TL: REPORT ON THE BERGEN MINISTERIAL MEETING ON THE ENVIRONMENT
SO: Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: June 1990
Keywords: europe toxics conferences norway scandinavia greenpeace
reports gp /


1 Introduction

The Bergen Ministerial Meeting on the Environment was a meeting
of the Environment (and some other) Ministers of the 34 ECE
states - that is, all of Europe (East and West) and North
America - and was held in Bergen, Norway, 8-16 May 1990. It had
been in the planning stages for well over a year, and prior to
the meeting there had been an intensive process which also
involved non-governmental organisations, divided into five
groups: Voluntary Organisations (the likes of ourselves),
Scientists, Trade Unions, Industry and Youth.

The meeting itself discussed issues under four broad headings.
These were: (a) Awareness Raising and Public Participation (the
United Kingdom was nominated as the lead country on this), (b)
The Economics of Sustainable Development (United States), (c)
Sustainable Energy Use (Federal Republic of Germany) and (d)
Sustainable Industrial Activity (Poland).

The first part of the meeting (8-11 May) was to discuss a draft
"Agenda For Action", which would be negotiated between all the
five groups above and the governments as equal partners. In
practical terms, there was no real "equality" as such, but the
negotiation was, nevertheless, an interesting exercise which
gave the NGOs a power of veto over the language in the document.
While the "Agenda for Action" does not commit governments to
take a course of action, it may be very valuable as a tool for
lobbying governments. They have, after all, agreed the contents,
even if they are not bound by them.

The second part of the meeting was to discuss the Ministerial
Declaration, which had been also discussed in a closed Drafting
Committee by officials the previous week. From Greenpeace's
point of view, this part of the meeting was the most
interesting, and the one for which we had done a considerable
amount of preparation.


1.1 The NGO Process

The NGO process had begun in early 1989. Bertil H„gerh„ll
attended a meeting in Brussels convened by the European
Environment Bureau (EEB) to establish a Steering Committee to
make the NGO preparations for the Bergen meeting. At that stage,
it did not appear as though there was any useful purpose in
becoming integrally involved in the NGO group. The Steering
Committee worked with the encouragement and sanction of the
Norwegian government's organisers for the Ministerial
conference, since they wished for any NGO input to become
channelled in easy-to- handle ways. Accordingly, participation
in the Bergen process through the mechanisms established by the
NGO Steering Committee became the only route for NGOs to
participate.

In order to participate in the process at all, Greenpeace had to
engage with other NGOs, in the Vienna-Budapest NGO meeting, in
setting an NGO "Agenda for Action". Greenpeace staff in many
offices put a lot of time and energy into assisting the Treaties
and Conventions Project prepare a position for this. The process
was, however, fundamentally flawed, in that any attempt to reach
an NGO consensus is going to end up like any governmental
attempt to reach consensus - the lowest common denominator will
prevail. The strength of the NGO movement is in its diversity of
views, in its ability to appeal to individuals from many
different backgrounds who are prepared to support different
styles of action and policies which differ in their degree of
forcefulness.

Nevertheless, Greenpeace staff participated in the
Vienna-Budapest meeting in an attempt to push along an NGO
consensus, and managed to make it a more cohesive and stronger
document than it would otherwise have been.


1.2 The Government process

The government process began with the establishment of a
Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) which met several times over a
period of more than a year in order to set up the meeting, and
to come up with drafts of the two documents which were to come
out of the Bergen meeting, the "Agenda for Action" and the
Ministerial Declaration.

Four workshops were also planned, one on each of the four main
themes of the meeting, and were held during the lead-up to the
meeting in an attempt to crystallise thinking on some of the
most important issues under discussion.

The governments were able to come to Bergen with a close to
final draft of both the "Agenda for Action" and the Ministerial
Declaration.


1.3 The links between the two

The NGO Steering Committee did not communicate very effectively
with the constituent NGO bodies in the ECE region. The four
workshops which were held during the months leading up to the
Bergen meeting had places offered to NGOs by the government
organisers, but the means by which the NGOs were chosen appeared
to be arbitrary. No Greenpeace representatives were invited to
participate in this part of the process. The Steering Committee
also had access to the PrepCom, where the early drafts of the
Agenda for Action were prepared. However, their participation in
these was (according to the Norwegian government organisers)
minimal, and the draft Agenda reflected that.


1.4 Distribution of this Report

This report has been distributed to: Treaties and Conventions
Staff Geir Wang-Andersen Joakim Bergman Marc Pallemaerts
European and North American Trustees/Campaign Directors
International Campaign Co-ordinators Steve Sawyer


2 Greenpeace Objectives

Greenpeace specifically sought to influence the shape of the
Ministerial Declaration for the meeting. Each of the main
campaign areas were asked for their input, and a document
prepared several weeks in advance of the meeting which was
circulated to all the governments in the region in the hope that
the ideas contained in it would be able to be included in their
national positions.

The document was entitled "Comments on the 9 March 1990 Draft
Ministerial Declaration and Agenda for Action Prepared by the
Bergen Preparatory Committee", dated 12 April 1990, and was
circulated also to all Treaties and Conventions Project Staff
and all offices.


3 Participation in the Meeting

3.1 Greenpeace Participants

Greenpeace was represented at the meeting, officially, by Roger
Wilson and Kevin Stairs of the Treaties and Conventions Project.
In addition, Domitilla Senni, also of the Treaties and
Conventions Project, was included on the Italian delegation, and
Marc Pallemaerts of Greenpeace Belgium was representing Belgian
NGOs. Geir Wang-Andersen (Greenpeace Norway) and Joakim Bergman
(Greenpeace Sweden) provided essential media and logistical
support.


3.2 Other NGOs

The "Voluntary Organisations" (Environmental NGOs) had little to
do with the other NGO sectors on a day-to-day basis during the
meeting, and so no mention will be made of them. Within the
environmental NGO group, however, were about 50 people, most of
them representing the NGOs in their own countries. In addition,
there were a few representatives of other international NGOs,
most notably Friends of the Earth and World Wildlife Fund.
Neither of these organisations played a key role in the meeting,
however.


3.3 National Delegations

National delegations during the first week included senior
officials in the environment, energy and industry ministries.
Once the second week of the meeting began, these were
supplemented by representation at a Ministerial level. The
ministers were usually those dealing in the environment field;
however in some cases states sent their Minister of Agriculture,
Trade and Industry, or even (in the case of Iceland) their Prime
Minister. The Norwegian hosts sent several ministers, including
the Prime Minister, and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
Petroleum and Energy, Finance, and Development Co-operation, as
well as Environment.


3.4 Secretariat

The Secretariat for the meeting was provided by the Norwegian
Ministry for the Environment. We had been liaising with the
responsible officials over a period of time prior to the
meeting, and this resulted in excellent co-operation at the
meeting itself.


4 Key Agenda Items

4.1 Joint Agenda For Action

The Joint Agenda for Action was presented to participants in a
draft form that had been negotiated at the Preparatory Committee
meeting in Geneva on 9 March. We had already had a copy of this,
but had not made extensive comments on it, as we considered that
the Agenda for Action would be an ineffectual document in
itself. From our point of view, the Ministerial Declaration
would be the primary output of the meeting.

The Agenda was divided into four sections, dealing with,
respectively:

(a) Awareness Raising and Public Participation (b) The Economics
of Sustainable Development (c) Sustainable Energy Use (d)
Sustainable Industrial Activity

Each of these sections was discussed in three sessions. The
first of these was an open session, during which any of the
participants in the meeting, and invited guests, press and
public, could have their say. The second session was a closed
"Negotiating Session", limited to three representatives per
country and ten representatives for each of the five NGO
sectors. The third session was a "Drafting Committee", where
each country had one or two representatives, and where each NGO
sector had up to three representatives. The second and third
sessions were by far the most important in each case - the first
was virtually worthless, but did give all sectors a chance to
air their views publicly.

Because of the large numbers of environmental NGOs present, it
was only possible for the Greenpeace team to actively cover the
sessions on Energy and Industry. Roger Wilson participated in
the Energy sessions, and Kevin Stairs (assisted by Domitilla
Senni on the Italian delegation) participated in the Industry
sessions. All three were able to participate in the critical
drafting committee sessions, and played a major role there.

The dynamics of the discussion over the "Joint Agenda for
Action" differed depending on the forum. In the first stage,
where there was open discussion, virtually no government
representatives spoke, and the discussion was almost entirely
between the non-governmental sector representatives. In the
closed "negotiating session", some countries played an active
role, but many a very passive role. The environmental NGOs
played probably the largest role here, along with industry. In
the drafting committees, a handful of countries, the
environmental NGOs and industry dominated the discussion.

In almost every session the only serious alternative proposals
to the existing text came through the work of the environmental
NGOs, and in the Energy and Industry sections the input was
based more or less directly on Greenpeace policy.


4.2 Ministerial Declaration

Environmental NGO access to the Ministerial meeting was limited
to only eight people. Four of these represented environmental
NGOs in the different sub-regions of the ECE region, one the NGO
Steering Committee, and one each for Greenpeace, WWF and Friends
of the Earth International. Several delegations included NGOs on
their delegations to the Ministerial meeting, including the
Italian delegation with Domitilla Senni.

The Ministerial session opened with speeches by most of the
Ministers present (see Section 5). Simultaneously with that,
however, the Drafting Committee continued to prepare the
Ministerial Declaration. NGOs did not have access to this until
the second day of the Ministerial meeting, when a letter was
sent to the Chair of the Meeting to request access. It was not
anticipated that this would be favourably received, as it was
clear that many states did not want to have to negotiate
seriously under the gaze of NGOs. However, from their point of
view, it was tactically badly handled by the Bureau. The
Ministers found themselves in the position of having to announce
in front of the television cameras that they opposed NGO access,
and none of them were prepared to do that. Accordingly, two NGO
positions were made available for the final drafting sessions of
the Declaration. Roger Wilson took one of these positions; the
other was rotated between other NGOs.

The decision to accept NGOs in the Drafting Committee meetings
caused considerable embarrassment to the Norwegians, as this was
not at all what they had intended. Their attitude puts the brave
words uttered at the conference about public participation into
perspective.

The key issues under discussion at that stage of the meeting
were the questions of the Precautionary Principle, financing
mechanisms for both the Montreal Protocol specifically, and
other financing necessary to ensure that developing countries
were able to meet globally-agreed environmental agreements (in
this context, code language for a Global Climate Convention),
and the need to commit to a timetable for the reduction of CO2
emissions. These issues are considered separately:


4.2.1 Precautionary Principle (Declaration Paragraph 7)

It had been recognised since the start of the meeting that the
United States was not going to agree to any formulation of the
Precautionary Principle. A telex from Secretary of State Baker
to various United States Embassies was circulated amongst NGOs;
this revealed that the United States sought the deletion of the
paragraph relating to the Precautionary Principle. On this
point, the telex states:

The USG strongly believes that we cannot commit ourselves to
"anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation, even if final scientific proof is lacking."

In the event, though, the United States accepted the following
consensus language without discussion:

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be
based on the Precautionary Principle. Environmental measures
must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental
degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as
a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.

This is a fairly weak definition of the Precautionary Principle,
but it is significant in that it is the first time that the
United States has accepted any such formulation. We now will
have the task to keep them to it.

For our own purposes, however, the stronger definition of the
Precautionary Principle formulated by the Nordic Council
International Conference on Marine Pollution (October 1989) is
far preferable.


4.2.2 Montreal Protocol Funding (Declaration Paragraph 24)

The United States had made very clear, prior to the meeting,
that they were not going to agree to language which committed
them to providing funds for the developing world in the context
of the Montreal Protocol. Most states were acutely aware that,
in order to ensure that the Protocol was signed by developing
countries, and in particular, by China and India, that there
would have to be some kind of financing mechanisms agreed. These
would ensure that developing countries were not put at a
disadvantage by having to close down new CFC plants for which
they had possibly committed themselves to a substantial foreign
debt, and that, further, their process of development would not
be hampered by the need to protect the ozone layer.

In the case of China, the objective of producing some hundred
million refrigerators to enable basic minimum living standards
to be met is foremost. Developing countries are acutely aware
that the causes of the ozone depletion problem are not of their
making, and they seek to ensure that the costs of remedying it
are borne by the industrialised world.

The United States' fundamental objection to the paragraph was
that in its original formulation, it made specific references to
"additional resources" being necessary. A compromise formulation
was proposed by which the United States accepted that "inter
alia" additional resources might be provided. The European
Community, playing the role of broker on this issue through the
Irish, agreed as well, and the paragraph was speedily adopted.

However, as is discussed in Section 4.2.3, this agreement later
came undone when the United States withdrew its consent to the
compromise wording.


4.2.3 Funding to held states meet their "International
Obligations" (Declaration Paragraph 13 (e))

The European Community's strategy here was to accept the wording
in this paragraph on the basis of the changes originally
achieved in Paragraph 24. However, Canada had very strong and
explicit instructions from its Minister to oppose any language
which did not commit states very explicitly to provide "new and
additional resources" to aid developing countries. They stated
that this position was agreed by their Finance Ministry, and
that they did not want any implication to be drawn from the text
that funds for this purpose could be diverted from other
sources. They cited the consensus Resolution of the United
Nations General Assembly 44/228, which set up the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, as already having
made commitments in this regard, and they did not want any
weaker language to be included in the Bergen Declaration.
Greenpeace was able to ensure that most participants in this
session had copies of the appropriate sections of that
Resolution.

Discussion on this question raged for some while, with Canada
under pressure from all sides, including the EC, to compromise.
They insisted, however, that the language adopted must be very
explicit, and must not allow states to interpret it in different
ways, according to their own views.

At this stage in the discussion, the United States delegate, who
had just returned to the room after consultations with
Washington, withdrew its agreement to the previous and related
paragraph (Paragraph 24, relating specifically to new funds for
the Montreal Protocol). The European Community countered by
withdrawing its consent to Paragraph 13 (e) and deadlock ensued.
The Chair took the United States, Canada and the European
Community aside, and after a half hour they returned to announce
that the deadlock could not be broken, and that any reconvening
of the meeting was in the hands of the Ministers themselves.

An important Greenpeace contribution to the discussion of this
item was to provide several delegations with language from the
United Nations Resolution 44/228 which formally set up the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the
"Brazil 1992" Conference). By having agreed to that item, the
United States had already agreed to the concept of "new and
additional funding". Their response was that they had "changed
their minds".

4.2.4 Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Declaration Paragraph 14 (d))

The argument on CO2 emissions was very disappointing to
environmental NGOs, as the basis of it was that some countries
(notably the United States, but probably supported by the United
Kingdom) could not accept any formulation which would commit
them even to being able to stabilise emissions at the level of
the present status quo by 2000. The issue was not even discussed
in the Drafting Committee, as it was clear that there was no
possible consensus if the United States maintained it position,
but referred directly to a meeting of Ministers, which met late
at night on the second-last day of the meeting (see Section
4.2.5).


4.2.5 Ministerial Discussions after the Breakdown

After the fundamental differences between states had emerged
during the sessions of the Drafting Committee for the
Ministerial Declaration, the Chair of the Drafting Committee
announced that it was not possible to reach agreement, and that
the Drafting Committee would forthwith cease to meet. A special
meeting of the MInisters was called which started at close to
midnight, and which did not conclude until nearly 2 am. When
that meeting broke, there was still no agreement, and a further
Ministers-only session was called for 9 am the next morning, the
last day of the meeting.

At that stage, however, it appeared that the two stumbling
blocks were the refusal of Canada to accept weak language on the
question of "new and additional funding", and the refusal by
Austria to accept weak language on CO2 emissions. The Federal
Republic of Germany, which had previously been playing a very
strong role, especially with respect to CO2 emissions, became
one of the main players lobbying for compromise language.

Greenpeace took the view that it would be better to have no
Declaration whatsoever, or at least, one which pointedly omitted
any mention of the contentious subjects, so that the wrong
signals would not be sent from Bergen to the developing world.
If a weak consensus was agreed, then the message would be that
the developed world did not take these issues seriously; if
subjects such as CO2 were omitted from the Declaration, it would
be well known by everyone as to why this occurred, and the
finger could be pointed directly at the country or countries
responsible for the failure to agree, thereby isolating them.

At the subsequent Ministerial session, however, agreement on
compromise language on both these positions was achieved. A
measure of the very small "increment" of progress on CO2 is that
the most the Austrians could achieve was to have the phrase
"many countries" from the Noordwijk Declaration replaced by
"most countries" when referring to states' desire to see
emissions stabilised by 2000.

4.3 Output of the Meeting

As mentioned above, there were two documents emerge from the
Bergen meeting, the "Joint Agenda for Action" and the
Ministerial Declaration. The highlights (and lowlights) of these
are now briefly discussed.


4.3.1 The "Joint Agenda for Action"

The "Joint Agenda for Action" has a number of good ideas
contained within it. We can and should use this to lobby the
governments of the ECE region, since they have all agreed the
Agenda by consensus. However, we should be clear that there is
no commitment on the part of governments whatsoever to act. This
is recognised in one of the preamble paragraphs:

While not pre-judging the final view of any of the participants,
the Joint Agenda for Action represents a common view of
representatives of Governments, business, voluntary
environmental organisations, youth, science and labour on
proposals to promote sustainable development which merit
discussion, consideration or decisions by the various partners
in the Bergen process, either jointly or separately.

In spite of the way out provided for any country which wished to
ignore the Agenda, and very low level of commitment to action
proposed by it (to agree that an issue "merits discussion" is
hardly onerous), some of the less progressive states argued
vehemently against the inclusion of progressive positions in it.
The language of the Agenda is also very non-committal, and uses
the sort of phraseology "Business should be encouraged to..."
rather than taking any stronger line. This is a direct result of
the participation of business interests in the drafting of the
Agenda.

There were, however, a number of reasonable positions which
found their way into the document. A selection of these might
include:

* A call for the expansion of the use of environmental impact
assessments;

* A call for the funding mechanisms of the MDBs to address
priority global problems, and their consequences and causes.
Further, the MDBs should ensure that sustainable development is
an integral component of their policies, programmes and
projects.

* Specifically, energy projects funded by the World Bank, EIB
and BERD should be based on the principle of sustainable
development.

* International trade discussions should give full consideration
to environmental, social and economic objectives.

* Mechanisms should be developed to ensure "control" of the
international trade in toxics whose use has been banned or
severely restricted in the country of export.

* There should be a shift in investment from road to rail
traffic, with emphasis on the development of a rail freight
network and fast passenger trains. More weight should be given
to bicycles and public transport in transportation plans.

* Governments should "seriously consider" the removal of
subsidies in the energy sector.

* The development of joint strategies for harmonisation of
environmental regulations should be based on promoting clean
production as a priority. However, this was also linked to the
use of the Best Available Technology not entailing excessive
cost.

* Processes to get the negotiation of a global marine pollution
convention to deal with industrial discharges should be
initiated as soon as possible.

* A regional timetable should be established by 1992 for the
phase- out of all pollution from substances on the Paris
Convention "black list", such as mercury, cadmium and
chlorinated organic compounds. Where such substances which
cannot be adequately controlled, emphasis should be on avoiding
their production.

* Business should examine their products "from cradle to grave"
when assessing their environmental impacts.

It should be stressed that the above measures are not in any way
enforceable, and that most states (with Norway a known
exception) do not consider that they have made commitments in
these areas. However, that should not deter us from using the
Joint Agenda for Action as a lobbying tool where it is
appropriate.


4.3.2 The Ministerial Declaration

The Ministerial Declaration deserves to be taken more seriously
than the "Joint Agenda for Action", as it is a document which
governments can be held (morally) accountable for. The language
in almost every section is very weak, and there are virtually no
actual commitments made if the text is carefully read. However,
a selection of some of the more important provisions of the
Declaration might be as follows:

* The adoption of a weak formulation of the Precautionary
Principle. This is significant, however, in that it is the first
time that the United States has acknowledged any formulation of
the Principle.

*To accelerate work on reducing the use and emission of
hazardous substances that are toxic, persistent and
bioaccumulative with the ultimate aim of phasing out those
substances which cannot be controlled, and to develop by 1992
regional timetaables for phasing them out.

* To make more extensive use of a mix of economic and regulatory
measures to "increase the efficiency of environmental
protection".

* To initiate an "Energy Efficiency 2000" campaign throughout
the ECE region to enhance trade and co-operation in
energy-efficient, environmentally sound techniques to close the
gap between actual practice and best available technology.

* To remove barriers for the market penetration of energy
efficient technology, renewable energy and clean life-cycle
technology.

* To improve the efficiency of public transport services. (It's
ambiguous as to whether this relates only to energy efficiency)

* To undertake prior assessment and public reporting of the
environmental impact "so far as practicable" of the policies,
programmes and plans which underlie projects which are likely to
have a "significant" effect on human health and the environment,
in addition to assessing the projects themselves.

* To "urge" all ECE countries to agree national CO2 reduction
strategies following the IPCC report, and before the start of
negotiations for a global climate convention.

* To introduce an energy labelling system for products and
processes.

The section on Sustainable Industrial Activity contained almost
no real commitments whatsoever, all paragraphs being prefaced by
"To encourage...", "To strengthen regulations...", and so on.


5 National Positions Taken


5.1 Albania

Albania was represented by the Minister of the Presidency at the
Council of Ministers, also Chairman of the National
Environmental Committee, Mr Farudin Hoxha. He stressed the need
to intensify international cooperation on environment protection
and announced that Albania recently joined the Barcelona
Convention and was ready to increase its participation in
international environmental meetings.


5.2 Austria

Austria was represented by Dr Marilies Flemming, Federal
Minister for Environment, Youth and Family. She started by
saying that every individual, group or organisation has the
right to available or reasonably obtainable information
concerning the environment, or activities likely to affect the
environment, and also control measures and environmental
management programmes. restriction of access to such information
should be only to the extent necessary to protect national
defence or trade and industrial secrecy. Further, information
necessary to assess the hazard of an activity can under no
circumstances be kept confidential.

She emphasised that the increased use of nuclear energy as a
means to reduce CO2 emissions is not an acceptable alternative
for Austria, citing the conflict with the human rights of
indigenous peoples whose living space is contaminated by uranium
mining as one reason for her position. She also urged that aid
programmes for Eastern Europe should centre on improving their
infrastructure and not on promoting nuclear energy, and that
investment world-wide should be put into solar. There should
also be a switch from sold fuels to natural gas.

Economic instruments, such as emission charges, user fees or a
primary energy tax should be used in conjunction with
environmental regulations and standards. Such instruments also
would provide the right market signals and incentives.

She also acknowledged that an "International Environment Fund",
as an institutionally agreed model for international financing,
was essential, and said that Austria was prepared to contribute
to such a fund.

Austria played a very positive role during the discussions on
the Draft Ministerial Declaration, and was the last country to
agree to its text because of concern at the weak language on CO2
emissions.


5.3 Belgium

Mrs Miet Smet, Secretary of State for Environment, represented
Belgium. She supported the precautionary principle as being
applicable in any environmental policy, as well as the phase-out
of hazardous substances when their discharge cannot be
controlled.


5.4 Brazil

Although not member of the ECE region, Brazil was invited to
attend the Ministerial session as host country for ECO 1992.
Jose Lutzenberger, newly appointed Minister of Environment, made
a remarkable speech, most of it centered on the rainforest
issue. Lutzenberger pointed out that the rainforest issue was
not adequately reflected in the Ministerial Declaration.

He announced that the planned construction of a main highway
through the rainforest, which would have created an open door
for Pacific timber traders, had been halted. Sustainable growth,
he said, was a contradiction in terms. Sustainable development,
defined quite differently, could be an objective.

Lutzenberger ended his speech with an appeal to the First World
to review the state of present technology which is not conceived
to satisfy real human needs. He linked the present circumstances
of the Third World to the demands of First World markets.


5.5 Bulgaria

Bulgaria was represented by Mr A Alexandrov, Minister of
Environment. He supported the precautionary principle and
stressed the need for a regional Convention covering the Danube
and the Black Sea.


5.6 Canada

M Lucien Bouchard, Minister of Environment, spoke for Canada. He
began by speaking of the agreement reached in Montreal over
CFCs, and the need to build on that by contributing to a
multilateral fund. After the Second World Climate Conference, it
was urgent to proceed to a global climate convention and
protocols.

Canada took a very strong and courageous line in the Drafting
Committee for the Ministerial Declaration on the question of new
and additional funding for developing countries. With hindsight,
this may have been an attempt at a glorious last stand by
Bouchard, since within a week of the end of the meeting, he had
resigned as Minister.


5.7 Cyprus

Cyprus was represented by Mr Andreas Gavrielides, Minister of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. He said that co-operation
between developed and developing countries was the only way to
achieve links between economic development and environmental
conservation. He made a specific reference to Cyprus' concern at
the transboundary movement and spread of pollutants,
particularly hazardous wastes, and urged that the provisions of
the Basel Convention be strictly adhered to.


5.8 Denmark

Denmark was represented by Ms Lone Dybkjaer, Minister for the
Environment. She said that the Precautionary Principle was
becoming increasingly important. For many issues, we have to set
targets now, even if they will be preliminary. In particular, we
should apply it to the CO2 issue, and industrialised countries
should commit themselves to the stabilisation of emissions at
present levels by 2000. She made a specific appeal to the United
States to "do its job" on CO2 on earth before heading off to
Mars.

The next step in Denmark will be to establish a "green" economy,
with a balanced mix of economic incentives. It will help to have
a national accounting system reflecting the costs and benefits
of the environment. In the Declaration, there should be clear
signals on the Precautionary Principle and on additionality in
new aid programmes, she said.

The Danish delegation maintained a generally very low profile at
the meeting, though they did assist us in ensuring that our text
on dumping and incineration at sea were placed on the table
(though by another country).


5.9 European Community

Carlo Ripa di Meana, Environment Commissioner, represented the
EC at the meeting. He noted that the developed world had a
particular responsibility to act, since many of the problems had
been created by them. He urged the setting of targets and dates
for CO2 emission reductions, to tighten the phase-out time
limits for ozone-depleting substances, and to set dates for
halting deforestation. He said that marginal scientific
uncertainty should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

He specifically pointed to the attitude of the United States,
accusing them of deserting the developed world, "just at the
moment when the developing world seemed to be accepting our
argument". He also pointed to the contrast between the United
States position at Bergen and the Clean Air Bill which was
progressing in the United States.

With respect to the Montreal Protocol, however, he said that the
developing world must subscribe to the solutions proposed, and
plan their future development in a way which is coherent with
environmental protection. He insisted that new money from the
developed world would be required, and said in the strongest
possible terms that he was distressed that the United States
were "no longer able to accept their responsibility in this
respect". He reiterated that the EC was prepared to accept its
responsibilities, and that it would continue to press for
adequate financial mechanisms in the Montreal Protocol for
developing countries. He expressed the hope that the United
States would change its position on this, and also in relation
to future negotiations on global climate change.

He also expressed the hope that states in Central, East, West
and South Europe which are not EC members will join the European
Environment Agency, once it is established.


5.10 Finland

Mr I Suominen, Minister of Trade and Industry, spoke first for
Finland. He began by noting that "Business was taking a more
mature attitude to the environment than many other groups".

The Precautionary Principle should be accepted "when
appropriate", and that Best Available Technology (not entailing
excessive costs) was appropriate. Projects with the highest
marginal rate of return "in an environmental sense" should be
adopted.

Mr K-O B„rlund, Minister of Environment, spoke on the second day
of the meeting. He started by saying that all the ECE countries
were relatively well-off, and they have a special
responsibility, especially with respect to the urgent phase-out
of ozone-depleting substances. He saw this as a test case for
global sustainable development.

On CO2 emissions, he said that the Nordic countries believe that
the risk of damage is enough to take action now, and that
concrete actions were necessary. He also said that Finland had
introduced an environmentally-motivated energy tax.


5.11 France

Brice Lalonde, Secretary of State for the Environment, spoke for
France. He would have hoped for stronger language with respect
to aid for developing countries in the Ministerial Declaration.
France was proposing a special environmental facility within the
World Bank.

He said that the CO2 targets were too modest - France suggests
targets that are on a per capita basis (no doubt because of
their existing reliance on nuclear power).

He commended the NGOs at Bergen, and proposed on Mitterrand's
behalf that there be a conference of NGOs held in Paris in 1991
to define their ideas with respect to the Brazil meeting.
(However, he did not discuss this with the NGOs, or ask their
opinions on the subject. It is not at all clear who would be in
control of this initiative - France or the NGOs.)


5.12 German Democratic Republic

Prof Dr K-H Steinberg, Minister for the Environment, Nature
Protection, Energy and Nuclear Safety, spoke for the GDR. He
said that the GDR has decided to give priority to ecology over
economy. Short term measures have already been elaborated. SO2
will be reduced by 85%, NOx emissions by 40% and CO2 by 20% by
2000. They are aiming for an annual decrease in energy
consumption of the order of 1.5%. Lignite production will also
be substantially reduced. On CFCs - they will put the provisions
of the Montreal Protocol into practice. They also plan to
develop five new National Parks, and two Biosphere Reserves.

The GDR likes the spirit of the Ministerial Declaration, and
will "seriously take it into account". They like the
Precautionary Principle, and feel that it is urgently required
as the basis of future national legislation. The "Energy
Efficiency 2000" campaign has their firm support.


5.13 Germany, Federal Republic

The Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety, Prof Dr Klaus T”pfer, addressed the
Ministerial conference. He stated that Precaution, the
prevention and minimisation of pollution, should guide policies.
These policies must be based on sufficient scientific evidence;
remaining uncertainties, however, should not be used as an
excuse for lack of action.

He stressed that there was a need for action on a number of
points. These included: (a) That there was a need for clear
signals to be given of states' intention to agree a climate
convention by the time of the Brazil 1992 meeting at the latest;
(b) That a CO2 protocol should be negotiated at the same time as
the development of a climate convention; (c) That SO2, NOx and
VOCs required further international reduction efforts; (d) That
technology transfer is a prerequisite to getting agreement on
global environmental problems. He singled out the need to agree
a financing mechanism for the Montreal Protocol in this regard;
(e) That a Code of Conduct for manufacturing industry should be
developed to avoid energy-consuming and ecologically damaging
activities being shifted to developing countries; (f) That in
the long term we had to find a future without nuclear power; (g)
That energy prices at present reflect only part of the
ecological costs, and that there was a use for economic
instruments, such as emissions charges, as the least
bureaucratic way of internalising ecological costs into prices.

The Federal Republic took a very positive line on many issues of
concern to Greenpeace, but was also very anxious to reach
compromise. In the final stages of the negotiation, they
actively supported compromise over principle.


5.14 Hungary

Mr I Lang, Special Representative, spoke for Hungary. The
Hungarian government was not yet appointed, and this was the
reason for no minister being present. He made special reference
to the NGO proposals, and said that the Precautionary Principle
should be adopted. For Hungary, energy efficiency would be a key
point, and CO2 emissions would be kept to present levels.


5.15 Iceland

Mr S Hermannsson, Prime Minister, spoke for Iceland. He referred
to the recent establishment of a Ministry for the Environment in
Iceland, with extensive powers. He complemented the Federal
Republic of Germany for their emission reductions, and urged
that others should follow suit and set goals no less rigid than
those of the FRG.

He said he was very disappointed by the vague reference to
dumping in the Declaration. The dumping of dangerous wastes must
stop immediately, and the proof of safety must lie with the
dumpers.

He said there were two major omissions of the Declaration.
First, there should have been a specific reference to stopping
pollution at source, and second, he urged consideration of an
international Law of the Environment, to be prepared by the
United Nations, similar to the Law of the Sea.

Mr J Solnes, Minister of Environment, also spoke at the meeting.
He began by noting that the military threat in Europe was now
being replaced by the environmental threat, and suggested that
the armaments industries should refocus themselves. He
reiterated that the Precautionary Principle was of paramount
importance, and expressed grave concern over dumping of wastes
in the sea, and nuclear reprocessing. He urged a ban on the sea
and sub-seabed disposal of radioactive and hazardous wastes.

Iceland played a very positive role at the meeting, but was let
down by the fact that on at least two critical junctures, when
initiatives relating to dumping of wastes were to be discussed
at their suggestion, they were absent from the room. Considering
that the text they were working with had originally been
provided by Greenpeace, this was very disappointing.


5.16 Ireland

Ireland was represented by Mr Padraig Flynn, Minister for the
Environment. He referred to the Irish government's new
Environmental Action Programme, based on three fundamental
principles: sustainable development, precautionary action, and
the integration of environmental considerations in all policy
areas.

All discharges to inland and coastal waters will be fully
treated by 2000, and the dumping of all industrial and other
wastes at sea will be banned. A central "waste treatment and
disposal facility" will be built in the next few years so that
toxic wastes "will not have to travel far".

Ireland is fully committed to international efforts to stabilise
CO2 emissions, but the reductions must be based on equity. He
also noted that nuclear power cannot be legitimately advanced as
a solution to climate change until its "problems" have been
resolved.


5.17 Israel

Israel is not a member of the ECE, but attended the meeting by
invitation. Dr Uri Marinov, Director-General for the Ministry of
Environment, represented them. He began by saying that the
protection of the environment requires independent financial
resources and that a special Fund should be created by 1992. He
was quite sceptical about the role that international
Conventions can play as most of them are not properly enforced.

Dr Marinov stressed that the World Bank and other regional banks
should promote environmental conservation and not only economic
development. He said that the ten commandments should be
rewritten in order to include ethical environmental standards.


5.18 Italy

Italy was represented by Mr G Ruffolo, Minister of the
Environment. He indicated several areas where he was not happy
with the Ministerial Declaration. These included the sections on
Precautionary Principle, new and additional funding for
developing countries, CO2 stabilisation, and the fact that there
should be parallel negotiations of a CO2 protocol with the
negotiation of a global climate convention.

Italy intends to stabilise CO2 emissions by 2000, and reduce
them by 20% by 2005. CFCs will be eliminated by 1997, and net
forest growth achieved by 1995.

Italy generally played a very positive role in the meeting, in
particular by having no fewer than four NGOs on the government
delegation who were able to exert a considerable influence on
the Italian position. In one case, Domitilla Senni became the
representative of Italy in one of the Drafting Committees.


5.19 Luxembourg

Mr A Bodry, Minister of Environment, represented Luxembourg. He
stated that the Precautionary Principle must be adopted, and
that in no case should scientific uncertainty be used as an
excuse to compromise environmental protection. More economic and
fiscal measures should also be used.

He said that he doubted that the Ministerial Declaration would
give the signals that the public want, especially with respect
to CO2 and the elimination of hazardous substances. There must
be precise timetables for both.

As a personal remark, he added at the end of his speech that he
shared the view that resorting to nuclear power was not a
solution to global warming.


5.20 Netherlands

Mr Hans Alders, Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and
Environment, was the Netherlands' representative. He noted that
the Netherlands would be prepared to provide additional funds to
help reduce (CO2) emissions in developing countries. They have
set themselves the target of stabilisation at present levels by
1995, and a reduction of 5% by 2000.

The Netherlands generally played a very progressive role in the
meeting, but did not have as high a profile as might have been
expected.


5.21 Norway

Ms Kristin Hille Valle, Minister of Environment, spoke for
Norway. She reviewed the Norwegian position on the Ministerial
Declaration, focusing on the following points, among others:

The Precautionary Principle should be the basis for all
environmental policies; regional strategies for pollution
control should be established; international guidelines for the
pricing of the environment and the use of economic instruments
should be prepared; specific targets for the reduction of
greenhouse gases should be set, and in particular, CO2 emissions
should be stabilised by 2000; the industrialised world should
give "new and additional" resources to developing countries for
their participation in global environmental management; a plan
should be developed by 1992 for the phasing out of pollution
from environmentally hazardous processes and substances; the
export of technology to, and investments in other countries
should meet domestic environmental standards.

She proposed a two-year "Regional Campaign for Sustainable
Development" for the region, and listed a number of points which
should be covered in such a campaign.

Mr K M Bondevik, Minister of Foreign Affairs, also spoke for
Norway. He said that we had to accept that the industrialised
countries have caused the environmental problems, and Brazil in
1992 would be an important test of this. The developing
countries would be looking to Bergen for progress on greenhouse
gases. He said that they had to be shown that the developed
world was prepared to assist, with new and additional funding,
and with technology transfer. Additional resources should not be
regarded as "aid".

There should be a clear signal at the Montreal Protocol meeting
regarding new resources, as well. Norway would work for the
establishment of an International Climate Fund and would
contribute 0.1% of its GNP over and above other aid.

Norway did not play a very active role in the meeting, other
than taking the chair. It seemed to be driven primarily by its
desire to see the conference "succeed", and therefore appeared
to be seeking compromise at all costs.


5.22 Poland

Poland was represented by Bronislaw Kaminski, Minister of
Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He
said that Poland is committed to a complete reform of the
principles and mechanisms of its environmental protection policy
to avoid the waste of raw materials and to reduce energy
consumption. The Government has submitted to Parliament a set of
amendments to environmental bills. However, because the
reconstruction of the Polish economy will be very costly, they
will try to meet the protection standards at least cost. They
will begin "emission trading" (domestically) this year to try to
do this.

He noted that conventions which are not given a strong enough
executive or budget are of limited effect, and singled out the
Helsinki Convention as being one such. He said it was urgent to
have new regional initiatives in the Baltic, and alluded to
"solutions commenced within the Mediterranean region" as being a
source of inspiration. It is assumed that he was referring to
the World Bank's Environmental Programme for the Mediterranean.

He later spelled out that his expectations of co-operation with
the World Bank were high, and undertook to ensure that its
programmes were in accord with the Bergen Declaration.


5.23 Portugal

Portugal was represented by Mr F Ferreira Real, Minister for the
Environment. He said that Portugal liked the "Bergen Process",
and would adopt it in future discussions with NGOs at a national
level. They are also very concerned about marine pollution by
hydrocarbons.


5.24 Romania

Romania was represented by Mr S Hancu, Minister of Water
Resources, Forestry and Environment. He noted that Romania has
signed the Danube Convention prepared by the United Nations, and
said they were working on short- and long-term programmes for
the reduction of major noxious atmospheric emissions.


5.25 Spain

Mr J Saenz Cosculluela, Minister of Public Works and Urban
Planning, spoke for Spain. He said very little, except to note
that he was in favour of taxes on things which degrade the
environment.


5.26 Sweden

Ms Birgitta Dahl, Minister of the Environment, represented
Sweden. She acknowledged the responsibility for the developed
countries to restore the ecological balance in their own region,
and also to mobilise large financial and technological resources
to be transferred to developing countries in addition to present
development assistance.

She said the most serious environmental challenge was climate
change, and that a first short-term measure would be to ban the
use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances within the next
few years. Concerning CO2 emissions, she noted the disparities
between nations and said that Sweden did not accept that the
developing countries should refrain from growth because the
developed world had exceeded acceptable emission levels. The
advanced and privileged nations had to take the lead to reduce
the use of fossil fuels. She said that the industrialised
countries should stabilise emissions as fast as possible, and
then forcefully decrease emissions. Nuclear power cannot be the
"ultimate" solution to the CO2 problem.

She listed five ways in which Sweden would try to counteract
climate change, leading to a stabilisation of CO2 emissions at
present levels by 2000. These were: CFCs will be totally phased
out by 1995; CO2 emissions from the transport sector will be
stabilised at 1988 levels by 2000; Energy efficiency programmes
and the use of renewables such as biomass and wind will be used
to improve energy management; Natural gas will substitute for
oil and coal to a large extent; Taxes on CO2, SO2 and NOx will
be introduced.

She also called for the dialogue on interlinkages between
environment and trade to be intensified in OECD, GATT, UNCTAD
and other forums, and made a specific call for the application
of the Precautionary Principle.


5.27 Switzerland

Switzerland was represented by Mr F Cotti, Minister of
Environment. He began by noting that we are still far from
having fulfilled the commitments that were drawn up in Stockholm
in 1972.

He questioned whether we were able to stabilise CO2 emissions,
and was pleased that some states were able to commit themselves
to be able to do it by 2000. Switzerland would like to join, he
said, but had to be sure that it could meet those commitments
first. A referendum in September could give the Federal
government certain powers on energy policy and nuclear energy,
which will have implications for the Swiss position. It will be
clear, though, by the time of the Second World Climate
Conference. However, it was clear that the social and
environmental costs of climate change would be severe, and that
preventative measures were essential to avoid irreversible
damage.

Additional resources must be provided for the developing
countries and Eastern Europe, he said, and the industrialised
countries must take the lead in addressing the problems. The
real test of this will be the Montreal Protocol discussions,
where Switzerland is prepared to contribute to an international
fund.


5.28 Turkey

Mr V Dincerler, Minister of State, represented Turkey. He said
that the developed states should contribute to a "Climate" or
"Planet Fund", and that this should be one of the vehicles for
shifting technology to the developing world.


5.29 United Kingdom

The United Kingdom was represented by David Trippier, Minister
of State for the Environment. There had been considerable
criticism voiced before the start of the meeting that the
Secretary of State, Chris Patten, was not attending. Trippier
avoided speaking about anything of substance, and concentrated
solely on the issue of "Awareness Raising and Public
Participation", on the basis that the United Kingdom had hosted
a workshop on this in the lead-up to the Bergen meeting.

He noted that Patten had recently appointed "green economist"
David Pearce as his special advisor, and that there was a
government White Paper on the environment which will be
published later in the year.

As far as the Ministerial Declaration was concerned, he said
that the United Kingdom was particularly concerned to make
improvements in the area of transparency of energy pricing.

He noted, in the area of public awareness raising, that the new
Environmental Protection Bill would open up British industry to
public scrutiny of its performance in pollution control. He also
said that they were actively working to promote an EC-wide
ecological labelling scheme.

The United Kingdom did not play as active a part in the meeting,
opposing progressive positions, as might have been expected.
However, it was shielded from the need to do this by the fact
that the United States played this role. In some of the closed
negotiating sessions, however, it played a major negative role.
There was considerable frustration among more progressive states
that the United Kingdom was able to hide behind the United
States in this way.


5.30 United States

The United States was represented by Dr John A Knauss,
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. There was considerable criticism from several
countries, privately, that the United States did not send
someone of cabinet ranking, or even Bill Riley, from EPA, to
represent them at the meeting. Knauss made a very short
presentation in which he merely summarised very briefly the
conclusions of the preparatory workshop, held in Washington, on
the "Economics of Sustainability".

When questioned at a press conference as to the reluctance of
the United States to act in concert with the more progressive
position adopted in Europe, his reply was that "we are a big
country and have thick skins".

The United States was unquestionably the "bad guy" at the Bergen
meeting, and opposed almost every position that was remotely
progressive.


5.31 USSR

Mr N N Vorontsov, Chairman of the State Committee for the
Protection of Nature, represented the Soviet Union. He made a
presentation which was on quite a different track from most of
those at the meeting. He made a big point of his concern that
sustainable ecosystems are dependent on ecological variety, and
that species had to be protected from extinction.

With respect to emissions of SO2, CO and CO2, he said that much
depended on the capacity of the ecosystem, and that northern
ecosystems were more vulnerable.

He also indicated that he would like to see a global programme
for the oceans established by 1992.

In the substantive discussions held during the meeting, the USSR
played almost no role whatsoever.


5.32 Yugoslavia

Mr Nikola Gasoski, Minister without portfolio, took the floor
for Yugoslavia. In his speech he called for more cooperation and
funding for developing countries, and transfer of
environmentally sound technologies, know-how, and management
assistance.


6 Summary

The Bergen meeting was not a success from the point of view of
the governments, no matter how much gloss they attempt to put on
it. The meeting came perilously close to a total breakdown over
the very wide differences of policy that exist between the
progressive countries of continental western Europe and the
United States. That there was a Declaration at all is merely
because of the degree to which the progressive countries were
prepared to make compromises.

However, it did produce a Declaration which contains some items
which will be useful campaign tools, and to some extent the
process was worthwhile because of that. However, the change is
at best incremental, and should not be seen as in any way a
victory. We characterised the meeting for the press as a
failure.

From Greenpeace's point of view, I think that it is undeniable
that we had a major impact on the meeting, and that the
Greenpeace staff who participated, both inside and outside the
meeting enhanced the organisation's credibility substantially.
It put us in the very rare situation of being able to negotiate
as equal partners (on the "Joint Agenda for Action") and to
wring concessions from governments.

Another important result from the meeting concerned the
Norwegian Greenpeace office. They consider that they gained
considerably through the meeting being there, and especially
enhanced their credibility among other Norwegian NGOs, as
Greenpeace Norway was the only Norwegian NGO which was properly
"plugged in" to the negotiations. They consider that this will
enhance their relationships with other NGOs in future, and also
make the Norwegian government more receptive to their
approaches. In addition, the feeling was that the Norwegian
press had been positively impressed by the work of the
Greenpeace team at the conference, and this may be good for
Greenpeace Norway in media coverage of the forthcoming Gudmunson
court case.


6.1 Concern over the process

The Greenpeace team had very grave concerns over the process
which we had to go through in order to reach the Ministerial
sessions, and cannot recommend the so-called "Bergen Process"
for any future similar events. It is known that many governments
feel enthusiastic about the approach, and we should take care
not to allow ourselves to become marginalised by participating
in future events.

Once at the meeting, we had two choices. We had to choose either
not to participate in the detailed and intense negotiations over
the "Agenda for Action", and had a weak consensus document
emerge, or to try to be the "main players" for the NGO group, in
order to make the document as strong as possible. In either
case, the document was going to be hailed as a breakthrough - a
product of "real" discussion between NGOs and governments.

We chose the latter course, partly because to participate in the
meeting in this way was the only way that we had good access to
the senior officials who were on the government side, and partly
out of solidarity with the other NGOs present. In the event, we
feel it was the right thing to do, as any meaningful opposition
to the process itself was way too late.

The next stage, however, was the attempt to reach a consensus at
Bergen between the environmental NGO representatives, and the
representatives of government, trades unions, youth, industry
and science. On many of the issues that we work on, there is
absolutely no common ground with industry, in particular, and
very little common ground with many governments.


6.2. The future - 1992

There are real lessons to be learned for Greenpeace in the
lead-up to 1992. First, we should avoid, if at all possible, any
kind of preparatory process which requires us to put a lot of
time and energy into working with other NGOs merely to
participate. We may choose to work with other NGOs at some stage
during the preparatory process, but that is another question.

Second, as mentioned above, we should be very cautious of the
use of the "Bergen Process" as a means for governments to neatly
package the views of NGOs, industry and other interest groups,
and neatly defuse criticisms by being able to say that the views
of all sectors of the community have been taken into account.

It would be of more advantage to work directly with the
governments over a much longer period of time than was possible
for Bergen, and for this informal route to be the main route for
the Greenpeace input at future such meetings. The fact that the
documentation we circulated several weeks prior to the meeting
to Ministers was widely received and read is evidenced by the
amount of positive feedback we received on
it.