The World Bank voted today to lend $192 million to the multi-billion dollar Chad/Cameroon oil and pipeline project. The project, led by a consortium that includes ExxonMobil and Chevron, will consist of the development of 300 oil wells in southern Chad and the construction of a 650 mile 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 lead to 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 of Chad will reap any benefits from the World Bank's proposed oil pipeline if it 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 World 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 of indigenous Bakola people (commonly referred to as Pygmies) that live in the region.

Many groups have also expressed grave concerns about environmental repercussions from the pipeline, which 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 heart of Chad's food producing, where oil spills could have potentially disastrous consequences.

"If 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," said RAN's African Rainforest Campaigner Erick Brownstein.

Despite the considerable social and environmental risks associated with the project, the Bank's executive board voted overwhelmingly to fund it, with the exception of the director representing Italy, who abstained from voting. The United States 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 in loans, the World Bank agreed to arrange another $300 million of commercial finance to support the project. The Bank also promised to set up an international supervisory board to oversee the project and help prevent environmental and human rights abuses.

"Sadly, promises to improve controversial but misguided projects are nothing new for the World Bank," noted RAN's African Rainforest Campaigner Erick Brownstein. "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 of activists took to the streets of Washington DC to protest the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which they say often harm, rather than help, places such as Africa.

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 280-page report acknowledges that the heavy flow of aid 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.