The World Bank last month voted to lend 192 million dollars to the multi-hillion
 dollar Chad/Cameroon oil and pipeline project. The project, led hy a consortium
 that includes ExxonMobil and Chevron, will consist of the development of oil 
wells in southern Chad and the construction of a pipeline from the oil fields through
 Cameroon to Cameroon's Atlantic coast.

The controversial oil project has been strongly opposed by a coalition of 
environmental and human rights organizations concerned about the considerable risks
associated with the project Both Chad and Cameroon have long standing problems with
 corruption and human rights abuses, leading many to fear that the project will cause 
an increase in violence in the region, and that revenue from the project will fail to
 benefit the poor people of Chad and Cameroon.

These fears were aggravated last month after reports from Chad stating that 
government forces were threatening men, women, and children with summary
 execution if they opposed the pipeline. Already in 1998, a Chadian 
parliamentarian was sentenced to three years in jail for voicing his concerns
         about corruption related to the Chad! Cameroon project.

'Under the constant threat of brutal government repression, it is highly unlikely
 that the citizens ofChad will reap any benefits from the World Bank's proposed
 oil pipeline ifit goes forward now and, clearly, they stand to be harmed if they
 try to voice their concerns, said a spokeswoman for the Chadian Association
 for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights prior to the Bank's vote.
In addition to concerns about corruption and human rights abuses, critics
 point out that the project will require the forced relocation of people living
 along the pipeline route, and will affect thousands ofindigenous Bakola people
 that live in the region.

Many groups have grave concerns about environmental repercussions
 from the pipeline as well. Any pollution or deforestation resulting 
from the pipeline would pose a particular threat to the Bakola, who are
 dependent on the health of local forests, wildlife, land, and water to 
maintain their traditional way of life. The pipeline will run through 
rainforest areas inhabited by endangered chimpanzees, gorillas, and forest
         elephants, and open up forest interiors to poachers and illegal logging.
          The project's oil fields are located in the hearr of Chad's food producing 
          region, where oil spills could have disastrous consequences.

"Tf the World Bank was really committed to the environment and poverty
 alleviation, they would invest in cleaner, sustainable projects with direct benefits
 to local communities rather than dirty oil projects that will benefit giant
 oil companies and corrupt governments, and be a nightmare for the people,"
 said RAN's African Rainforest Campaigner Erick Brownstein.

Despite the social and environmental risks associated with the project, 
the Bank's executive board voted overwhelmingly to fund it, with the 
exception ofthe director representing Italy who abstained from voting. The US voted
 for the project after pushing for strict enforcement of environmental and
 anticorruption measures, according to a US official.

The oil consortium, led by Exxon, had indicated that the World Bank's support
 was essential for the project to go forward. In addition to approving 193 million
 dollars in loans, the World Bank agreed to arrange another 300 million dollars of
 commercial finance to support the project. The Bank also promised to set
          up an international supervisory board to oversee the project and heJp prevent 
          environmental and human rights abuses.

"Promises to improve controversial but misguided projects are nothing new for the
 World Bank," noted Brownsrein. "These promises are used to cover up a shameful
 record. It is local communities and the environment that feel the impacts of the 
World Bank's dismal record.

In April, thousands ofactivists converged on the streets ofWashington DC to protest
 the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which
 they say often harm, rather than help, countries like Chad and Cameroon.

A comprehensive report issued by the World Bank in May appears to validate
 many of the activists' concerns. According to the report, people in sub
         -Saharan Africa devastated by war, corruption, and disease-live less well today than they
          did in the 1960's, and international aid donors are at least partially to blame. The 
          report acknowledges that the heavy flow ofaid in recent decades did relatively 
          little to ignite sustained economic growth, and that the Bank and its sister
          agencies have wasted billions on ill-conceived projects.
.