just and peaceful future for us all.


Ayesha Imam Nationality & residence: Ayesha is Nigerian and lives in Dakar, Senegal Experience & expertise: Women’s rights, human rights, democracy, sustainable development, NGO governance.

Steve Francis Nationality & residence: Steve is a New Zealander

Ana Toni

The Board of Directors of Greenpeace International (Stichting Greenpeace Council) approves the annual budget of Greenpeace International and the audited accounts, and appoints and supervises the Executive Director. Greenpeace International’s Board members report to the Annual General Meeting of Stichting Greenpeace Council. The Trustees, who are representatives from the Boards of all national and regional Greenpeace offices, normally elect Board members for a three-year period; Board members may be re-elected for subsequent terms. Greenpeace International compensates the Chair and members of its Board at levels reflecting the professional time and responsibility these tasks require. Board members are based all over the world, are usually professionally active and are expected to dedicate substantial attention to guiding the organisation’s complex global activities. Board members of Greenpeace International received compensation during 2010 of €100,000 (€94,000 in 2009). The Board Chair received €40,000 and all other Board Members received €10,000. The new International Execuitve Director received total emoluments of €123,704 including salary of €115,769, employer’s pension contribution of €5,595 and other benefits to the value of €2,340. Total emoluments of €642,000 (€561,000 in 2009) were paid to the other members of the Senior Management Team.

Nationality & residence: Ana is Brazilian and

and lives in Belgium Experience & expertise: Financial management and development, risk management,

Term of office: March 2006 – March 2013

Harold Ko Nationality & residence: Harold is Chinese and lives in Hong Kong. Experience & expertise:

Social activism, human lives in Rio de Janeiro. strategic development, accountancy rights, compliance and Experience & expertise: Term of office: governance issues.

Our Board of

Directors

Human rights, sustainable

March 2008 – March 2014 Term of office: March 2011 – March 2014

development, racial and ethical discrimination, sexuality and reproductive health, media democratisation and land rights. Term of office: March 2011 – March 2014

Irmi Mussack Frank Guggenheim Nationality & residence: Nationality & residence: Irmi is German and presently lives in Born in the USA, Frank now lives the north of Germany in Brazil. Experience & expertise: Experience & expertise: Qualified and practising physician,

NGO governance, management/ CEO and head of administration, campaigning, social activism, Agenda 21, natural

former Board Member and Executive Director of Greenpeace Brazil.

Term of office: resource management. April 2010 – March 2013 Term of office: March 2009 – March 2012

Dimitrios Vassilakis Nationality & residence: Dimitrios is Greek and lives in Athens, Greece Experience & expertise: Human resources, governance, small ship construction and operation. Term of office: March 2006 – March 2012



Greenpeace International 2010 Annual Report