On June 24th, as Prime Minister Jean Chretien addressed the UN General Assembly about environmental goals, British Columbia police were arresting logging protestors on King's island. Anderson talks candidly with TG about this, and about his experiences as an activist at the highly diplomatic UN Earth Summit +5.

TG Magazine got a chance to interview Patrick Anderson, with Greenpeace International in Amsterdam about the blockade in British Columbia that is pitting government against environmentalists in a fight to manage Canada's forests.

TG: Patrick, tell us about your role at Greenpeace international.

Patrick: I am part of the Forests Coordination Team. We have forest campaign s in fifteen different countries, and we are giving priority to the rainforests in British Columbia.

TG: Why would Greenpeace International target Canada, at this point in time?

Patrick: BC has the biggest forest industry in the world for a province, and it is cutting down its rainforest faster than any other country. Greenpeace has been working in B.C. for five years to try and stop rainforest destruction. We have targeted the practice of clear cutting, and also the expansion of the industry into remaining pristine valleys. We worked on the Clayaquot issue and we had two principle stands there: that the native people should have a decisive role and a veto voice in decision making; and any activities there shouldn't compromise or damage biodiversity.

TG: Tell us how that resolved itself, and where Clayaquot stands today

Patrick: The native people in the area now have a decisive voice in forest planning and the scientific panel, (established for the Clayaquot issue) basically agree, that loggers should not go into the intact areas. Now the standards for forestry in Clayaquot sound are totally different and much more strict than anywhere else in BC.

TG: So, following that success, where has Greenpeace moved their emphasis to here in Canada?

Patrick: Greenpeace has moved our attentions to the midcoast of BC, making blockades this summer with the Nuxalk First Nation on Kings Island, which the Nuxalk people call Ista, against Interfor, the logging company cutting there. For nineteen days we have been blockading. It finished on Tuesday June 24 when the RCMP moved in and arrested everyone there, the day that Prime minister Chretien was giving his a speech to the United nations special assembly on the environment, and in which Prime Minister Chretien advocated a strong legally binding convention on forests ....a strange contrast what is actually happening - when some of the last Canadian rainforests are being cut down, and the people who protest for environmental; reasons, and the native people who protest for the rights to their land are arrested....

TG: Patrick, in Canada there is a cultural hesitation or critique of radicalism in a lot of sectors, and yet a lot of the impetus for the real action on issues like the environmental issue, comes from the more "radical of organizations"...could you comment...

Patrick: Absolutely, in 1993 when we started doing actions in BC, and we did market initiatives: we threatened the buyers of Macmillan Bloedell with economic disincentives, many people were shocked and many Greenpeace supporters cancelled memberships and subscriptions. Talk shows and newspapers were full of people criticizing Greenpeace for taking this approach. Now, in 1997 the vast majority of people contacting Greenpeace, phoning into talk shows, and writing commentaries in newspapers , are supporting our stand on King's Island. And this is a much more radical stand because we are not talking about just a few valleys like Clayaquot sound was, but the remaining intact areas on the whole of the coast. So the public has been educated in that period about the need for rainforest protection, and they are supporting Greenpeace's call.

TG: Your method in the Kings Island action is that of civil disobedience. What is the response in your experience by the local people to this?

Patrick: I think there are probably a lot of the public that don't particularly agree with our tactic, of being prepared to use civil disobedience to break the law, but people understand mores now that there is a crisis, that something has to be done, and there is widespread public support.

TG: Since the adoption of environmental issues into the "diplomatic" game here at the United Nations, a very compromised, pragmatic, approach has been taken to environmental issues in order to comply to the UN decision making process. Tell us about your views on how this has affected the environmental movement considering your last eight days here in New York at the heart of it all...

Patrick: Things are going backwards. Governments have come her to say, 'well we made agreements five years ago, and we didn't meet them, and we'll try again.' We're finding that the real value of resources are not being discussed here, but rather forests are being used as pawns to achieve trade concessions, financial concession - the real values that should be being raised about forests for example are not talked about here. If you come here wanting governments to talk seriously about implementation, about action to protect forests, that is not the discussions that are taking place here. It's an abstract, rather monotonous, but also kind of dirty negotiating over forests - like a poker game...

TG: Are there any success stories that have come out here?

Patrick: The success we can see come from particular initiatives by governments. In the country of Costa Rica for example, thirty percent of their land area is protected areas. Or Australia, in the province of new South Wales, after years of blockading, the new government that came in a year ago, the premier sat down with environmentalists and asked then what it would take to stop this controversy. The environmentalists stated from a principle that is worldwide; that the government has to act to protect biodiversity, they have a mandate and a requirement that the plants and animals that depend on forests do not go instinct. In order to do this, they called on the government to protect the remaining fragments of old growth forests, the remaining areas of rainforest, and the key areas for habitat protection. The premier agreed to that: about forty percent of New South Wales' forests have been put into deferral pending conservation assessments that determine how much forest is needed to protect biodiversity. Now that is a commitment made by the government because of public pressure. We can see positive examples like that, and I think that that is where change can come from. The UN is not the place to find inspiring action.

TG: What is Greenpeace's role in this forum then?

Patrick: It is necessary to be here because some governments who are doing very little, they can be pressured in these discussions. Countries like Canada should be playing the leading role, and Canada does like to pride itself as playing the leading role. It was the first country to sign the convention on biodiversity, it's now hosting the secretariat for this convention, and yet it hasn't taken action in terms of endangered species legislation, or adequate protected areas. That is a travesty.

TG: In any of the environmental debates that go on between sectors, one must prove the economic viability of policies that protect resources. In the face of scientific threats that we know of, are we leaning too far to the "development" side of sustainable development, and forgetting the principle of a clean, diverse environment?

Patrick: The criticism towards Greenpeace in British Columbia is that we are not being realistic in terms of jobs and industry, and our charge back is to say that the forestry industry at present is like the mining industry, and that it is not being realistic about having a long term future. We think we are being realistic, and that it is important to engage in those economic arguments. We are environmentalists, and always will be first and foremost, but we fell we have some good points to make on the economic front. If you look at the transition that has happened in the pacific Northwest of the U.S.A., where the amount of logging has been drastically reduced, most of those logging towns have more jobs now than they did when they were based on traditional logging practices: and they are more interesting jobs, and they are more diverse economies.