[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l LS: Dam Shame - Activists Target Financiers of Chinese Eco Disaster



from New York weekly, The Village Voice

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0013/cook.shtml

Published March 29 - April 3, 2000

DAM SHAME
BY KAREN COOK
Activists Target Global Financiers of Chinese Eco Disaster

What will you do when you learn your Discover Card is indirectly bankrolling an
environmental disaster?

The people at the International Rivers Network, a California group, 
hope you will cut it up and mail it back to its owners at Morgan 
Stanley Dean Witter, along with a statement expressing your concern 
about Morgan's financial role in China's Three Gorges Dam. Scheduled 
for completion in 2009, the dam is a behemoth to rival the Great 
Wall: It is by far the largest hydroelectric dam any country has ever 
built. According to activists, it is also one of the most socially 
and ecologically devastating projects humans have ever undertaken.

IRN's Discover Card boycott, the culmination of years of protest 
against the dam, marks a
significant shift in environmentalist strategy. After years of focus 
on the builders of exploitative industries and infrastructure in 
developing nations, activists have a new target: the projects' 
financiers, many of them huge U.S. investment banks that have never 
before been called to account for the damaging enterprises they help 
to underwrite. Thanks to sweeping changes in world financial markets, 
those banks are unprecedentedly vulnerable to such attacks. Not only 
have they been swept up in vast conglomerates-whose consumer 
operations, like Discover Card, provide a ready focus for 
boycotts-but most are publicly held, which means they can be 
challenged internally, through shareholder actions.

                        "This is the beginning of a movement, " says 
Ricardo Bayon, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant who  helps 
demystify global economics for environmental groups.

                        IRN is timing its boycott to coincide with 
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's April 6 annual meeting in Jersey City. 
The action will lend muscle to a two-year-old shareholder campaign 
led by Trillium Asset Management, a Boston firm that specializes in 
socially responsible investments. Using Three Gorges as its 
rationale, Trillium asked the bank to review its underwriting 
policies, "with the view to incorporating and fully disclosing" any 
transaction's impact on the environment and human rights.

                        Morgan's board of directors says such candor 
would limit the company's flexibility and damage its business, 
particularly since "competitors do not disclose this information." 
But one large firm, Bank of America, has already held talks with 
Trillium and agreed not to invest in Three Gorges directly. A 
resolution similar to the one at Morgan is pending at Chase 
Manhattan, and resolutions at Merrill Lynch
(filed by Domini Social Investments) and Citigroup have been 
provisionally withdrawn, since the companies have agreed to discuss 
their stance on Three Gorges.

"This is the first time an environmental and social issue has hit the 
Wall Street investment banks," says Doris Shen, IRN's China 
campaigner. "Usually investment banks stay amorphous and out of the 
picture."

The two-pronged attack is a clear sign of the environmental 
movement's growing sophistication about global finance. Much of that 
awareness has developed during a decade of struggle against the Three 
Gorges Dam. This massive public works project-575 feet tall and 
running roughly a mile across the Yangtze River-is intended to 
provide flood control and to generate electricity for people and 
industry. It has been a dream of Chinese leaders since 1919, when it 
was first proposed by Sun Yat-sen. But construction did not actually 
begin until 1994, under Chinese premier Li Peng, the man behind the 
brutal 1989 crackdown on students at Tiananmen Square.

Six years later, the river is still flowing. But when Three Gorges is 
finally finished, it will create a reservoir the size of Lake 
Superior-about 400 miles long. It will force the relocation of up to 
1.9 million people. It will swamp ancient archaeological sites. It 
could eliminate the Chinese river dolphin from the face of the earth. 
According to The Lancet, a British medical journal, an array of 
public health risks associated with the dam and its construction 
could make it the "Chernobyl of hydropower." Some engineers fear the 
dam itself could one day collapse from the buildup of silt behind its 
walls. And there are 10 million people in its path.

Chinese activists tried to raise these issues, but Li Peng banned all 
criticism of the project. A journalist who wrote a book of protest 
was jailed for 10 months. As a result, dam opponents were forced to 
mobilize in new areas. "They got nowhere in China, so they had to 
move upstream, to the financiers," says Bayon.

China originally hoped to build the dam entirely on its own-"to show 
how great socialism is," says Shen. But it needed Western technical 
expertise. Moreover, the dam was incredibly expensive. Estimates vary 
widely, but Shen says it was originally supposed to cost $9 billion, 
has already hit $18 billion, and could eventually top out at a 
mind-boggling $75 billion, including resettlement costs.

Such astronomical figures forced China to reach far and wide for 
money. Wherever the government has turned, dam opponents have 
followed. China's only major remaining funding hope is private 
investment banks, which issue stocks and bonds that are sold to 
investors around the world. The banks are staggering in size and 
power; but their involvement also gives environmentalists new avenues 
of protest-whether or not they know it yet, thousands of 
impressionable investors have forked over some tiny portion of their 
retirement savings portfolios for China-related bonds. Dozens of 
financial institutions around the world have participated in issuing 
those bonds, and each has a public image to protect. If capitalism is 
global, activism can be global, too.

In the past, funding for a giant enterprise like Three Gorges would 
almost certainly have come from the World Bank. In the 1990s, the 
bank pumped $1.8 billion into what is now China's largest 
hydroelectric dam, the Ertan Hydropower Station. (Last October 
London's Financial Times reported that project was running at half 
capacity and had lost more than $100 million in its first year.)

  By its 1994 gold anniversary, however, the bank was under enormous 
pressure to reform. It had been founded after World War II as a 
financial consortium through which wealthy countries would make cheap 
loans to poor ones, thus alleviating poverty. But critics said it 
often funded projects that ultimately diminished the standard of 
living for millions of people. Indeed, in a 1994 internal review, the 
bank found that between 1986 and 1993, 15 percent of its lending went 
to projects forcibly displacing 2 million people. Given that the bank 
then closed or canceled 22 of these projects, there was little chance 
it would smile on Three Gorges.

"The Chinese government didn't even approach the World Bank for 
funding," says Simon Billenness, a senior analyst with Trillium.

Another likely source of aid was the U.S. Export-Import Bank-an 
agency that, among other things, provides low-interest loans to help 
foreign industries buy heavy equipment from U.S. manufacturers. But 
that bank also declined; the U.S. National Security Council had 
advised against the dam, raising concerns in a 1995 memo about 
environmental and human rights issues, as well as the project's 
overall financial strength.

Other countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, 
Sweden, and Switzerland, did provide export-import credits. Still, 
"there were some really big snubs," says Michelle Chan-Fishel, 
coordinator of the green-investments project for Friends of the 
Earth. "The Chinese knew that they would have to turn to private 
finance."

They were in luck: Banks that had once disdained so-called emerging 
markets as too risky now saw a potential gold mine. As a result, over 
the last decade, international development has essentially been 
privatized. Since 1990, public development assistance to developing 
countries has remained steady at around $60 billion a year. 
Meanwhile, money from private capital sources shot from $30 billion 
in 1990 to $212 billion in 1996. Unlike the World Bank, which has an 
obligation to include even the most destitute countries in its 
portfolio, private financiers focus on the regions whose hopes for 
prosperity are best.

China is certainly one of those hot markets, but Three Gorges 
apparently carries a stigma. According to FOE's Chan-Fishel, the 
Chinese tried to issue Three Gorges bonds several times over the 
years, but no one in the international markets would buy them.

So the Chinese government tried a new tack-issuing bonds for a state 
bank, which in turn could loan money to the Three Gorges Dam. They 
offered investors guarantees and they hid the fact that Three Gorges 
might be a beneficiary deep in the prospectuses. One environmentalist 
calls these "stealth bonds." In 1997, Lehman Brothers and J.P. Morgan 
were the lead managers on a $330 million bond offering for the State 
Development Bank of China-the main source of government funding for 
Three Gorges. (Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse First Boston, Morgan 
Stanley, and J.P. Morgan contributed $66 million each. Smith Barney 
underwrote $46.2 million, and Bank of America underwrote $19.8 
million.)

That offering came to the attention of Trillium, which had been 
monitoring Three Gorges since Human Rights Watch issued a dire report 
on relocation in 1995. Trillium considers itself an early-warning 
system for corporations. "Smart companies will try to address our 
concerns," Billenness says. So far, only one large corporation has 
risen to the challenge on Three Gorges. In December 1997, Bank of 
America promised not to commit any direct lending to the Three Gorges 
project and to carefully weigh any transactions that might indirectly 
benefit the dam.

No other bank was as cooperative. As usual, Trillium was forced to 
pursue its mission through shareholder resolutions-it drafts 
statements expressing desired company policies and then asks all 
other shareholders to vote on them. These resolutions rarely pass, 
but they do provide a useful means of raising investor consciousness, 
both because they must be mailed to all stock owners and because the 
authors of the resolutions can question executives at the annual 
meeting.

Trillium launched its campaign at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in 1998. 
Its resolution, which asked for guidelines to stop such destructive 
projects as Three Gorges, found one major ally: New York City's 
pension fund. Comptroller Alan Hevesi's support was one reason 
Trillium's resolution scored a solid 5.7 percent "yes" vote-enough to 
allow it to be reintroduced in 1999. That caught Morgan's eye, and 
the firm agreed to sit down for talks.

Three high-level Morgan executives met with environmentalists last 
May, but the session didn't go well. "They mentioned they didn't want 
to poke their client in the eye," says Shen. "They want to enter 
China's emerging markets, with good favor from the government-that's 
where they are coming from."

Three Gorges "is a litmus test," Shen adds. "If they are involved in 
Three Gorges and claim they are following any social or environmental 
guidelines, they are really hypocritical."

Only days later, there was news of a $500 million bond issue for the 
China Development Bank, formerly the State Development Bank of China. 
Merrill Lynch and Salomon Smith Barney (part of Citigroup) underwrote 
$225 million each. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, J.P. Morgan, and Chase 
Securities contributed $6.25 million apiece, and another 12 banks 
from overseas contributed as well. That was certainly a poke in the 
eye for the environmentalists, but Morgan didn't apologize. "They 
never called us back after that," says Julie Tanner, a specialist in 
environment and finance for the National Wildlife Federation.

                        Merrill Lynch and Citigroup say they received 
assurances that none of that $500 million would go to Three Gorges. 
Even if that were true, says IRN's Shen, the fresh cash would 
certainly free up other China Development Bank resources for the dam. 
When it comes to Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, she's ready to declare 
war. IRN has launched a slick, comprehensive Web site, 
floodwallstreet.org, and begun organizing its boycott. It's not clear 
how effective that action will be-IRN has canceled a planned 
demonstration outside the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter annual meeting 
because it's too busy working with other groups on a massive April 16 
protest of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. But 
IRN's campaign against Discover is endorsed by more than 40 other 
groups, whose combined mailing list numbers in the millions.

                        Meanwhile, the political mood in China may be 
shifting. The current premier, Zhu Rongji, "has never said a kind 
word about the dam," says Shen. He has launched a campaign to root 
out massive dam-related corruption. (China has said that around $600 
million has been embezzled, and one official who stole $1.4 million 
and used it in gambling parties was recently sentenced to death.)

                        "The political will is waning," says FOE's 
Chan-Fishel. "We are optimistic the dam can be stopped." As the 
Chinese struggle to build a dam, the fate of a river, millions of 
people, and several species may depend on activists' abilities to 
stanch a flow of money. "The Three Gorges Dam needs capital from 
Western capital markets," says Billenness. "And if the project 
doesn't get that capital, then it is not going to go forward."

                        Tell us what you think. editor@villagevoice.com