PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS
6.3 Lessons of Brent Spar
Brent Spar was a redundant 14,500-tonne
oil-platform which Shell, with the permission of
the British government and acting on best
scientific advice, had planned to dispose of
deep in the North Atlantic. A high-publicity
Greenpeace campaign against the ‘dumping’
during 1995, which included the occupation of
Brent Spar, resulted in Shell abandoning the
proposal.
Lessons:
- Direct action can be effective:The brilliantly
engineered media campaign stopped the
dumping of Brent Spar and made the entire
policy of deep-sea disposal of old oil-rigs
politically unacceptable. - The power of the moral message:
Greenpeace used a familiar, emotionally
charged message – that dumping at sea
was wrong and that the ocean should not
be used as a dustbin – to take the moral
high ground and project Shell and the
government as the bad guys (Bennie 1998 ).
- The power of the market:A key factor in
Shell’s climbdown was a European
consumer boycott of its products, which
was particularly effective in Germany where
demand dropped by up to 30 per cent
almost overnight. - Lasting damage to Greenpeace’s media
image:The subsequent admission that
Greenpeace mistakenly overestimated the
amount of pollutant material still in the
platform lost it considerable respect in the
media and undermined its reputation for
scientific expertise. The media felt
manipulated and have since become more
critical of Greenpeace – a dangerous
development for an organisation that is so
dependent on media coverage.
dialogue, selecting whichever seems most appropriate to achieve a particular
objective. Where Greenpeace once preferred to operate in isolation, now, like
FoE, it frequently works with other EPGs, such as the Dolphin Coalition of
fortygroups which played a key role in securing legislation to protect the
dolphin from tuna-fishing fleets in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Wright 2001 ).
It is clear that, measured by all three criteria, FoE and Greenpeace have
undergone extensive (if not complete) institutionalisation. FoE started out as
something close to aparticipatory protestorganisation but, whilst it retains
elements of democracy and participation, it is now much closer to thepub-
lic interestmodel, with its professionalisation and emphasis on conventional
strategies of publicity, lobbying, litigation and expert testimony. Greenpeace
has also become more institutionalised, but its continuing commitment to
direct action places it closer to theprofessional protestmodel. It is not an
insider public interest group: its reluctance to engage in formal lobbying or
to serve on government committees means it is often not trusted by gov-
ernment or the mainstream environmental lobby. Conversely, its dialogue
with industry and its greater circumspection about law-breaking suggest
tomany environmental activists that even Greenpeace has lost its radical
edge, although its renewed enthusiasm for direct action has restored some
of its radical credentials. Nevertheless, many environmentalists have become
increasingly disenchanted with the mainstream environmental movement,
opting instead to get involved in grassroots activity.