Global Witness Annual Review 2009 · 2019-11-12 · Annual Review 2009 The downturn has obviously...

Global WitnessAnnual Review 2009

Annual Review 2009

1

For 15 years, Global Witness has runpioneering campaigns against naturalresource-related conflict and corruptionand associated environmental andhuman rights abuses. From Cambodiato Congo, Sierra Leone to Angola, wehave exposed the brutality andinjustice that results from the fight toaccess and control natural resourcewealth, and have sought to bring theperpetrators of this corruption andconflict to book.

Our work has revealed how, rather thanbenefiting a country’s citizens,abundant timber, minerals, oil or othernatural resources can incentivisecorruption, destabilise governments,and lead to war. Rather than usingtheir wealth wisely as a building blockfor development, countries rich innatural-resources frequently end upblighted by inequality and badgovernance.

In spite of increasing internationalrecognition of this phenomenon –often referred to as ‘the resourcecurse’ – governments, multilateralinstitutions and companies have allfailed to do enough to tackle it.Indeed, in many cases, companies,acting with impunity in search ofprofits, are a major driver of theproblem. Overall, there is a still ashocking inertia, motivated in manycases by self-interest, and awidespread lack of willingness toreform the systems and close theloopholes that perpetuate this problem.

Global Witness refuses to accept astatus quo where a powerful elitemanipulate and break the rules for theirown benefit. We do not want to live ina world where the privileged offspringof an African dictator can buy a luxuryyacht with stolen oil money while thecountry’s citizens live in poverty. Wedon’t condone a system where seamsof minerals in the ground representextreme riches for the few and a causeof conflict and poverty for the many.And we will not pardon the selectivemyopia of companies that makemillions from trading in the verydiamonds, oil or timber which aredestroying the lives and livelihoods ofinnocent civilians.

About Global Witness

GLOBAL WITNESS BRINGS TOGETHER THE ISSUESOF HUMAN RIGHTS, CORRUPTION, THE TRADE IN NATURALRESOURCES, THE ROLE OF BANKS, THE ARMS TRADE, CONFLICT.IT IS THE ONLY ORGANISATION THAT DOES THIS, PERIOD.

ARYEH NEIER PRESIDENT, OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE

In 2008, Africa exported oil and minerals worth $393 billion. This is nearlynine times the amount the continent received in international aid ($44billion). This paradox sits at the heart of Global Witness’s work. We believethat, managed well, natural resources could help end poverty and breakpoor countries’ disempowering dependence on international aid. But thiswill only happen when the systems that govern the trade in naturalresources are comprehensively reformed and when good governance isplaced at the heart of international aid policy.

Global Witness’s work is cross-cuttingand multi-dimensional. Ourinternational campaigns operate at thenexus of development, theenvironment and trade. We aremotivated by a desire to tackle theunderlying causes of conflict andpoverty and to end the impunity ofindividuals, companies andgovernments that exploit naturalresources for their own benefit at theexpense of their people and theenvironment. From undercoverinvestigations, to high level lobbymeetings, we aim to engage on everylevel where we might make adifference or find out something thatwill help us bring about change.

THE PARADOX OF WEALTH THAT CREATES POVERTY

www.globalwitness.org

This is the first of our annual reviews that has, albeit briefly, tracked Global Witness’s history from its roots in 1992 (see pages 4-5). It isincredible, looking back, remembering those cold and impecunious mornings shaking collecting tins outside tube stations at 5amtrying to raise a few quid for the international phone calls. Then getting that first grant from Novib in late 1994, and just a few monthslater setting foot for the first time on the Thai-Cambodia border to investigate the timber trade between the Khmer Rouge and the Thailogging industry, knowing that the Khmer Rouge were on the other side of the hill.

We had some early and significant campaign successes. We managed to close down the Thai-Khmer Rouge trade, and our nextcampaign exposed the blood diamond issue to the world and did much to address it. But we have never become complacent. Weconstantly challenge ourselves to see that we’re doing the best that we can do, to maintain that enthusiasm that got Global Witnessgoing in the first place. Moreover, the rationale behind why we created Global Witness remains as true today as it was then. Weremain the only non-governmental organisation that brings together the issues of natural resource exploitation, corruption and conflict– the root causes of so many human rights abuses and state failure - via case studies based on hard edged investigations, often riskyand undercover. We deliver fresh verifiable evidence to bring about new policy mechanisms that enable global change.

We’re a different organisation now. Bigger for sure, and comprised of forty eight highly committed staff who don’t just carry on thework that we started, but bring new skills and new perspectives to it. They are helping us to take our work to a new dimension andit’s no exaggeration to say that 2009 has been our best year yet.

We launched a groundbreaking new campaign targeting the banks and other entities that facilitate state looting and corruption. Ourreport Undue Diligence exposed household names like HSBC and Barclays as enabling corrupt elites to loot their countries, thuscondemning their populations to poverty and instability. Our follow up advocacy work resulted in strengthened international anti-money laundering mechanisms and contributed to the historic UK anti-bribery bill that passed in 2010. We are not sure whether tobe flattered or dismayed to hear that some financial institutions are using Undue Diligence to train their compliance officers.

Our other new campaign on oil in Sudan further extends our work exploring the links between natural resources and conflict. It focuseson the oil-revenue sharing agreement between the north and south upon which the current peace deal is based. Our report, FuellingMistrust, documented large discrepancies between the government’s oil production figures and those of the main company operatingin the fields – discrepancies which threaten to undo the fragile peace. The report quickly attracted ministerial attention, and bothgovernments agreed to carry out audits of the oil sector. Trust on this issue is essential to prevent another outbreak of war.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) one of the most intractable conflicts of recent times and certainly the bloodiest has beenfuelled by the trade in natural resources. After years of trying we’re really making headway on getting the international community todeal with this issue of conflict resources, with a UN Security Council resolution stating that traders in natural resources that fund illegalarmed groups in the DRC should face sanctions. Meanwhile in the U.S., we have worked with legislators to try and bring in legislationcombating the trade in conflict minerals – we hope to see this becoming law in 2010.

Since we began Global Witness we have worked on forest issues across the globe, but with the international recognition that ifwe do not halt deforestation we cannot win the battle against climate change, our forest work has escalated to become ourbiggest campaign. We have taken a leading role in trying to ensure that the international climate change talks reach a goodagreement for forests under REDD (Reducing Emissions form Deforestation and Degradation), and co-founded a highly effectivealliance to work on this issue. We are tackling the issue of industrial forest use, one of the major causes of deforestation, and wehave continued to expand our work with civil society organisations in forested countries to improve forest sector governance, withmajor advances in Cameroon, Ghana and Liberia.

All in all we brought out twelve comprehensive and authoritative reports in 2009, each of which are years in the making. But successisn’t reports: it’s what’s in them and what we do with them that counts. In short (because there isn’t space to cover all ourcampaigning in this letter) Global Witness continues to achieve global change, and we have never had such a broad impact as wehave had in 2009. We could not achieve this success without a solid foundation. This year we moved to a new office in CentralLondon that, for the first time, provides us with the space we need and that can truly be described as a nice environment to work in –previously we would unite in the face of adversity! Amazingly, we’re paying the same per square foot – a benefit of the recession.

Directors’ message

2

Annual Review 2009

The downturn has obviously not been so helpful in other areas. The current economic climate has been difficult for many, including anumber of our funders, and we have seen some of our grants reduced. However, our overall income has risen. This is a testament toour funders’ belief in our work and means that we have not had to curtail any of our campaigns, indeed we have expanded them.However, none of us know how the economy will fare through 2010 and 2011. It’s likely to be tough and we need to bear this in mindwith every decision we take.

Global Witness has changed a lot over the last seventeen years, but it hasn’t changed beyond all recognition. The commitment toachieve positive change and to make an impact remains. To work as a small team punching above our weight, to continue tolearn from others and above all, our determination not to compromise our core principles, remain as strong as they ever were.

So where next? The year ahead brings with it many challenges. We are looking at the energy supply crunch, whereby new oildiscoveries are failing to keep pace with rising demand, and how this relates to climate change. Thus far, rather than gettingserious about the need to pursue a low-carbon development path, the international response has been to scramble for new oilfields without much regard for the stability, human rights or democratic development of those countries that possess the oil. Ifthe world reaches the stage when demand outstrips supply, it will be a conflict flashpoint.

Similarly, as the emerging economies like China and India continue to grow, demand for minerals means an escalation in thescramble for natural resources by all the industrial economies. In poor and vulnerable countries this has, in the past, led to the‘resource curse’, as experienced in much of Africa, and it will be a major challenge to manage this issue into the future.

2010 will be a challenging year on many fronts, but we are well placed to take on these challenges. As ever, this brief messagecannot cover all of our issues, but we have included as much as possible in this review. We hope you find it informative, andeven enjoy it!

Patrick Alley, Charmian Gooch and Simon TaylorFounding Directors

ROSEWOOD BEING TRANSPORTED IN THE SAVA REGION OF MADAGASCAR.ILLEGAL ROSEWOOD LOGGING HAS DEVASTATED THE COUNTRY’S

REMAINING ROSEWOOD FORESTS AND THREATENS ITS UNIQUE HABITATS. PHOTO © GLOBAL WITNESS.

3


4

Established in 1993 by the three friendsworking from their front rooms, GlobalWitness now numbers over forty fivestaff divided between its offices inLondon and Washington DC, and has atruly impressive track record of success.

Our first ever campaign aimed to stopthe trade in illegal timber fromCambodia to Thailand which wasfunding the Khmer Rouge. Ourpainstaking evidence-gathering, whichentailed months of undercover work inthe forests on either side of the border,resulted in an an astounding victory: theoverland border was closed. Thedisruption of this trade helped to bringabout the final demise of anorganisation that had terrorised ageneration of Cambodians.

Having confirmed our hunch that therewere important gains to be made byfocusing on the role of natural resourcesin fuelling conflict and corruption weturned our attention to Angola wherediamonds were financing a brutal civilwar. Our work here, and later in SierraLeone, Liberia, the Democratic Republicof Congo and Cote d’Ivoire, brought theproblem of blood diamonds to theworld’s attention and led to the creationof the precedent-setting KimberleyProcess Certification Scheme, In 2003we were nominated for the Nobel PeacePrize.

We have gone on to campaigninternationally using a number ofcountries as case studies – includingBurma, Indonesia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, and theUkraine. From specific resources wehave broadened out to look at thegeneral policies that enable state lootingand prevent transparency. Our work hashelped to stop wars and brought aboutchange that has saved lives. Throughhigh-level policy and advocacy, as wellas campaigning and capacity building onthe ground, we have built anunderstanding of the issues andchanged the terms of the debate.

From humble beginningsto international influence

How it all startedThree friends workingtogether at theEnvironmental InvestigationAgency decide to set up anew organization and to callit Global Witness.

FundraisingInitial fundraising includes shaking tincans outside tube stations to raisemoney for international phone calls;the breakthrough moment is a grantfrom Novib in October 1994. Thisenables Global Witness to travel toWashington and then Cambodiawhere they camp out on the bordercounting logging trucks, and pose astimber buyers to infiltrate the trade.

First ReportGlobal Witness’s first report exposeshow the illegal timber trade betweenCambodia and Thailand is funding the genocidal Khmer Rouge rebels.The report and follow up campaigning result in the border beingclosed, depriving the Khmer Rouge of $90m a year and contributing totheir downfall.

EvidenceInvestigations continue in Cambodia and Thailand; evidence obtainedis used to keep Cambodia’s border with Thailand closed to KhmerRouge log exports. Investigations begin into Angola’s diamond and oiltrades, and their involvement in sustaining the civil war.

Blood DiamondGlobal Witness’s BloodDiamond campaignalerts the world to theproblem of conflictdiamonds with thereport, A Rough Trade,which details howdiamonds are fuellingthe civil war in Angola

Our History:

1992

1994

1995

1996/97

1998

Oil CampaignA Crude Awakening is published, looking intocorruption in the oil industry in Angola. Thiskicks off Global Witness’s oil campaign whichbegins to build global pressure for oil revenuetransparency; Independent Forest Monitoring(IFM) begins in Cambodia, conceived andpioneered by Global Witness.

Kimberley ProcessMembers of the diamond industry,governments and civil society organisationsmeet in Kimberley in Western Australia andbegin discussions which will result in theestablishment in 2003 of the landmarkKimberley Process Certification Scheme tocontrol the trade in conflict diamonds. GlobalWitness is one of two leading non-governmental organisations in the process.

Arms SmugglingTaylor Made shows how theillegal timber industry inLiberia is linked to armssmuggling and prolonging thewar waged by Charles Taylorand the RUF rebels againstthe people of Liberia andSierra Leone.

TransparencyGlobal Witness calls for the oil, gas and miningindustry to disclose revenue payments on acountry-by-country basis and co-launches thePublish What You Pay (PWYP) campaign withGeorge Soros and other NGOs. Following ourcampaigning, the then British Prime MinisterTony Blair launches the Extractive IndustriesTransparency Initiative (EITI), which requiresmember companies and governments toprovide information about payments forcommodities. Global Witness is on the Board.

Nobel PrizeGlobal Witness is co-nominated for the NobelPeace Prize for work on conflict diamonds;Following Global Witness reports andcampaigning, UN sanctions are placed onLiberian timber and Liberian President CharlesTaylor is indicted for war crimes.

DRCRush and Ruin reveals how illegal copper andcobalt smuggling in Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC) is depriving the economy ofbetween US$1-4million a day. This marks thebeginning of our campaigning on the DRCwhich will become a hugely important casestudy for our work on conflict resources.

5

Annual Review 2009

Burmese TimberA Choice for China reveals Burma’s $250m a yearillegal timber trade and results in China passing newlegislation to stem the trade; Global Witness foundingDirectors receive the Gleitsman International ActivistAward, ‘recognizing the exceptional achievement ofthose […] whose vision and courage inspire others tojoin with them in confronting and challenginginjustice.’

War CrimesOne of Charles Taylor’schief cronies, Dutchtimber baron, GuusKouwenhoven, featured inGlobal Witness reports, isput on trial for armssmuggling and war crimes;Global Witness builds upits campaigning onrevenue transparency inthe oil, gas and mining sector with a new report onthe natural gas trade, It’s a Gas, which warns aboutEurope’s dependence on supplies from Russia andCentral Asia; Hollywood blockbuster, Blood Diamond,starring Leonardo de Caprio, hits the cinemas –Global Witness research informed the film.

Cocoa TradeHot Chocolate highlights corruption in the cocoatrade in Cote D’Ivoire and its role in fuelling conflict;Global Witness wins the Commitment to DevelopmentIdeas in Action Award, sponsored jointly byWashington-based Center for Global Developmentand Foreign Policy magazine.

Judicial InvestigationIvorian government launches a judicial investigationinto embezzlement of cocoa revenues and arrestsheads of the national institutions that oversee thesector.

Banks Campaign Global Witness launches a major new campaign onthe role of banks in facilitating corruption and statelooting, and begins work on oil revenue transparencyin Sudan; influenced by Global Witness campaigning,the UN Security Council passes a resolutionmandating sanctions on people or companies tradingin conflict minerals in the DRC.

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009


DRC – changing the terms of thedebate, influencing UN resolutionsFor over 12 years rich mineral resourcesin the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) have provided the incentive andfunding for a conflict which has claimedmillions of lives and blighted manymore. The situation in the DRC hasbecome a flagship example for GlobalWitness’s work on conflict resources,and in 2009 we shifted ourcampaigning on this problem up a gearto try to force international recognitionand action. We published acomprehensive and challenging reportdocumenting how all the main warringparties, including the Congolesenational army, were vying for control ofthe trade in lucrative metals such as tin,coltan, and tungsten – all used to makeelectronic items such as mobilesphones and computers.

The report, Faced with a gun, what canyou do?, included evidence andtestimonies from miners, soldiers, armyofficers and traders. But it did not stopat describing the violence or evenidentifying the perpetrators. In order to

tackle the fundamental drivers of theongoing violence, we focused on therole of companies in providing amarket for the metals, and on regionaland international governments, manyof whom are also donors to the DRC,who have not done enough to tacklethe economic aspects of this ongoingwar. We aimed to show thatresponsibility does not just stop withthose present in the mines or markettowns, but travels all the way along thesupply chain – right up to theconsumers of electronics goods thatcontain the components mined in theCongo.

We launched the report with a joint pressconference in Kinshasa with theCongolese NGO, the Natural ResourcesNetwork, and it received widespreadattention from national and internationalmedia. One of our campaigners took partin an hour-long debate with theCongolese Minister for Information on theUN station Radio Okapi, which was heardthroughout the country and helpedincrease awareness of, and provokeresponse to, our report.

Following the launch we met with high-level government Ministers in the DRC,including the Prime Minister and theMinister for Mines. We also travelled tothe east of the country and conducted aseries of meetings with a regionalgovernor, local parliamentarians, andmembers of the military. We workedalongside local NGOs, Reseau-Cref,CREDDHO, the ERND Institute, andObservatoire Gouvernance et Paix, to co-host meetings and support capacitybuilding. In many of these meetings weencountered a different attitude to theissue of conflict minerals than hadpreviously been the case and a greateropenness among politicians, diplomatsand members of the business communityto the idea of taking action. This is not tosay that there was no opposition or thatthe discussions were all easy but thecomprehensive evidence in the report –which named a number of the peoplewith whom we subsequently met –seemed to have helped to open a door topolitical change.

As a result of our work the concept ofconflict minerals and supply-chain

Campaigning on Conflict

UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE‘MONUC’ ON PATROL IN CONGO.PHOTO © MAURIZIO GAMBARINI/DPA/CORBIS

6

Annual Review 2009

7

traceability is becoming mainstream ineastern Congo, and the space for civilsociety and state bodies to call forchange has opened up. One local NGOtold us on a recent visit, “Your campaignhas inspired us and given us the spaceto do our own work on the militarisationof the mining sector, and to monitormine sites”. Almost immediately afterour report came out, the CongolesePrime Minister travelled to one of themost lucrative mining areas and publiclycalled for the military to get out of themines.

We also carried out advocacy trips toWashington DC and New York, and heldmeetings with the UK government inLondon. These efforts yielded results.Perhaps most significantly, the UNSecurity Council passed a resolutionstating that companies and individualsshould face financial and travel sanctionsif they are found to be “supporting theillegal armed groups in the eastern partof the Democratic Republic of the Congothrough illicit trade of natural resources”.The resolution, first passed at the veryend of 2008 and then renewed andstrengthened in 2009, also encouragedcountries to ensure “importers,processing industries and consumers ofCongolese mineral products under theirjurisdiction exercise due diligence on theirsuppliers and on the origin of theminerals they purchase”.

A number of people, includingrepresentatives of government missionsat the UN, have told Global Witness thatour campaigning and advocacy had adirect influence on the language of theresolutions and on the willingness of theUN to get tougher on sanctions.

This represents a significant step towardsmaking the companies and middle menwho currently benefit from the trade inconflict minerals from Congo accountablefor the wider ramifications of theirbehaviour. It is imperative thatgovernments such the UK, U.S., Belgium,Thailand and Malaysia, act on the UNsteer and put forward the names of theircompanies and citizens believed to beimplicated in the trade. None have yetdone so, despite compelling evidence.Their inaction threatens to undermine thegroundbreaking resolution and is

sources, brings together a wealth ofinformation about this ten-year period,which is still as relevant and topicaltoday, as many of the patterns ofhuman rights abuse and naturalresource exploitation have barelychanged since the beginning of thewar. The paper includesrecommendations to the UN, individualgovernments and the InternationalCriminal Court, which have a strongfocus on justice and are intended toaddress the current situation.

International mineral trading andprocessing companies are clearlyfeeling the heat of our campaigningon the DRC. Following the release ofour report, Faced with a gun, whatcan you do?, the British-basedtrading company, AmalgamatedMetals Corporation (AMC), whosesubsidiary Thaisarco was named inour report as trading in minerals thathad come from mines under thecontrol of armed groups, announcedits intention to suspend sourcing from the DRC, citing ‘the threat ofmisleading and bad publicity’. And the tin industry body, ITRI, announcedit would ramp up efforts to agree new guidelines for supply chaintraceability for companies sourcing from the DRC.

There is still a long way to go: the ITRI initiative falls far short of what isneeded and the willingness of companies such as AMC and others suchas the Malaysian Smelting Corporation (MSC) to engage with thechallenges and clean up the industry is seriously lacking. The UKgovernment has not done enough to hold its companies to account andthis is something that Global Witness will be following up on.

In 2010 we will keep pressing for clear standards for companies sourcingminerals from the Great Lakes region, moving our focus along the supplychain to look at the end-user electronics companies whose productssuch as mobile phones and computers are the ultimate destination forthe minerals mined in the DRC. We will also keep pushing the DRC andother governments to do all they can to achieve the full demilitarisationof the mining sites.

tantamount to protecting the guilty. On amore positive note, there has been someprogress in the U.S., in the form of twonew bills introduced by Congress which,if passed, would help control the trade inconflict minerals and make companiesmore accountable.

At the end of 2009 we published abackground paper on the longstandinglinks between natural resources andhuman rights abuses in the DRC from1993 to 2003. The paper, based onexisting documentation by UN agencies,UN Panels of Experts, NGOs and other

COMPANIES – FEELING THE HEAT


8

Sudan – case studyof effective advocacy Another key aspect of our work onconflict resources in 2009 was Sudan,which offers a significant example ofhow natural resource revenues canpotentially be used to negotiate andmaintain peace. An agreement to shareoil revenues underpinned the historic2005 peace deal between north andsouth Sudan, which brought an end toAfrica’s longest-running civil war. InSeptember we published FuellingMistrust: The need for transparency inSudan's oil industry, which highlighteddiscrepancies in the oil revenue datapublished by the authorities in the northof the country and those published bythe main (Chinese) company operatingin the region. This matters because thesouth has always suspected that theyare being cheated by the north over oilrevenues. The report made a clear casefor more transparency in the Sudaneseoil industry on the grounds that withoutit mistrust between the two sides wouldgrow and the peace would bejeopardised.

Following launches in Nairobi and Juba,the report was widely covered in theSudanese, regional, and international

media, including the BBC and New YorkTimes. Following publication, we briefedthe President and Vice President of theGovernment of Southern Sudan in thecapital Juba. At the meeting, the cabinetagreed to implement our three mainrecommendations, includingcommissioning an independent audit ofthe oil sector.

In the north, the energy minister wassummoned to appear before parliamentto explain the discrepancies highlightedin the report and the Presidency askedthe energy ministry to look into thefindings. Since then, the government inKhartoum has also agreed to an oil audit.Terms of Reference have been draftedby the Norwegian government and areawaiting approval in Juba and Khartoum.

The new U.S. government policy onSudan, released a month after ourreport, states that they will work towardsdeveloping a post-2011 wealth sharingagreement, one of our mainrecommendations. In addition, ourSudan work was cited by a SouthSudan minister in a hearing of the U.S.House of Representatives; in a debatein the UK House of Lords; and in theJanuary 2010 report of the body set up

by the north-south peace agreement tomonitor its implementation (the AEC).

2010 will be a critical year for Sudanwith elections in April and preparationfor the January 2011 referendum onindependence at which the south isexpected to vote to secede. We willcontinue to call for a credible audit ofthe oil sector and for a verificationmechanism to be included in any futureoil revenue sharing agreement betweenthe north and the south. We will alsocontinue to work on the need forgovernments and the internationalcommunity to properly recognise therisks as well as the positive potential ofnatural resource revenues in countriesattempting to emerge from war.

The return of the Blood Diamond?Over 10 years ago Global Witnessbrought the problem of blood diamondsto the world’s attention. As a result ofour global campaign the landmarkKimberley Process Certification Scheme(KPCS or ‘KP’ for short) was establishedto eradicate the trade in conflictdiamonds. The KP remains the onlyinternational mechanism designed todeal with a conflict resource and so it isimportant that it continues to have teeth.

A MAN INSPECTS A LEAKING OIL PIPE IN SOUTH SUDAN. THE OIL REVENUE SHARINGAGREEMENT THAT HELPED SECURE PEACE BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH SUDANHAS BEEN PLAGUED BY SUSPICIONS OVER THE REPORTING OF REVENUES.PANOS © SVEN TORFINN

Annual Review 2009

For this reason, Global Witness focusedin 2009 on monitoring and participatingin key KP activities and on ensuringparticipant countries stand by theircommitments. In spite of significantimprovements over the last decadethere are still loop holes in theinternational trade system, and the KP isstill failing to deal with problemcountries and issues; this puts thewhole scheme at risk. We alsocontinued to lobby the diamondindustry to improve their system of selfregulation, and pushed for increasedoversight of diamond manufacturingand trading centres.

Human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’sMarange diamond fields throughout2009 dramatically demonstrated thatblood diamonds are still a very realproblem and highlighted weaknesses inthe KP’s ability and willingness toenforce its own rules. Although our keyrecommendation, that Zimbabwe besuspended from the scheme, was notadopted, we did manage to strengthenthe measures agreed to address theproblems in Zimbabwe. Thesemeasures are still not strong enoughbut they could bring about somepositive changes on the ground ifproperly implemented.

2009 also saw progress in efforts toaddress challenges faced by WestAfrican countries in the fight againstconflict diamonds. Global Witnesscontributed to a decision at the plenaryaimed at addressing statisticalanomalies and a lack of oversight in theGuinean diamond trade and we werealso involved in establishing a ‘Friendsof Cote d’Ivoire’ group which shouldhelp to address the KP’s longest-standing case of conflict diamonds.Concurrently, West African civil societygroups, brought together through thecivil society coalition, have formed theMano River Union civil society platform,with the aim of addressing challengesat a regional level.

2009 saw increased participation ofsouthern civil society groups in the KP.The November plenary was attended bycivil society representatives fromAngola, Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, DRC,Guinea, Liberia, and Zimbabwe. Theactivists took part in working group and

plenary sessions, and were able toshare information and experience witheach other. Southern civil societyrepresentatives also participated in theZimbabwe review mission, and in areview visit to the DRC. Thisparticipation was facilitated by the CivilSociety Fund, for which Global Witnesshas helped raise money. We haveenormous respect for thesecampaigners, whose participation in theKP meetings and ongoing campaigningfor better human rights in the diamondssector places them constantly at risk.

In 2010 the emphasis will be on reform:we firmly believe the KP needs toaddress a number of weaknesses andreaffirm its commitment to stoppinghuman rights abuses fuelled bydiamonds. It needs to get tougher onnon-compliance if it is to retain itscredibility and Zimbabwe must beexpelled if a review mission fails to findevidence of genuine reform.

A YOUNG BOY WHO HAD BEEN TORTURED BY A MILITARY-CONTROLLEDDIAMOND SYNDICATE IN CHIADZWA, ZIMBABWE. REPORTS OF SYSTEMATICABUSE AND STATE CORRUPTION HAVE LED TO CALLS FOR ZIMBABWE TOBE SUSPENDED FROM THE KIMBERLEY PROCESS CERTIFICATION SCHEME.PANOS © ROBIN HAMMOND

9


10

Liberia – managing resourcesin a post-conflict context As a post-conflict country where naturalresources played a significant role infuelling the war, Liberia now faces thechallenge of managing its forests andother resources in a way that benefitsthe country’s citizens and prolongspeace. Successfully overcomingdecades of corruption and breakingentrenched patterns of resourcemismanagement will require sustainedpolitical will, civil society engagement,and support from donors and otherstakeholders. In 2009 Global Witnesscampaigned alongside local civil societygroups in Liberia to ensure that thecountry’s new forestry concessionswere allocated in accordance with thereformed forestry law.

We published a series of press releasesand briefings highlighting instanceswhere the government was failing tofollow its own laws and processes. InJuly we warned that three firms linkedto Malaysian timber giant Samling, acompany notorious for destroyingtropical forests and abusing localcommunities, were being considered formajor logging contracts. The Liberiangovernment and international donorsspent five years and tens of millions ofdollars reforming the forest sector andinstituting a system of checks andbalances but the flawed bidassessment process showed how easilythese safeguards could be short-circuited for the sake of short termeconomic gain and to please theindustry lobby.

We followed the concession allocationprocess through its various stages ofratification, and continued to highlightour concerns publically and in privatecorrespondence. In parallel we met withLiberia’s President, Ellen JohnsonSirleaf, and with various governmentdepartments and external agencies, toencourage Liberia to seek funding fromthe Norwegian government’s Climate

and Forest initiative, to enable thecountry to receive financialcompensation in return for protectingtheir forests instead of logging them(see section on REDD).

However, in spite of relentlesscampaigning by Global Witness and ourlocal civil society allies, including theSustainable Development Institute, inOctober Johnson Sirleaf signed four 25-year forest management contracts intolaw. She did this even though some ofthe companies lacked the financialcapacity to operate and had alreadybreached official procedures. We remainconcerned that the anticipated loggingrevenues and promised employmentbenefits are unlikely to materialise, andthat the government chose short termpolitical expediency over long termfinancial and environmental stability.

Also in October, we responded to theLiberian Auditor General's audit of theMinistry of Lands, Mines and Energy,which highlighted weakness in financialcontrols and signs of corruption. GlobalWitness and the local Publish What YouPay coalition welcomed the audit as asignificant step forward in Liberia'sefforts to strengthen governance. Theaudit report identified a range of seriousirregularities, not least the failure ofthree officials to account forUS$862,000 in missing governmentfunds for which they were responsible.Other problems included unaccountedfor discrepancies in donor funding, ageneral absence of transparency andaccountability and a lack of soundfinancial management. Global Witnessand PWYP called on the government torespond urgently to the report’srecommendations. Some of our keyrecommendations were taken on boardby the government.

2009 also saw us bring our first legalcase to a public prosecutor as we seekto set precedents on legalconsequences for funding war. Based

on investigations over the previousyears and joint campaigning withGreenpeace, we filed a complaint inFrance against one of the world’sbiggest timber companies, DalhoffLarsen Horneman (DLH), alleging thatthey had bought and traded illegallyobtained timber during the Liberian civilwar. See the Ending Impunity sectionon page 18 for more detail on thiscase.

A WORKER TAPPING RUBBER IN LIBERIAN FOREST. TRANSPARENTMANAGEMENT OF FORESTS AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES INTHE POST-CONFLICT COUNTRY WILL BE VITAL FOR PROMOTINGDEVELOPMENT AND REDUCING POVERTY. © GLOBAL WITNESS

11


12

Banks facilitating corruption 2009 saw the launch of a new, excitingand critical campaign area: tackling therole of financial institutions in facilitatingcorruption and state looting. If the worldis serious about MillenniumDevelopment Goals and Making PovertyHistory then it has to stop the shamefulway in which the financial sector isinvolved in corruption that is keepingmillions of people poor.

In March we published acomprehensive and ambitious report –the result of more than 2 years’ workwhich entailed investigations as well asgetting to grips with the immensecomplexity of the international bankingsystem. Our team delved deep andsteeped themselves in the sector,talking to a range of players includingmoney laundering experts, policeinvestigators, banking staff and officials.We sought to understand some of thekey problems and see what solutionsthere might be.

Undue Diligence detailed how anumber of the world’s largest banks,including HSBC, Citibank, DeutscheBank, and Barclays have done businesswith some of the world’s most corruptregimes, including Equatorial Guinea,the Republic of Congo, Turkmenistan,Charles Taylor’s Liberia, and Angola.Through compelling case studies weshowed how this behaviour, which fuelscorruption, poverty and inequality, ishappening despite a global frameworkof anti-money laundering laws. Thereport made strong recommendationson how to close loopholes and urged allstakeholders to use the opportunityinherent in the financial crisis to pushthrough reforms that would stop banksand other institutions from facilitatingstate looting and kleptocracy. We haveheard that it is being used by financialinstitutions to train business units andcompliance officers and has beenranked with five stars for ‘insight’ by thecorporate social responsibility website,businessrespect.net.

We held two report launch events inParliament in the UK, one with MPsVince Cable and John Bercow, andfollowed up with meetings throughoutthe year with officials at the UK and U.S.treasuries and other governmentdepartments. We also met with theWorld Bank and IMF, and wrote to allmembers of the G20 and the FinancialAction Task Force (FATF), theintergovernmental body responsible forsetting global anti-money launderingstandards.

As a result of our campaigning, the G20called on the FATF to focus more on theproceeds of corruption with anemphasis on beneficial ownership,customer due diligence andtransparency. The FATF, which hadpreviously focused heavily on terroristfinancing, set up an informal group toassess how to fulfil the G20requirement, recommendations fromwhich will be addressed before the nextround of peer reviews. Global Witnessis working to ensure that the review isas effective as possible.

We made a submission to the Footreview of the UK’s Overseas Territories,based on a case study from UndueDiligence, which resulted in changes tothe money laundering regulations inAnguilla, a major offshore tax haven. Wealso made a submission to HongKong’s review of its anti moneylaundering regulations, which resulted inacceptance of one of the keyrecommendations regarding reliance on‘third party introducers’. Our submissionto UK reviews of money launderingregulations and money launderingguidance for banks resulted inacceptance of some of ourrecommendations on asset declarationsand on banks needing to consult awide range of NGO and inter-governmental reports when assessingcorruption risk.

Campaigning on Corruption

Annual Review 2009

In May we testified to a U.S.Congressional hearing on ‘Capital Loss,Corruption and the Role of WesternFinancial Institutions’ and in October, weheld a packed informal side event onthe margins of the FATF plenarymeeting in Paris. We gave the keynotepresentation and ran training workshopsfor bankers and government anti-corruption officials at an APECconference in Bangkok. We helped setup and continue to participate in theTask Force on Financial Integrity andEconomic Development, an NGO

coalition designed to watchdog andtackle illicit financial flows out ofdeveloping countries. In March we tookpart in a joint European NGO campaignaction in Jersey to draw attention to theimpact of secrecy jurisdictions and taxevasion.

In November, we attended the meetingof parties to the UN Convention AgainstCorruption (UNCAC) in Doha andworked with a global civil societycoalition calling for an effective reviewmechanism for the treaty. We were

critical of governments at theconference – including China, Egyptand Russia - for blocking such amechanism, thereby removing any wayof enforcing the Convention’s rules, andeffectively rendering it toothless.

Also in November we published a followup report on Equatorial Guinea: TheSecret Life of a Shopaholic, whichshowed how Teodorin Obiang, son ofthe President of the oil-rich West Africanstate, went on a multi-million dollarshopping spree in the U.S. thanks in

BOSSES AT RIGGS BANK, SEEN HERE TESTIFYING BEFORE ASENATE COMMITTEE, FAILED TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCEPROPERLY IN THEIR EAGERNESS TO HELP EQUATORIAL GUINEA’SDICTATOR, TEODORO OBIANG, MANAGE HIS OIL WEALTH.© DENIS COOK/AP

13


part to American banks having allowedhis corruptly-acquired funds into thecountry. Among Teodorin’s purchaseswere a $35m Malibu mansion, a fleet offast cars, and a private jet. The storyappeared on the front page of the NewYork Times, which put renewed pressureon the U.S. Government to reinvigorateefforts to tackle foreign corruption andbribery.

Cambodia - aid effectiveness& donor accountability Global Witness has been working onCambodia for a decade and a half. It isour longest-running campaign and theinstitutional corruption and state lootingwe have seen and campaigned againstthere has informed our organisationalthinking and inspired work in otherareas. In February 2009 we published anew report which looked at theemerging oil, gas and mineral industry.Country for Sale, downloaded over7,000 times from the Global Witnesswebsite, revealed that the same politicalelite that pillaged the country’s timberresources – the initial focus of our workin the country – had gained control ofits mineral and petroleum wealth.

The report detailed how the rights toexploit oil and mineral resources hadbeen allocated behind closed doors by a

small number of powerbrokers, for thebenefit of members of the ruling eliteand their families. It highlighted thatmillions of dollars paid by oil and miningcompanies, such as Australian mininggiant BHP Billiton, to secure access tothese resources, appeared to be missingfrom the national accounts. The work onaccess to resources in Cambodia is thefirst in a series of case studies which willinform a new branch of our work on oil,gas and mining – namely looking at howdeals are done, and trying to identify theproblems and corruption before theresource starts being exploited.

Country for Sale was critical ofCambodia’s international donors, who,despite pledging U.S. $1 billion indevelopment aid at the end of 2008 –equivalent to half the total governmentbudget – failed to use their leverage todemand better governance of naturalresources and accompanying humanrights and political reform. Unfortunatelythis failure by the international donors,and their de facto tolerance of theendemic corruption in Cambodia, hasbeen been the hallmark of theirengagement with Cambodia since theelections in 1993.

We did a press launch in Bangkok and aUK parliamentary launch in London, and

followed up with extensive advocacyduring the year, including writing lettersto all Cambodia’s donors ahead of theirannual review meeting, and making asubmission to the EC’s Mid-term Reviewof its 2007-2013 strategy paper forCambodia, in which we called on themto make better natural resourcegovernance a key benchmark for ECaid. In the US we made a submission tothe Tom Lantos Commission on HumanRights and briefed Hillary Clinton prior toa meeting with a Cambodian minister.We ran a training session for World Bankand EU staff using Cambodia as a casestudy to show how donors can recognisestate capture and what they can doabout it.

Our campaigning has significantlyraised the profile and influenced theterms of the debate on oil, minerals andcorruption in Cambodia. Mining and oilare now a part of donor-governmentdialogue. MEPs in Brussels launched ananti-corruption petition as a result of ourcampaigning, parliamentary questionswere asked in the UK about Britain’s aidpolicy, and U.S. Senator Richard Lugarwrote from the U.S. Committee onForeign Relations to the president of theWorld Bank highlighting corruption inCambodia. We have been told thatCountry for Sale is used as a training

GLOBAL WITNESS COMMISSIONED CULT CARTOONIST DAVID REES TO ILLUSTRATE OURBRIEFING ON HOW THE EU IS NEGOTIATING WITH THE DICTATORSHIP OF TURKMENISTANIN THE HOPE OF SECURING GAS SUPPLIES. ©DAVID REES, HTTP://MNFTIU.CC

14

Annual Review 2009

15

arrangement. We also worked closelywith Southern civil society activists,most directly via the EITI Board.

In November, as part of the continuingwork on security of energy supplies intothe EU, we launched an innovativesatirical briefing, All that gas?, on theEuropean Union’s attempts to grovel tothe autocracy of Turkmenistan in thehope of securing natural gas supplies.The briefing, illustrated by cult cartoonistDavid Rees, caused a stir in Brussels,and the signs are it influenced thethinking of some European Commissionofficials on this issue. We also had anop-ed published in the Financial Timeson Europe’s energy polices.

We also published two investigativebriefings revealing questionable linksbetween Angola’s state oil company and little-known private companies.Angola, where average life expectancyis 46.5 years, is a classic example of acountry in which natural resource wealthhas not benefitted the majority of thepopulation but instead has fuelled

corruption, conflict and exacerbatedinequality. Our work on Angola hascontinued to be noticed by foreigngovernments, companies, multilateralorganisations and the media. We areoften contacted by investigators workingon behalf of companies consideringinvesting in Angola who want to assesscorruption-related risks.

UNESCO – reputationlaundering for the world’s despotsIn December 2009 we discovered thatUNESCO, the UN body set up topromote education, science and culture,was lending its name and kudos to aprize sponsored by Teodorin Obiang,the corrupt President of EquatorialGuinea. We condemned the prize,proposed in recognition of "scientificachievements that improve the qualityof human life", as a reprehensibleattempt at reputation-laundering andcalled on UNESCO to cancel it withoutdelay.

Throughout 2009 we campaigned for new anti-bribery legislation in the UKto prevent British companies from paying bribes to facilitate theiroperations and home or abroad.

We made submissions to the Secretary of State for Justice and therelevant parliamentary committee on the bill in June 2009 and met withthe Secretary of State for Justice, the Department for InternationalDevelopment, and other MPs.

Significant changes were made to the Bill at draft stage, whichstrengthened it in line with our recommendations. Global Witness chairedthe British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) governance groupthat campaigned on this.

The Bribery Act was passed in early 2010, bringing UK laws up to date bycreating a new offence of bribing a foreign public official and a corporateoffence for companies that fail to prevent bribery.

This is a very positive step forward and will be a critical help in preventingcorruption which hinders development and affects the poorest and mostvulnerable in society.

In 2010 we will continue to push for adequate funding for implementationand for guidance for prosecutors and business.

document for anti-corruption agenciesand donors.

Despite persistent and rigorouscampaigning we have not yet seenclear changes in the way that donorsgive aid to Cambodia, andconsequently no meaningful attempt bythe Cambodian government to tacklecorruption or to deal with thekleptocratic elite. While we will continueto work with individual donors to lobbythem to bring natural resourcegovernance into their aid disbursalcriteria, we know that it is time take thiscampaign up to the next level, andfocus on governments’ policies towardsaid in general, rather than Cambodiaspecifically. We have started to do thisalready, by working in the UK for a morejoined up governmental approach tocorruption, and by identifying processesin Brussels that offer entry points forchange. This will be a key focus of ourwork in 2010.

Oil, gas and mining– focusing on access During 2009 we developed a newdirection for our oil campaign, focusedon the risks of corruption in the globalscramble by companies to win accessto natural resources. We are assemblinga major report for publication in 2010and have produced a blueprint forcitizens of developing countries toidentify corruption risks in oil andmining deals. At the same time, wepushed ahead with our existing work onrevenue transparency in oil and mining.

We focused activity on the key area ofthe Extractive Industries TransparencyInitiative (EITI) and successfully usedour seat on the EITI Board to stop therules being watered down for thebenefit of governments of resource-richcountries that lack political will to reform.We continued to play an active rolewithin the Publish What You Paycoalition, including participating in thedesign of a new governance

A NEW BRIBERY BILL FOR THE UK – VICTORYFOR ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGNERS


We wrote an open letter to theUNESCO board and submitted a spoofnomination for Obiang’s son, for“improving the quality of his own life”.Obiang junior, known as Teodorin, hadrecently purchased a $33 millionprivate jet, a $35 million Malibumansion, speedboats and a fleet offast cars. This is in spite of the factthat his official salary as Minister forForestry, Fisheries and theEnvironment in his father’s governmentis only $4000 - $5000 a month.

In January UNESCO suspended theObiang-sponsored award, pending anofficial review into all of its prizes.

Progress in the U.S. – newlegislation on natural resourcesThe U.S. has significant geopoliticalinfluence and is home to some of theworld’s largest natural resourcecompanies. If the U.S. governmentand companies used this influencemore effectively, it would givesignificant momentum to global effortsto promote effective natural resourcegovernance. In 2009 some significantprogress was made in the USlegislative context:

• Introduction of the EnergySecurity Through Transparency Act(ESTTA). This bi-partisan piece oflegislation introduced inSeptember 2009 would requirecompanies to disclose their naturalresource extraction payments on acountry-by-country basis to theSecurities and ExchangeCommission. Global Witnessplayed an integral role in gettingthe bill introduced and iscampaigning with Publish What YouPay U.S. to get it passed. Thislegislation would be a major stepforward in setting a globalstandard for transparency andenabling civil society to hold theirgovernments to account formanagement of natural resourcerevenues.

In 2010, we will work on ensuring thepassage of these progressive piecesof legislation in both the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate. Wewill also encourage U.S. efforts tostrengthen the anti-money launderingframework, including by requiringbanks to carry out better duediligence. And we will push the U.S.government to properly enforcelegislation imposing travel bans ongovernment officials and their familymembers involved in natural resourcecorruption.

16

• Introduction of bi-partisanlegislation in both the House andthe Senate to combat the trade inconflict minerals. The U.S. officewas active in 2009 in educatingmembers of Congress and theObama Administration about therole of minerals in fuelling violenceand human rights abuses ineastern DRC, which helped lead tothe introduction of legislation inboth the House and the Senateaimed at stemming the trade inconflict minerals.

• Through our research, reporting,and advocacy in Congress, wewere able to pressure and supportthe Senate and HouseAppropriations Committees toinclude several new provisionswithin the FY 2010 foreignassistance funding legislation thatpromote transparency and equityin the management of naturalresources. The provisions include:the requirement of a StateDepartment report on mineralexploitation in the DRC and theidentification of governments andcompanies involved; regular auditsof the Government of SouthernSudan’s financial accounts withspecial attention to oil and gasrevenues; and a ban on U.S.funding directly or indirectlysupporting industrial-scale logging.

Annual Review 2009

A SHANTY TOWN ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF LUANDA,ANGOLA, OVERLOOKS A SONANGOL (THE STATEOIL COMPANY) COMPLEX. DESPITE THECOUNTRY’S OIL WEALTH, THE MAJORITY OFANGOLA’S PEOPLE REMAIN VERY POOR.PANOS © ROBIN HAMMOND

17


18

Ending impunity for naturalresource-related crimes A key area of Global Witness’s work isour efforts to end the impunity enjoyedby individuals and companies that profitfrom the illicit (and often illegal)exploitation of natural resources. Weare constantly seeking ways to holdperpetrators of natural resource-relatedharm to account. This involves testingthe limits of current laws and legalframeworks, exposing the‘accountability gaps’, and calling forreform. The ultimate aim is to bring toan end the belief and unfortunate realitythat individuals, companies and peopleoperating within governments canoperate above the law, and to thesituation where, as with the trade inconflict minerals, existing laws aresimply inadequate to deal with majorglobal problems.

Working with other Global Witnesscampaigners, the Ending Impunity teamaims to address the symptoms, causesand culture that enable a lack ofaccountability and prevent legal redressfor crimes. There are three mechanismsthat the team uses to achieve theiraims:

• Casework - to facilitate and aidprosecutions that clarify the use ofexisting laws to create accountabilityfor crimes involving the exploitation ofnatural resources, human rightsabuses and corruption.• Influencing policy - to encourageinvestigations and prosecutions underexisting laws and push for the creationof new laws where gaps exist.• Public advocacy - to create a climatewhere states and business believethat it is no longer acceptable tocontinue this exploitation and abuseand agree to take action against it.

Companies fuelling the conflict inLiberia – a landmark legal case 2009 was a seminal year for thisstrand of work because it saw uslaunch our first legal case to a publicprosecutor. In November, Global

Witness, Sherpa, Greenpeace France,Amis de la Terre, and a prominentLiberian activist jointly lodged acomplaint in France, against the timbercompany DLH (Dalhoff LarsenHorneman), alleging that they hadbought and traded illegally-obtainedtimber during the civil war in Liberiafrom companies known to have beenproviding support to Charles Taylor'sbrutal regime. We would have liked tobuild a case around their financialsupport for a war but at present thereis no jurisdiction where this is possible– hence the focus on their purchase ofillegal timber.

We were essentially accusing them of‘handling stolen goods’ – which inFrance is a crime known as recel. Wepublished a briefing paper, BankrollingBrutality, explaining and accompanyingthe filing. This precedent-setting civilaction is currently under considerationwith the French prosecutor and we willknow in 2010 whether the authoritiesintend to take it up. If they do not weare considering taking the case directly

to trial ourselves based on the wealthof evidence provided.

Also in 2009, we were invited to provideoral and written testimony to theLiberian Truth and ReconciliationCommission on economic crimes andthe role that timber companies such asOTC, DLH, Danzer, and others played infunding the civil war. We also continuedto carry out investigations into humanrights abuses committed against ex-OTC employees and in the concessionareas during Taylor’s regime. GuusKouwenhoven, the Dutch timber baronwho ran Liberia’s biggest loggingcompany, OTC, was also implicated ingross violations and arms relatedcrimes. Criminal charges were broughtagainst Kouwenhoven in theNetherlands and we are currentlywaiting for a final determination.

Mapping the trade in Congoleseconflict minerals Throughout the year we continued towork on the accountability of companiestrading in minerals from the DRC, where

Campaigning on Accountability

PLAQUE SHOWING THE PREMISES OF OTC, ONCE LIBERIA’S BIGGESTLOGGING COMPANY, SHUT DOWN FOLLOWING THE IMPOSITION OF UNSANCTIONS ON LIBERIAN TIMBER. © GLOBAL WITNESS

Annual Review 2009

19

natural resource revenues are fuelling aviolent conflict that has cost millions oflives. A particular focus for us in 2009was the failure of the UK Government toact on evidence that British companies,including metals group AMC andtrading company Afrimex, havepurchased minerals originating frommines controlled by armed groups.

We provided oral testimony and a writtensubmission to the UK Joint Committeeon Human Rights highlightingweaknesses in the UK Government’scurrent approach to minimising harmcaused by UK-registered companiesoperating in conflict zones, particularly ineastern DRC. Some of our keyrecommendations were put forward bythe Committee to the UK Government.

The basis on which companies are ableto operate in areas of conflict andinstability needs to change dramatically.Much of our campaigning is linked tothis. In 2009 we began to work with theOECD on drafting practical duediligence guidelines for companiessupplying minerals from conflict-affected states. This work will remain acore focus into 2010, with an officialsecondment to the OECD for one of ourstaff members. We hope to find outwhether companies are capable ofdeveloping truly responsible andindependently verifiable ways ofsourcing. The jury is out on whether theindustry and governments are ready toface up to their responsibilities.

We continued to work with Rights andAccountability in Development (RAID)and the Canadian Centre forInternational Justice (CCIJ) to highlightthe on-going need for the accountabilityof economic actors, such as AnvilMining, for their role in the Kilwamassacre in DRC in 2004.

Reforming England’s libel laws toprotect free speech Among the many threats that GlobalWitness faces, by far the most commonis legal action - both in terms of libeland breach of privacy. The corruptpoliticians and businessmen who arefrequent targets of our campaigning areoften enormously rich and can afford touse the law to crush freedom ofspeech, despite the fact that what we

publish is true, and in the publicinterest.

Global Witness has never beensuccessfully sued, nor had to settle outof court. Regardless, we regularlyreceive threats attempting to silence us,and always deal with these robustly. In2007, for example, the son of thePresident of the Republic of Congo,Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso, usedprivacy laws in the UK to try and forceus to remove documents from ourwebsite which showed that he hadbeen using state oil revenues to fundhis lavish personal lifestyle. We wonthe case and were awarded costs butthe financial risk for a small organisationsuch as ours in defending this casewas significant. By fighting this case,and refusing to be cowed, we set aprecedent in the English courts onpublic interest and the laws on privacy.

England's claimant-friendly privacy andlibel laws have long encouraged suchbehavior. Over the last few years thephenomenon of ‘libel tourism’ – wherepeople who live outside the UK use itscourts to sue non-UK residents – hasbeen on the rise. This, and theincreasing use of legal gagging orderssuch as injunctions and super-injunctions, has had a chilling effect onpublic interest campaigning. 2009 sawan upsurge in campaigning for libelreform.

Global Witness joined the Libel ReformCampaign set up by Index onCensorship, English PEN and Senseabout Science (www.libelreform.org). Wemade written and oral submissions tothe Culture, Media and SportParliamentary Select Committee on UKPrivacy and Libel Laws and theresulting committee report incorporateda number of our recommendations.

Along with other NGOs we alsosubmitted an Amicus Curiae brief to theEuropean Court of Human Rights(ECHR), which is currently fast-trackinga landmark case brought by MaxMosley to tighten UK privacy laws. Thebrief outlined the potential negativeimplications of a ruling in Mosley’sfavour for organisations campaigning inthe public interest and called on thecourt to define the right to privacy more

narrowly to protect such groups. TheUK Government subsequently made asubmission to the ECHR recognisingthe negative implications that priornotification could have on NGOs.

As a result of the campaigning byNGOs, the media and others, the thenJustice Secretary Jack Straw announceda wholesale review of Britain’s privacyand libel laws. Global Witness made asubmission for consideration by Straw’sexpert panel, which reported in March2010. Following the report, Strawannounced welcome reforms to betaken forward in the next Parliament.These included:

• A 'single publication rule' to ensurethat claimants in libel proceedingscannot bring a case against everypublication or download of a story.• Consideration of a statutory defencefor publications in the public interest. • Moves to prevent the growth of 'libeltourism'.

Straw also proposed to reduce thesuccess fees that lawyers can chargefor winning defamation cases in no-win,no-fee agreements. Unfortunately, inearly 2010 a group of rebel Labour MPsblocked the proposal, citing concernsthat the changes would prevent ordinaryconstituents being able to defend theirprivacy affordably. Global Witnessaccepts this important principle butbelieves that more often than not, thecurrent system is cynically abused bythe rich, powerful and very often guilty,who can well afford to pay their lawyers.

The matter is now due for review underthe new government. Global Witnesswelcomes the coalition’s early indicationthat libel reform will remain a priorityand looks forward to seeing the detailsof their proposals. As the debate movesforward, it will be important toremember that non-governmentalorganisations publishing on a widerange of matters of public interest facedifferent challenges and operate in adifferent context from journalists andlawyers. And that the work of suchorganisations will become moreimportant as newspapers continue tocut back on quality long-terminvestigative reporting.


Ending impunity for naturalresource-related crimes2009 saw the launch of GlobalWitness’s climate and energycampaign; with an initial focus on thelooming oil supply crunch, a factorabout which governments remain indenial. The campaign is calling ongovernments to publicly recognise theproblem and take urgent action toswitch to safe renewable energyalternatives. Global Witness believesthat public recognition is the key firststep. The campaign is an extension ofour work on conflict resources andclimate and is based on our belief thata world without enough oil is unlikely tobe a peaceful place. An honest andpublic acknowledgement about thelooming supply crunch could helpclimate change negotiators makeprogress towards agreeing safer targets.

In October, we published a report calledHeads in the Sand, which outlined fourkey underlying fundamental factors thatthreaten secure future supplies of oil.These are declining discoveries,increasing demand, declining outputfrom existing fields, and insufficientprojects in the pipeline. Taken together,these factors threaten an imminent oilsupply crunch. The report warned thatthe world’s near-total dependence onoil for food production and transportmean that its decreasing availability islikely to have severe economicconsequences. In addition, it willescalate food insecurity, and increasecorruption, state-looting and impunity fordictators in countries with significant oilreserves. The increased geopoliticaltension resulting from competitionbetween countries struggling foressential supplies of oil will play havoc

with international efforts to address theclimate crisis, and represents a seriousthreat to international peace andstability.

The current international effort toaddress the climate crisis could bedescribed as “business-as-usual,” withincremental changes to the globalenergy infrastructure occurring at aglacial pace. Current pledges fornational greenhouse gas reductionsrepresent a fraction of what appears tobe required, according to recentscientific opinion. Meanwhile, existingglobal economic plans are predicatedaround a significant expansion in theuse of fossil fuels. But given the rangeof indicators of the looming oil supplycrunch, business-as-usual is no longeran option.

Campaigning onenvironmental sustainability

TAR SANDS – AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. THE WORLD IS RUNNING OUT OFOIL. RATHER THAN SEEKING EVER-MORE EXPENSIVE AND ENVIRONMENTALLYDAMAGING WAYS OF GETTING AT WHAT IS LEFT, GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BEINVESTING IN RENEWABLES.© ORJAN F. ELLINGVAG/ DAGENS NARINGSLIV/CORBIS

20

Annual Review 2009

Following a London-based launch, wemade one trip to the US to talk tomembers of Congress and the Obamaadministration about our findings. Wepresented Heads in the Sand at a panelevent in Washington DC, attended byjournalists, politicians and other NGOs.The report generated considerableinterest, and suggestions that we holdfurther discussion panels. Against abackdrop of inadequate U.S. action toaddress the climate crisis, the visit alsodemonstrated the widespread lack ofawareness about these issues amongsthigh-level officials on both Capitol Hilland within the Obama Administration.Global Witness has parallel concerns formany other countries.

In preparation for follow-up visits, thereport was sent to Prime Ministers andkey ministries of other major energyconsuming countries and those in frontline of looming climate disaster. By theyear end, we had received positivereactions expressing an interest in furtherdiscussion from several countries.

A chance for forests atthe climate change talks? The world's forests have been decliningat an alarming rate over the past fiftyyears due to industrial logging,conversion to plantations andagriculture. Carbon dioxide emissionsfrom deforestation and forestdegradation comprise between 12 –20% of the global total and it is nowwidely accepted that the battle againstclimate change cannot be won unlessdeforestation is halted. Consequentlyforest issues have risen high up on theinternational agenda and have been akey issue in the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) since 2007 whennegotiations on a global mechanism forReducing Emissions from Deforestationand forest Degradation (REDD) wereinitiated.

Essentially a scheme to preventdeforestation, REDD will see poorcountries paid to keep their forestsstanding. It is both an unprecedentedopportunity and a serious threat. A goodREDD deal has the potential to protectforests on a global scale - a goal thathas eluded policy makers for decades.But a bad agreement could prove

disastrous for the world's forests andthe people that live in them. REDD is atrisk from vested interests, including thelogging industry, which could hijack thescheme and use it to subsidisebusiness-as-usual practices, includingindustrial scale logging.

With tens of billions of dollars a yearpotentially to be transferred from richcountries to poor ones under REDD,and $3.5bn already committed in fast-track financing for immediateimplementation, addressing issues ofgovernance will be key. Many of thecountries in line for REDD money sufferfrom weak governance and a lack oftransparency - some are ranked amongthe most corrupt in the world.

Global Witness campaigned hard in2009 for a REDD deal that wouldprotect the world's forests, buildsystems for good governance andmonitoring, respect the rights of forest-dependent people and preserve therich biodiversity that forest ecosystemscontain. We engaged actively in all theUNFCCC negotiating meetingsthroughout the year, and spent timeresearching, carrying out advocacy, anddevising policy in the months in-between.

Within a year of commencing our workon REDD we were recognized as a keycontributor and authority in the debate,particularly regarding forest governanceand monitoring. We co-founded theEcosystems Climate Alliance (ECA) – acoalition of like-minded NGOs - at theUNFCCC meeting in Poznan inDecember 2008 and it has gone on tobecome the most effective civil societycoalition influencing the REDDnegotiations.

Through forging alliances with keynegotiators we managed to ensuremost of our key concerns were includedin the final REDD text, which wouldprobably have been adopted had theinternational negotiations concludedwith a legally-binding deal at theUNFCCC talks in Copenhagen inDecember 2009. Provisions securedincluded the removal of pro-loggingterminology, recognition of the need toaddress governance issues, andlanguage to safeguard the rights of

indigenous peoples, protect biodiversity,and prevent the conversion of naturalforest to plantations.

Because an agreement was notreached in Copenhagen we will use2010 to ensure these provisions remainin place, and advocate for fullimplementation and monitoring of thesafeguards.

We produced four reports for the REDDnegotiations in 2009, including ADecade of Experience and BuildingConfidence in REDD, which werepresented in Copenhagen. The reportsprovide a strong advocacy tool and arereportedly being used by civil societyorganisations and by bilateral andmultilateral donor agencies to informtheir thinking.

In parallel with the UNFCCCnegotiations Global Witness is heavilyinvolved in the two major mechanismsthat will operationalise REDD: the WorldBank’s Forest Carbon PartnershipFacility (FCPF) and the UN-REDDProgramme, to which we were electedin late 2009 as the official internationalcivil society observer representingdeveloped countries. We are alsomonitoring and engaging with other keybilateral and multilateral initiatives,including various bilateral arrangementsfunded by Norway and the Paris-Oslointerim partnership agreement onREDD.

Industrial Forest Use – themajor driver of deforestationUnderpinning all Global Witness’s forestcampaigns is the objective to get theworld’s decision makers to re-examinetheir use of tropical forests. For decadescountless reports from governments,the media, academia and NGOs havedocumented the alarming decline of theworld’s tropical forests, but theinternational community has failed toslow it. This extraordinary failure lies, inlarge part, at the door of the world’sforest economists who remain weddedto the notion that the industrial use offorests, whether through industrial scalelogging (ISL) or conversion toagriculture (such as palm oil, soya andlivestock), are key economic drivers inpoor but forest-rich countries.

21


22

Led by bodies such as the World Bankand the UN Food & AgricultureOrganisation (FAO), and funded bydevelopment aid from the rich world,the international community activelypromotes the use of intact tropicalforests for ISL and other activities, andeven provides the funding and technicalassistance to do so – some $750million per year of taxpayers’ money. Theresults are not impressive: the tropicalregions of Africa, Latin America, andSoutheast Asia lost around 1.2 millionkm of forest between 1990 and 2005 –an area the size of France, Germanyand the UK combined.

Global Witness’s IFU work is aimed atchanging tropical-forest policy so that itis genuinely pro-poor and pro-environment, removing perversesubsidy from big industry andpromoting the rights of forest dependentpeople.

Protecting Guyana’s forests– and hosting a meetingwith the President Guyana lies at the heart of one of theworld's last four intact rainforests and hasone of the highest levels of biodiversity inthe world. With forests accounting foraround 80% of the country's land area,Guyana has become a flagship countryfor the World Bank’s Forest CarbonPartnership Facility (FCPF), and is thefurthest along of participating countriesin achieving REDD ‘readiness’. Thecountry recently signed a five-year REDDagreement with Norway.

In August Global Witness visited Guyana,and discussed REDD with governmentofficials, civil society groups andindigenous people. We then hosted afollow-up meeting in London inNovember with President Jagdeo and arepresentative of indigenous peoples.The aim was to explore the opportunitiesand risks of REDD for Guyana, andprovide a forum for NGOs, leadingacademics, government representativesand the media to question the Presidenton the government’s plans to preventdeforestation.

Guyana's tropical rainforests are amongstits most valuable assets. Global Witnessthinks a commitment to transparencyand accountability should be enshrined

in legislation and that there should beoversight of all timber-related revenueflows. Forest communities need to beinvolved in decision making.

Making the ForestSector Transparent– new website and report Citizens of poor countries are oftenunable to access information on themanagement of their forests to holdtheir government and businesses toaccount.

2009 saw the launch of a landmarkforest transparency project by GlobalWitness in partnership with four localnon-governmental organisations fromCameroon, Liberia, Peru and Ghana.The project was launched via a newwebsite – www.foresttransparency.info –which presented the initial findings ofthe first of a series of annual reportcards. The full report card will bepublished in hard copy in 2010.

The reports will annually assess 70transparency indicators on the level ofpublic access to information in areassuch as forest management plans,concession allocation, revenues andinfractions. They will provide a tool forcivil society to improve analysis of forestgovernance and transparency issuesand to design strategies to tackle themand will be a useful way for NGOsaround the world to learn and applypositive lessons in their own countries.

The report card is a product of a'participatory action research' processinvolving Global Witness and the initialfour project partner NGOs. We will bringin other countries to the scheme in2010 and a key aim is to provide aframework and a ‘pick-up-and-go’ toolthat NGOs and others can use withoutdirect support from us to demandtransparency over the management offorest resources.

Independent ForestMonitoring in Nicaragua – handingover the baton 2009 saw Global Witness completeimplementation of an IndependentForest Monitoring (IFM) project inNicaragua. IFM was first pioneered byGlobal Witness in Cambodia in the late1990s. As the name implies, it is a form

of oversight whereby independentobservers are engaged to monitor andreport on forest-related activities incountries that have pledged to improveforest governance and stop illegallogging. IFM monitors provide robustevidence of where forest managementand control systems are failing andsupport governments to address thereported weaknesses and systemfailures.

In Nicaragua we carried out a number offield visits with local partners andproduced a series of mission reportshighlighting problems in the forestsector. The project has generated a lot ofinterest and contributed extensively tothe creation of a National Forest AuditSystem. After 2½ years of activities,Global Witness has initiated the handingover of IFM activities to local civil societyand started training selected membersof community-based organisations in themethodology and techniques.

A follow-up project will concentrate onbuilding on the success in Nicaragua byexpanding IFM into the sub-region, andon preparing civil society for activeparticipation in, and monitoring of, futureREDD mechanisms.

The Burma-China timbertrade – signs of improvement In October 2009 Global Witnessreleased the third in a series of reportson illegal logging in Burma. Entitled ADisharmonious Trade, it was based onfield research carried out between 2005and 2009 in Kachin State, along theBurma-China border, and on China'seastern seaboard, and supported byanalysis of the latest trade data. Thereport showed that imports of logs andsawn wood across the land border fromBurma fell by more than 70% between2005 and 2008. This represents acampaign success for Global Witnessas the decline can be largely attributedto measures which were put in place bythe Chinese authorities following thepublication of our report A Choice forChina in October 2005.

However, some illicit trade continues,causing serious damage to theenvironment. Furthermore, it is just partof a wider problem: half of China'stimber imports from all countries are

2

Annual Review 2009

probably illegal and China accounts forroughly a quarter of all illegal timberbeing traded internationally. This has aknock-on effect for other countries: theUK imports more illegal timber than anyother EU country for example, becauseit buys so much from China.

Global Witness is urging theGovernment of the People's Republic ofChina to ensure that measuresdesigned to prevent illegal timberimports are both widely known aboutand consistently enforced. Burmashould continue efforts to stop illegaland unsustainable logging in KachinState and end the illegal cross-bordertimber trade with China. Timberimporting nations, including China,should adopt national legislation toprohibit the importation and sale oftimber that has been harvested,transported, bought or sold in violationof national laws.

Undercover investigations intoillegal logging in Madagascar In November we published the resultsof a joint field investigation with theEnvironmental Investigation Agency(EIA) into the trafficking of preciouswood, including rosewood, palissanderand ebony, in Madagascar. Theinvestigation was commissioned by theMadagascar National Parks authorityand uncovered unprecedented levels ofillegal activity in the country's northeast.Madagascar provides a good exampleof how a natural resource problem canescalate in the wake of a political crisisor as a result of endemic corruption. Thespate of illegal activity we uncoveredfollowed a political crisis earlier in theyear. Our investigators – who spentmuch of the time working undercover -captured video and photographicevidence of the logging and collectedtestimony from local communities andtraffickers, revealing both the scale andbrazenness of the illegal trade.

The report estimated that between$88,000 and $460,000 worth ofprecious rosewood was being illegallyharvested every day and accusedmembers of the Forest Administration,the national police and other Malagasyauthorities of serious failings and, insome cases, complicity with thetraffickers. The report was seized upon

by international and local civil society,and used to put pressure on theMalagasy government to stop timbertrafficking.

Global Witness also targeted the Frenchshipping company, Delmas, who werereportedly transporting the investigatedtimber from Madagascar to China.

In March 2010 the Malagasy authoritiesreinstated the ban on exports ofunfinished precious wood – a victory forthe campaign. However, we arecontinuing to look into the network of

traffickers, traders and customers, with aview to using the U.S. Lacey Act to holdcompanies to account for importingillegal timber. And we will continue topress for similar legislation to beintroduced in the EU.

LOGS WAITING TO BE TRANSPORTED IN MADAGASCAR.GLOBAL WITNESS’S INVESTIGATIONS HAVE REVEALEDTHE EXTENT OF THE ILLEGAL TRADE IN ROSEWOOD,PALISSANDER, AND EBONY, WHICH IS THREATENING THECOUNTRY’S LAST REMAINING NATURAL FORESTS. © GLOBAL WITNESS

23


BOYS LYING ON OIL BARRELS IN THE SUN. HOW LONG WILL NORMALCITIZENS IN RESOURCE-RICH COUNTRIES HAVE TO WAIT BEFORETHEY GET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE WEALTH? PANOS © SVEN TORFINN

24

Annual Review 2009

25

Our Funding

Without the support of those who share our vision, who want to tackle the same problems as us, and who believe in thesolutions and methods we do, Global Witness would come to a standstill. As globalisation continues apace so does the growingneed for global responsibility and we feel that there is so much more to achieve. The financial support we receive gives us theconfidence, capacity and encouragement to continue and to strive for ever more impact in the international arena.

Our funders The majority of Global Witness’s income comes from grants made to us by Trusts and Foundations, followed by governments,and multilateral organisations and other NGOs. We would like to take this opportunity to thank most sincerely all those whosupported our work financially in 2009. We are deeply grateful to our long term supporters who, despite desperate economicconditions, have continued to show their commitment to and endorsement of our work. And we are also delighted to welcomemany new supporters this year, particularly the Arcus Foundation who have made a significant commitment to support GlobalWitness’s forest work.

Governments and International Institutions:

Department for International Development (DFID), European Commission, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammanarbeit(GTZ), Madagascar National Parks Authority, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norwegian Agency for DevelopmentCooperation (Norad), Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida).

Institutional Foundations,Non-Governmental Organisations, Corporate Bodies and Individuals:

Adessium Foundation, The Ajahma Charitable Trust, Arcus Foundation, The Ashden Charitable Trust, Blue Moon Fund,DOEN Foundation, The David and Elaine Potter Foundation, The Ford Foundation, JMG Foundation, The Joffe Charitable Trust,Foundation Open Society Institute (Zug), The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation, Scottish Community Foundation, The SigridRausing Trust, R H Southern Trust, The Taylour Foundation, Zennström Philanthropies, Cordaid, Humanist Institute for Co-operationwith Developing Countries (Hivos), Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Oxfam Novib, Trócaire, The Revenue Watch Institute,The World Bank Group, Brunswick Group LLP, Sharegift.

In the UK, Global Witness Trust Ltd. (registered with the Charities Commission: 1117844) is a separate entity that receives fundsfrom certain funders and (under strict Trust guidelines) provides these funds to Global Witness Ltd. In the U.S., Global WitnessFoundation (approved as 501(c)(3)) operates in the same way.

Volunteers and pro-bono legal advice In addition to financial support, Global Witness relies on a growing number of volunteers at all levels who provide valuable advice,expertise, and hard work. We owe them our deep gratitude.

We are also hugely fortunate to be able to work with a network of lawyers coordinated by Advocates for InternationalDevelopment who provide pro-bono advice and services, giving us peace of mind, and savings us tens of thousands of poundsa year. Thank you.


26

Growth in Global Witness’s funding has been sustained since its inception 15 years ago and our annual income now stands atapproximately £4m. To meet our campaigning needs we are aiming for steady and sustained growth in the years ahead. Wewant to maintain the valuable partnerships we currently enjoy, while also broadening our international reach and attracting newpartners to support our expanding campaigning work.

These figures are extracted from the audited annual accounts of Global Witness Limited for the year ended 30 November 2009.A full set of accounts are available from our website, www.globalwitness.org. We are committed to transparency in our financialreporting and are happy to disclose all financial information on request.

Financial information

Global Witness Limited 2008/09

INCOME £

Grants from trusts & foundations 2,298,450 Grants from governments 1,277,340 Grants from multilateral organisations and NGOs 116,040 Grants from other organisations 44,475 Bank interest & other income 95,526

TOTAL INCOME 3,831,831

EXPENDITURE

Climate change 138,409 Conflict resources 473,467 DRC 215,282 Ending impunity 181,034 Forests 749,623 Forest transparency project (GTF) 440,455 Kleptocracy 393,168 Oil & transparency 397,655 Research & development 53,286

CAMPAIGN COSTS 3,042,379FUNDRAISING COSTS 284,564SUPPORT & GOVERNANCE COSTS 707,640

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 4,034,583

Annual Review 2009

27

EXPENDITURE

Bank interest and other 2%Trusts and foundations 61%Multilateral & NGO 3%Governments 33%Other 1%

Campaigns 75%Support & governance 18%Fundraising and communications 7%

INCOME


WOMEN CAMPAIGNING FOR REFORM INCAMBODIA, WHERE INTERNATIONAL AIDHELPS PLUG THE GAPS LEFT BY THEKLEPTOCRATIC STATE.© REUTERS/CHOR SOKUNTHEA

28

Picture CreditsPage 4 photos © Global WitnessPage 5 photos: Cocoa trade shot Panos © Sven Torfinn;Taylor shot © Global Policy;Blood Diamond still © Jaap Buitendijk/Warner Bros.Page 7 photo © Global Witness

Printed on PEFC Certified paper

Global Witness6th FloorBuchanan House 30 Holborn London EC1N 2HSUK

Phone: +44 (0)207 4925820 Fax: +44 (0)207 [email protected]

2010©Global WitnessCover photo © Kadir vanLohuizen/NOOR

Global Witness Annual Review 2009 · 2019-11-12 · Annual Review 2009 The downturn has obviously...

Documents

Transcript of Global Witness Annual Review 2009 · 2019-11-12 · Annual Review 2009 The downturn has obviously...