TL: GREENPEACE/ES2 POSITIONS: COMPLETE SET SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: 1997 GREENPEACE/ES2 POSITIONS: ATLANTIC FRONTIER/FOSSIL FUELS SUMMARY: The world's ecosystems and social structures are threatened by climate change. The greatest single threat comes from burning fossil fuels. The UK Government accepts this, yet it is encouraging a massive new search for oil in an area known as the 'Atlantic Frontier', which lies to the north west of the UK. To stay within ecological limits, identified by scientists advising the UN, less than half of all known fossil fuel reserves can be burnt. Stopping expansion of industrialised country fossil fuels reserves is the first logical step in the longer term phasing out of fossil fuels. PROBLEM STATEMENT: Governments from around the world signed up to the Climate Convention at Rio in 1992. By doing so, they agreed to limit the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that "would prevent dangerous human-made interference with the climate system". So far, the negotiations have all been about the symptoms of a dangerous energy system, expressed as greenhouse gas emissions, rather than the cause of the problem, which is fossil fuels. It is an absurd approach that is blind to the effects of the growing supply of cheap fossil fuels to emissions control. It is a process that has allowed the UK Government to unlock a major new supply of cheap fossil fuels from the Atlantic Frontier whilst attacking other countries for their lack of action on emissions of greenhouse gases. The approach that climate protection requires is the establishment of natural limits to climate change. The scientific work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change make it possible to estimate how much fossil fuel can be extracted and burnt, to stay within temperature and sea level rise limits. If a limit of a 1 degree Celsius temperature rise and a 20 cm rise in sea level is adopted, above which scientists believe that "extensive ecosystem damage" may occur, this results in a limit of just over 200 billion tonnes of carbon that can be burnt as fossil fuel over the next hundred years. The establishment of this 'carbon budget' reveals the true madness of continued oil exploration. Given that existing fossil fuel reserves stand at over 1000 billion tonnes of carbon, this means that 75% of economically recoverable fossil fuels can never be burnt. Every new license given for Atlantic Frontier oil exploration expands this reserve and makes the task of staying within the natural limits of climate change more difficult. SOME KEY FACTS: For the oil industry, the Atlantic Frontier is a test bed for new technology and a stepping-stone to other deep oceans such as those found in the Arctic. New combinations of oil technology will be used in depths over 1,500 metres. Over 200 blocks have been allocated, involving over 30 companies, including: BP, Shell, Texaco, Mobil, Amoco, Conoco, British Gas, Total, Elf, Chevron, Esso, Arco and Fina. **** Undiscovered reserves in the West of Shetland area are estimated at up to 15 billion barrels. **** The Atlantic Frontier is the most important wilderness for whales and dolphins in Europe - Blue whales are amongst 22 species of Cetaceans recorded in the area. **** The deepwater fish species of the Atlantic Frontier are slow-breeding and long-lived. They include the orange roughy, black scabbard fish, roundnose grenadier, mora, greater forkbeard, bluemouth and rabbit fish. The area is home to Lophelia corals, some individuals up to 50 metres in diameter and thought to be over 200 years old. **** There has been no formal legal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Atlantic Frontier development because the UK Government has failed to implement the European Community EIA Directive for offshore operations. The Atlantic Frontier development has been a process of "study-and-drill". The results of the research that has been carried out have not been used to review whether oil exploration should go ahead. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Greenpeace campaigns to protect nature from industrial abuse. The Atlantic Frontier campaign aims to protect one 'global commons', the atmosphere, by stopping industrial exploitation of another, the deep ocean environment. We have called on the UK Government to stimulate international negotiations for the phase out of fossil fuels and to make a dramatic shift of investment to sane energy alternatives. We are working directly with businesses in the UK to overcome the blocks and obstacles to energy solutions such as solar electric. Greenpeace recently collaborated with the UK's largest housing association to double the number of grid- connected solar electric homes in the UK. Writing to the new Prime minister, Tony Blair, Greenpeace made the primary responsibility of the new government clear: "Greenpeace warmly welcomes the priority that you have signalled for the environment in your manifesto commitments to "put concern for the environment at the heart of policy making, so that it is not an add on extra, but informs the whole of government, from housing and energy policy through to global warming and international agreements". Your commitment cannot be met if you allow the continued expansion of fossil fuels and development of the Atlantic Frontier. What will you do now?" (To see the full correspondence between Greenpeace UK and the UK government visit our web site: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/atlantic). SOLUTIONS: In Britain: the Government should halt development of the Atlantic Frontier oilfields. It should start the shift to a genuinely sane energy path. A programme for a minimum of 50,000 homes powered by solar electric by 2010 could be started by redirecting fossil fuel subsidies to solar power. Globally, Greenpeace supports the Alliance of Small and Low Lying Island States in its call for industrial nations to cut CO2 emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by 2005. Any less would require more drastic action later on to stay within safe ecological limits of climate change. A political commitment to begin a fossil fuel phase-out should be made by world leaders at the UN General Assembly Special Session on the Environment in June and the Climate Convention in Kyoto in December. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) C Rose (1997) "Putting a lid on fossil fuels: Why the Atlantic should be a frontier against oil exploration", Greenpeace UK; 2) Professor P Odell (1996) "UK Atlantic Frontier Oil Developments: An Initial Overview", Greenpeace UK; 3) Greenpeace (1996) "A Very British Failure - Government Policy on Solar Power", Greenpeace UK; 4) Greenpeace (1997) "Solar Electric: The Political Challenge", Greenpeace UK; 5) "BP Exploration Foinaven Phase 1 Development, Environmental Assessment", Environmental Consultancy Services Ltd; 6) BP (1995) "Atlantic Frontier Oil Spill Contingency Plan", BP exploration; 7) C Lloyd et al (1991) "The Status of Seabirds in Britain and ireland", T & AD Poyser Ltd; 8) International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) (1995) "Report of the Study Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries resources"; 9) Berry Marine Consultants (1996) "The Atlantic Frontier Region: A Review of the Offshore Benthic Communities of the North East Atlantic Region (with Particular Reference to the Faroe-Shetland Channel) and the Potential Effects of Proposed Oil Exploration and Production, Greenpeace UK. (All Greenpeace reports can be found on the Greenpeace UK Website.) KEY CONTACTS: Chris Rose, Deputy Executive & Programme Director, Greenpeace UK; Jane Wildblood, Campaign Director, Greenpeace UK; Sara Burton, Campaign for Sane Energy Director, Greenpeace UK; Mirella von Lindenfels, Press Officer, Greenpeace UK. - Greenpeace UK, Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN (tel: 44.171.865.8100; fax: 44.171.865.8200; e-mail: Internet homepage:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/atlantic). GREENPEACE/ES2 POSITIONS: CLIMATE CHANGE/CO2 REDUCTIONS SUMMARY: The planet's weather system, and the entire web of life based on it, face potentially massive long term disruption from climate change. Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are the main sources of the polluting gases, identified as "greenhouse gases". A clear political commitment is urgently required to shift global energy dependence from polluting fossil fuels to abundant clean, renewable energy sources such as solar power. As a first step, industrialised countries should commit themselves at the "Climate Summit" to be held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, to legally binding obligations to reduce their CO2 emissions 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2005. PROBLEM STATEMENT: It is well established that emissions of certain gases from such things as the burning of fossil fuels can cause climate change, in a process known as the "enhanced greenhouse effect". The major "greenhouse gases" are carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and CFCs. In the atmosphere they form a barrier that holds in heat thereby warming the earth. Historic levels of these gases have maintained a climate system that supports life and gives us the familiar weather patterns and seasons. Now the web of life, and social and economic systems face potentially massive disruption from the steady build-up of these gases in the atmosphere. Levels of carbon dioxide, from burning of coal, oil and gas, and from deforestation, have increased around 30% since industrialisation and contribute around 70% of the enhanced greenhouse effect to date. Scientists predict that if no action is taken, ecosystems and economies worldwide are at risk. A rise of even a degree or two in average temperatures worldwide may be catastrophic for some human societies living close to sea-level and to some coastal and mountain ecosystems. Warming oceans and melting glaciers will cause sea levels to rise, flooding coasts and islands. Croplands may suffer from droughts, deserts may spread. Animals and plants may not survive the change in their local environment. Even a small temperature rise may cause forest dieback and melt the permafrost in the Arctic, releasing even more greenhouse gases. KEY FACTS: In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which involved over 2500 of the world's leading climate experts, concluded that the earth already shows signs of warming: 1) Average global temperature has increased between 0.3-0.5 C in 140 years since records began; 2) 1980s was the hottest decade on record; 1990s is shaping up to be even hotter; 3) Mountain glaciers are in rapid retreat; tundra permafrost is dramatically warming. **** Other changes consistent with a warming world include: 1) Mean sea level has risen by 10 to 25 cm; 2) A startling 2.5 C warming in the Antarctic Peninsula since 1940 has been associated with disintegrating ice shelves, retreat of sea ice and declining penguin populations; 3) An upward migration of alpine plants in the Austrian and Swiss Alps, and a northward migration of trees and small animals in Canada and of marine organisms in California; 4) Reports of dengue-fever-carrying mosquitoes, formerly restricted to lower than 1000 metres altitude by temperature, at 2,200 metres in India and Colombia. **** Changes such as these can be expected to become more common and more dangerous as atmospheric CO2 levels increase. And once CO2 is put in the atmosphere the warming will be felt many decades in the future and cannot be easily reversed. THE CARBON LOGIC: The objective of the Framework on Climate Change signed at Rio in 1992 is: "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system" and "Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner". In 1990, the United Nations Environment Programme Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases identified the following "targets and indicators" necessary to "protect both ecosystems as well as human systems": 1) Sea level rise: maximum rate of rise 20 - 50mm per decade; maximum 0.2 - 0.5 metres above 1990 global mean sea level; 2) Global mean temperature: maximum rate of 0.1.C per decade; maximum increase of 1.0.C. Above 1.0C there may be "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage". A total 2.0C increase was "viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly". In order to meet both the total and per decade target limits, a limit of 150 Gtc (gigatonnes of carbon in CO2) can be loaded into the atmosphere, assuming no action is taken to stop current trends of deforestation (as forests act as a "sink" for some carbon, and release it when destroyed); with an active afforestation programme, 260GtC may be tolerated. Burning all known and "economically recoverable" reserves of oil, gas and coal over the next century would release over one billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and could lead to a long term rise of 4.5C in global temperatures. SOLUTIONS: The inescapable conclusion, and Greenpeace's immediate call for action, is that fossil fuels must be phased out - even known reserves and resources can never all be burned. Fossil (and nuclear) fuels must be replaced with ecologically sustainable renewable solutions - solar energy systems, wind turbines, bio-fuel plantations, energy efficiency and energy conservation. The "Solar Revolution" is technically and economically achievable. With rapid changes in government and industry policies, renewables could be providing 60% of global energy needs by 2030. According to the European Commission providing solar electricity to a billion people in the developing world would cost $60 billion ($3 billion/year for 20 years) - to put this into perspective, this is only 3% of annual energy investments in developing countries and less than 0.5% of current military expenditure. Such a global phase out will require: 1) Cessation of construction of fossil-based (and nuclear) power stations and new oil exploration; 2) Transferral of subsidies from fossils (and nuclear) to renewable technologies; 3) Conversion of current energy generating systems to renewable technologies in industrialised nations at a minimum rate of 3% per year; 4) A shift in World Bank energy policy for developing countries from fossil and nuclear systems to renewables; 5) Increased investment in energy efficiency and advanced renewable power systems (which often can be achieved at competitive cost). As a first step Greenpeace advocates that at the Third Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in December 1997, all industrialized nations be required to reduce CO2 emissions 20% on 1990 levels by 2005. Industrialised nations produce 65% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil use and thus have the lion's share of responsibility for finding the solutions. With less than 5% of the world's population, the US is responsible for about 25% of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions, annually pumping out 20 tons of CO2 per person. In comparison, the entire developing world, consisting of more than 100 countries and representing almost 80% of the world's population, is responsible for around 35% of CO2 emissions. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) Greenpeace, May 1997, Putting a Lid on Fossil Fuels: Why the Atlantic should be a frontier against oil exploration; 2) Greenpeace, May 1997, Governments: Puppets of Industry?; 3) Greenpeace, April 1997, Plugging into the Sun: Kickstarting the Solar Age in Crete; 4) Latest updates on Greenpeace Climate Campaign are on our Internet site ; 5) UNEP Climate Change Fact Sheets, ; 6) IPCC, http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/>. CONTACTS: General Information, contact Martina Krueger, Greenpeace International (tel: 31.20.523.6222, fax: 31.20.523.6200; email: martina.krueger@ams.greenpeace.org); Lyn Goldsworthy, Greenpeace International (tel: 31.20.523.6222, fax: 31.20.523.6200; email: lyn.goldsworthy@dialb.greenpeace.org); and for Political and Scientific Information, contact Bill Hare, Greenpeace International (tel: 31.20.523.6211, fax: 31.20.523.6200; email: bill.hare@ams.greenpeace.org). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUE: THE DECLINE OF CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY SUMMARY: The phrase "corporate accountability" refers to measures which enable governments and the people they represent to hold corporations accountable for their deeds. Since the activities of business and industry, especially transnational corporations (TNCs), are at the root of many of the world's environment and development crises, we should expect to see governments and intergovernmental bodies strengthening corporate accountability measures as part of the follow up to Rio. Instead, during the years since Rio, the trend has been toward holding national governments accountable to TNCs, not the other way around. PROBLEM STATEMENT: In the lead up to Rio, business leaders formed the Business Council for Sustainable Development to advise the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Their stated goal was to lead business toward environmentally sound sustainable development. They also worked with other business groupings, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, to make sure that UNCED did not impose any unwanted regulations on them. During the time that intergovernmental bodies have allowed corporations to define and co-opt the definition of sustainable development, big business has grown ever more powerful. A pattern of mergers and acquisitions has concentrated private wealth in fewer companies, while enforcement of US anti-trust laws has declined. Private investment to developing countries now outstrips aid from business and governments, growing from 33% of capital flowing to developing countries in 1991 to 75% in 1996, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Liberalization of the world's economies has given more freedom to traditional corporations' trade and investment decisions. Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 49 are nation-states and 51 are TNCs. The public message of WBCSD and other groups has been that business now understands and supports the goals of sustainable development and environmental protection, and business will be the leaders achieving both. At the same time, they have been working to avoid regulations of their activities, and working against agreements in the very regimes that UNCED spawned, such as the Climate Convention. For example, in their book "Changing Course" and in other publications, the WBCSD has supported the idea of full cost environmental accounting. Its members, however, have opposed taxes and reductions in subsidies on environmentally harmful products. In the climate negotiations, major fossil fuel companies have lobbied against measures that would begin reversing rising greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the companies even justify this reluctance to change oil use patterns as part of sustainable development. Regarding toxic chemicals, industry has insisted that there be no bans or phase outs of toxic chemicals. Behind the rhetoric and lobby activities of the corporations are two presumptions: 1) free markets are the best assurance of environmental protection. 2) voluntary agreements of corporate responsibility are a central step to environmental protection. Unfortunately, many governments, and the CSD itself, seem now to have accepted these unfounded assumptions. Since Rio, while stalling and obstructing international environmental agreements, transnational industry has been pushing -- very successfully -- a free trade and investment agenda which increases their power vis a vis national governments and reduces their accountability to national governments, communities and intergovernmental bodies. The Uruguay Round of GATT, the North American Free Trade Agreement and OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment (under negotiation) are all examples. The last five years has seen a growth in private sector power, and growth in rhetoric about corporate responsibility. Has industry acted more responsibly? Clearly there are some positive corporate initiatives, but they pale in comparison to what is needed to combat the problems. In most critical issues identified by Rio, industry continues to avoid the changes needed to reverse fundamental problems. SOME KEY FACTS: In the chemical industry, PVC and other organochlorine based products continue to proliferate, spreading especially fast in Asia. Even substances and applications banned in the West are proliferating in the rapidly industrializing regions. **** Shell has been associated with a brutal crackdown against environmental and human rights activists in Nigeria, while even today its substandard operations continue. **** The oil industry continues to explore for new oil in ever expanding areas of the planet, while ignoring the threat to the climate and putting scant resources into solar energy. Mobil Corporation, in one of its weekly ads in the NY Times boasts that in 1997 it will spend 3.5 billion "to bring even more fossils to life." **** The gold industry is expanding at an unprecedented rate, using technologies which rely on toxic chemicals and generate massive quantities of toxic wastes, despite the fact that enough gold already exists to supply technological and jewelry needs. **** Monsanto and Novartis have introduced genetically engineered crops to the world market without allowing consumers the choice of whether to buy them. The U.S. government has agreed with the companies that consumers do not have a right to know whether their food is genetically engineered or not. The last five years have proven beyond a doubt that voluntary measures of corporate responsibility - no matter how well intentioned - are not sufficient to move us toward environmentally sound, socially just development. The Earth Summit's renunciation of measures to hold corporations accountable to inter-governmental bodies was identified by many NGOs as one of its biggest failures. That failure has only intensified in the last five years. To mention just a few examples: 1) The UN closed down the Centre on Transnational Corporations and abandoned the 17-year effort to negotiate a Code of Conduct for TNCs; 2) Attempts to bring lawsuits against U.S. companies for damages outside the U.S. have consistently been thrown out of court; and 3) The CSD has not dealt with the issue of corporate accountability at all. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Just before the 1992 Earth Summit, we published the "Greenpeace Book on Greenwash," exposing the rhetoric and record of the BCSD and nine of its member corporations. Since then we have continued to give quarterly "Greenwash Awards" to companies which tout their environmental awareness while continuing to engage in destructive practices. More generally, many of our efforts to protect the environment are, at base, campaigns for corporate accountability. For over 20 years, Greenpeace has been known for its independence and willingness to take on even the most powerful corporations, to expose their role in environmental destruction, and to support governments' and communities' right to hold them accountable for their actions. SOLUTIONS: UN General Assembly Special Session should reinvigorate the concept of corporate accountability by: 1) creating a subcommission on corporate accountability. The commission would hear complaints by citizens and governments against transnational corporations, with a view toward providing relief to the complainants; 2) insisting that undemocratic institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) be accountable to the UN, with the implications of their decisions subjected to regular environmental impact audits; 3) insisting that all nations and communities have a right to protect the health and environment without legal override by trade agreements. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) Greer and Bruno, "Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism," Third World Network, Penang and Apex Press, New York, 1996; 2) Josh Karliner, "The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization," Sierra club Books, San Francisco, 1997; 3) Jeffrey Barber, "Minding Our Business: The Role of Corporate Accountability in Sustainable Development," Integrative Strategies Forum, Washington D.C., 1997. KEY CONTACTS: Kenny Bruno, Greenpeace International (tel: 1.212.966.4386; fax: 1.212.941.6203; e-mail: ; Sander van Bennekom, ANPED Working Group, Netherlands Committee for IUCN (tel: 31.20.626.1732; fax: 31.20.627.9349). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUE: OVERFISHING AND EXCESS FISHING CAPACITY SUMMARY: At several United Nations fora during the 1990s, governments, international agencies and NGOs have expressed concern over the sustainability of the world's fisheries, their impact on the marine environment, and the excessive size of the world's fishing fleet. Various resolutions have been adopted calling on countries to review the fishing capacity of their fleets and take action to reduce capacity in line with sustainable fishing. Yet the size of the world's fishing fleet continues to relentlessly increase, without heed to the concerns expressed by the international community. Greenpeace is calling on governments and the fishing industry urgently to implement a number of responsible fishing practices and to reverse overfishing and its adverse impact on marine biodiversity. PROBLEM STATEMENT: The world's oceans are under increasing threat from overfishing and excessive fishing pressure. Not only have many major fish stocks been depleted but excess fishing pressure is placing many more marine species at risk. From the North Pacific to the Southern Ocean marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and key fish species in the intricate web of marine biodiversity are being overexploited, caught and killed as 'bycatch', or threatened by the large-scale fisheries for species that are critical links in the marine food chain. Furthermore, there has been an increasing flow of fish from southern countries' waters to the markets of Europe, North America and Japan, often at the expense of local, coastal communities and the food security of developing nations. After rising steadily for decades, world marine fish catches peaked in recent years and have remained at about 80-90 million tons per year. Most catch increase in 1980s came from only five species - sardines, anchovies, pollack, pilchard and jack mackerel - most of which was used to produce food additives, livestock and farmed fish feeds - not for direct human consumption. Numerous other species have reached plateaus in catches, while many higher value species (e.g., cod, hake and haddock) have declined. At the 1992 Earth Summit, governments agreed that fisheries in many areas face "mounting problems" including "overfishing, unauthorized incursions by foreign fleets, ecosystem degradation, overcapitalization and excessive fleet sizes...insufficiently selective gear, and increasing competition between artisanal and large-scale fishing..." (Agenda 21, para. 17.72). Despite this recognition, a global review of data from 1991-1997 on large-scale, industrial fishing fleets shows that, with the exception of 1995 and 1996, the numbers and tonnage of new vessel construction continues to rise, and that overall the fleet size continues to grow. Furthermore, new vessel construction is specialized toward large vessels using large mid-water trawls, highly automated 'longlines' of up to 50,000 hooks per vessel, and deep water trawl and longline fishing technology. Governments have failed to address the problem of excessive fleet size, highlighted at the Earth Summit and subsequent UN meetings and agreements - in fact the problem has worsened. There is an urgent need to significantly reduce the size and fishing capacity of the world's industrial fleets to ensure fisheries conservation, minimize the impact of fishing on other marine species, and ensure that interests of coastal and traditional fishing communities are protected. SOME KEY FACTS: The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that almost 70% of the world's major fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted. **** Some 27 million tons of unwanted fish 'bycatch' is caught, killed and dumped back into the sea each year, because of unselective fishing practices and gear.**** Over 1600 new industrial fishing vessels totalling over 1 million GRT (Gross Registered Tons) were added to the world's fleet between 1991-1995. **** Of the 3.5 million fishing vessels worldwide, about 38,000, or 1% by number, are classified as large-scale, industrial vessels. These vessels, however, constitute 50-60% of the total vessel 'capacity' (measured in GRT) of the world's fishing fleet. **** The UN FAO estimated that in 1989 the world's fishing fleet, primarily the large-scale, industrialized sector, received some $54 billion dollars (US) in subsidies. **** A million people in Asia alone depend on fish as their primary source of animal protein. **** Small-scale, artisanal fisheries produce approximately one half of all fish caught for human consumption. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: One of the most important outcomes of the 1992 Earth Summit was the agreement to set up the UN Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (1993-1995). Greenpeace was an active and influential participant in the Conference, which produced the most important international fisheries agreement since the conclusion of the Law of the Sea negotiations in 1982. In addition, over the past 5 years Greenpeace has stepped up its efforts in challenging environmentally destructive fishing through confrontations at sea, public education, research, documentation and lobbying. Amongst the many campaigns around the world that Greenpeace is waging there are: 1) Pressuring the government of Italy and the European Union to put an end to high seas driftnet fishing in the Mediterranean by a fleet of some 600 Italian vessels operating in blatant violation of the UN ban on such fishing; 2) Demanding a moratorium on the fishery for bluefin tuna (one of the world's most valuable and depleted fish species) by Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and others in the Southern Ocean and an end to the 'incidental' killing of tens of thousands of seabirds in this fishery, including endangered species of albatross; 3) Calling for the rapid phase-out of factory trawl fishing by a fleet of super trawlers operating in U.S. waters in the North Pacific Ocean; 4) Challenging some of the world's largest, most destructive fishing vessels. For example, Greenpeace, together with inshore fishermen, recently fought successfully to deny access to fish in Chile's waters to the American Monarch, a new, $65 million dollar (U.S.) state of the art vessel built to catch over 1000 tons of fish per day, owned by one of the largest multinational fishing companies, Aker/RGI, Norway; and 5) Working with a growing network of activist and fishworkers' organizations worldwide to confront the movement of large-scale distant water fishing fleets from the overexploited waters of northern countries to southern countries' waters in search of fish. SOLUTIONS: Globally, Greenpeace is calling on governments and industry to urgently implement ecologically responsible fishing practices and reverse overfishing and its adverse impact on marine biodiversity through: 1) Substantial reductions in the numbers and capacity of the world's industrial fishing fleets; 2) Eliminating subsidies to destructive fishing practices, large-scale and distant water fishing fleets, and new fishing vessel construction; 3) Establishing or strengthening fishing vessel decommissioning schemes; 4) Preventing reflagging and flag of convenience vessels from fishing; and 5) Halting the "export" of large-scale fishing vessels from northern to southern countries waters. We also are calling on all fishing nations to ratify and implement the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. This treaty contains detailed conservation measures, requires the application of precaution and the recognition of the interests of artisanal fishers, and obliges governments to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) Greenpeace: "Sinking Fast, How Factory Trawlers are Destroying U.S. Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems". 1996; 2) UN FAO: "State of the World's Fisheries and Aquaculture". UN FAO 1995; 3)UN FAO "State of the World's Fisheries and Aquaculture 1996," UN FAO, 1997; 4) Garcia and Newton, "Current situation, trends and prospects in world capture fisheries". Paper presented at the Conference on Fisheries Management, Seattle, WA USA, 14-16 June 1994; 5) Greenpeace: "Assessment of the World's Industrial Fishing Fleet". (To be published in the latter half of 1997); KEY CONTACTS: Greenpeace Fisheries/Oceans Campaign,Greenpeace International, Matthew Gianni (tel:1.415.512.9025; fax:1.415.512.8699; email: mgianni@mail.sfo.us.gl3), Clifton Curtis (tel: 1.202.319.2473; fax:1.202.462.4507; email: clif.curtis@wdc.greenpeace.org), or the Greenpeace office nearest you; Fisheries Department, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy (tel: 39.6.522.56423; fax: 39.6.522.53605). GREENPEACE/ES2 POSITION: FOREST PROTECTION/SPECIES CONSERVATION SUMMARY: The world's remaining natural forests are a highly threatened and rapidly diminishing part of our global heritage. Old-growth and natural forests are the most important reservoirs of biological diversity, and these areas must be conserved if their associated species are to be protected. Half of the world's natural forests have already been cleared and 60% of what remains has already been significantly degraded and fragmented by human activities. Logging is the leading cause of the loss and fragmentation of natural forests. Less than 6% of the world's natural forests are currently protected. Based on the scientific consensus emerging from the principles of Conservation Biology, Greenpeace outlines the structure of an effective global protected areas strategy, notes particular forest "hot-spots" that must be resolved, and details the steps the world's governments must take to adequately and comprehensively conserve the planet's forests and forest- dependent species. PROBLEM STATEMENT: Natural forests are among the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet and also among the most threatened. Of the 50% of the planet's original forest cover that has been cleared, the majority of the deforestation has occurred during the last 30 years. World forest cover is now being deforested or degraded at the rate of approximately 26 million hectares a year. An estimated 50-90% of the world's plant and animal species depend on forests. Although habitat loss was found by UNEP to be the leading cause of species loss and endangerment, less than 6% of the world's natural forests are now protected, often without adequate linkage, with much of the protection on paper only. Recent studies show that protecting only 10% of the world's natural forests will cause 50% of the planet's plant and animal species to go extinct. Worldwide, the IUCN reports that the percent of "Red List" species endangered by loss of forest and other natural habitat is: 75% of mammals, 42% of birds, 53% of amphibians and 66% of reptiles. Natural forests also store the highest amounts of carbon. Logging/Conversion to plantations also releases this carbon, exacerbating the climate change problem. Seventy-five percent of the world's large remaining intact forest areas are now limited to only three regions - Canada, Russia and the Amazon Basin - which are all targeted for extensive commercial logging. Pockets of old-growth and primary forests also remain in most countries, and their relative scarcity makes their conservation and restoration even more important. Activities such as mining, oil drilling and colonization are also leading pathways of forest degradation, and are often ignored or even encouraged in areas designated by governments as "protected". Also, the world's remaining natural forests are the traditional lands of over 50 million indigenous people. Their cultures and livelihoods are being destroyed by industrial logging and other resource extraction operations. CASE STUDIES: Amazon Basin: The rate of deforestation in Brazil, which contains 65% of the forests of the Amazon Basin, has increased by 34% since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (nearly 15,000 km2 a year). There also is extensive forest damage and degradation being caused by illegal predatory logging for high-value species such as mahogany and virola. Asian logging firms - primarily Malaysian - are among leading destroyers of tropical rainforests and are now moving heavily into Brazil, Guyana and Suriname. Commercial logging typically initiates a cycle of forest destruction, leading to burning and conversion to farmland or pasture. Also, foreign capital is being devoted towards huge "mega-projects" - roadbuilding, waterway linkage, mining, and drilling - that will fragment the Basin. Canada: In the two most biologically-rich areas of Canada - British Columbia's (B.C.'s) coastal temperate rainforest and B.C.'s interior Douglas fir zone, less than 6% of the forest is protected, mainly in isolated fragments. No endangered species laws conserve forest-dependent species, contravening the Convention on Biological Diversity. The vast majority of the timber licenses granted are on lands claimed by aboriginal First Nations. Recent laws touted as protecting B.C.'s forests not only fail to eliminate clearcutting, protect riparian zones or conserve species, but also are not being enforced by Provincial Ministries. B.C.'s rainforests have the highest biomass (living and dead organic matter) of any forests on Earth and the most old-growth dependent species in North America, but are currently being converted to even-aged, managed forests faster than any other natural forest in the temperate regions. Russia: With one-quarter of the world's remaining natural forests, Russia is losing about a million hectares of old-growth forests each year due to clearcut logging operations. Russia is being targeted as the next source for softwood logs for pulp and timber by Scandinavian, Asian and North American companies. The promise of investments in exchange for logging rights puts pressure on the Government to weaken environmental standards that presently protects over one hundred million hectares of ecologically critical forests. Additionally, there is insufficient enforcement of existing federal laws that recognize indigenous peoples' right to manage their lands and restrict destructive industrial development. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: In cooperation with forest peoples and local environmental groups, Greenpeace is working to permanently protect the integrity of the intact areas of North and South America's coastal temperate rainforests through public outreach, legislative reform and interventions into the global wood products marketplace. Across Russia, Greenpeace is cooperating with all levels of government and NGOs to establish World Heritage Sites for the most biologically significant and intact forest areas. To date, World Heritage Sites covering over ten million hectares have been established, with plans for four more sites covering an additional ten million hectares. Protection of the greatest biological treasure on Earth, the Amazon Basin, has been supported by Greenpeace through lobbying for the elimination of predatory logging of mahogany through listing on CITES Appendix II and support for the demarcation of indigenous peoples' traditional territories. SOLUTIONS: Greenpeace calls for governments to implement protected areas strategies that are ecologically representative, comprehensive, large enough to adequately maintain viable populations of all associated species and natural dynamics as well as ensuring the rights of traditional forest-dependent cultures through the following policies: 1) Tripling the total area of ecologically representative networks of protected forest areas by 2000 towards a goal of global protected areas that are large enough to maintain viable populations of all associated species and natural dynamics; 2) Restoration of underrepresented forest ecosystems to meet the protected area species conservation objectives and ensuring adequate connectivity between protected areas; 3) Eliminating the conversion of natural forests to semi-natural or monoculture plantations; 4) Continuing the process of demarcating all indigenous-claimed lands in the Amazon Basin and implementing adequate extractive reserves and non-resource extraction zones; 5) Participation of indigenous peoples in conservation measures, based on the recognition of their rights to manage and use their traditional forest areas. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) Logging the Planet: Asian Companies marching across our last forest frontiers, Greenpeace submission to the External Commission about Foreign Logging Companies in the Amazon, Brazil, 1997; 2) Bad Harvest: The Timber Trade and the Degradation of the World's Forests. Dudley et al, 1995; 3) Forest Management at Loggerheads: 1996 Update Report on Illegal Logging in the Brazilian Amazon. FOE-Programa Amazonia, 1997; 4) Managing the World's Forests: Looking for Balance between Conservation and Development. Sharma et al. 1992; 5) Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP, 1996; 6) Saving Nature's Legacy; Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Noss and Cooperider, 1994; 7) Beyond Brundtland, Soule and Muttlingam, 1997. KEY CONTACTS: Greenpeace International, Clifton Curtis/Washington (tel: 1.202.319.2473; fax: 1.202.462/4507; e- mail: clif.curtis@wdc.greenpeace.org) and/or Christoph Thies/Amsterdam (tel: 31.20.523.6278; fax: 31.20.523.6200; email: christoph.thies@de.greenpeace.org). GREENPEACE/ES2 POSITIONS: FOREST ACTION NEEDED, NOT A NEW CONVENTION SUMMARY: In the five years since Rio, global forest destruction has worsened, not improved. Two key global conventions, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), both opened for signing at Rio and now in force, provide mandates and legal frameworks for effective coordinated global action to protect forests and promote ecologically responsible use. Sadly, governments have yet to implement forest related measures under these conventions; despite a broad consensus among international legal experts that these and a handful of other treaties provide governments with virtually all the elements needed for meaningful action to save forests. The legal framework to save forests already exists. What is missing is the political will to implement, coordinate and strengthen forest-related elements of existing instruments and obligations. Proposals by some governments to start negotiations on a forests convention are too narrowly focused on forestry ministry/industry promotion of timber extraction and trade, and would sanction the very destructive forestry practices driving global deforestation and forest degradation. They inadequately address conservation and sustainable use of forest biological diversity, non-timber forest values, the rights of indigenous peoples and other environmental and social issues. A stand-alone forest convention would actually weaken existing agreements, particularly the CBD. For these and other reasons, the proposed Forest Convention is better named a "Chainsaw Convention." PROBLEM STATEMENT: Global action on forests remains mired in largely sterile inter-governmental debates, shallow posturing, failure to implement existing agreements, declining funding and government unwillingness to address underlying forces that drive deforestation and forest degradation worldwide. Forests are matters of national sovereignty, indigenous peoples rights, and local use, but they also provide ecological services critical to the long-term health and functioning of the planet, especially as reservoirs of biodiversity and regulators of global climate. They are home to 50-90% of the world's species, and millions of indigenous peoples. These biological and cultural legacies are invaluable, but commercial logging and deforestation increasingly threatens them with extinction. Forests are also a globally significant reservoir of carbon. As forests are logged and cleared, sequestered carbon is released into the atmosphere. Global warming further compounds the problem, leading to extensive forest areas becoming drier and more susceptible to huge wildfires and insect attacks, causing further releases of carbon into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels contributes about 80% of the carbon released into the atmosphere. A rapid transition to reliance on renewable energy must be a global priority, with a quick halt to deforestation an essential complementary strategy, to reduce disruptions to the global climate system. SOME KEY FACTS: More than ten forest-related conventions exist, including the CBD, the FCCC, the Convention to Combat Desertification, the International Tropical Timber Agreement, the Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. **** There were no IPF experts group meetings on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation IPF. Surely coming to common agreements on the CAUSES of deforestation and forest degradation is an essential pre-condition before deciding if a new convention is needed. . **** Industrial logging is implicated as the lead culprit in the forest biodiversity crisis from boreal Sweden and Canada to the tropics of Africa, the Amazon and Asia-Pacific **** A 1997 study by the World Resources Institute found that less than 20% of the worlds original natural forests remain in relatively large functionally intact blocks, so-called "Frontier Forests". Three countries, Brazil, Canada and Russia contain more than 70% of the world's remaining frontier forests. Under current trends 75% of these could be lost in the next 5-10 years. Industrial logging was found to be the biggest single threat. **** A 1995 WWF study of the global forest crisis, "Bad Harvest," also identified the timber industry as the single biggest threat to old-growth and other high biodiversity value forests around the world. **** Upwards to 50,000 species are estimated to be driven to extinction each year due to forest destruction. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Greenpeace campaigns worldwide against destructive logging practices including in Canada, Brazil, Russia, the US, Chile, New Zealand, the South Pacific, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Spain and Finland. We are working to end industry reliance on clearcutting, overcutting, highgrading and other destructive forestry practices, and to strengthen protections for remaining ancient and old-growth forests. We combine campaigning in regions of forest destruction with consumer awareness campaigns in key market countries, and seek a rapid switch to ecologically and socially responsible forest use. Greenpeace delegations have participated in all of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests sessions, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as CITES. Greenpeace has also prepared six UNESCO World Heritage nominations in Russia covering over 20 million hectares. SOLUTIONS: 1) Continue the CSD's Inter-Agency Task Force on Forests to provide coordination of forest related activities among UN agencies and relevant Convention Secretariats; 2) Full implementation, coordination and strengthening of forest related elements under existing agreements, with particular emphasis on the CBD; 3) Reject any commitments to start negotiations on a new forest convention - no chainsaw convention; 4) Comply with Rio/Agenda 21 agreements to provide greater assistance to promote sustainable development in developing countries; 5) Assess and improve the quality of aid, and target aid towards forest conservation and bottom-up and community-led efforts to promote ecologically responsible forest use; 6) Commit to halt all further destruction of primary and old-growth forests by the year 2000; 7) OECD countries should establish national targets to reduce over consumption and wasteful consumption of forest products; 8) Ensure full participation of environmental and social NGOs, indigenous peoples and women in all forest related decision making processes and development initiatives; 9) Triple the area of ecologically representative protected natural forests by the year 2000, with a six-fold increase by the year 2005; 10) Ban destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting, overcutting and highgrading; 11) Convene an open, participatory, international experts panel to examine Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation and make recommendations for action; 12) Implement the Action Points in chapters I-IV of the IPF report by, inter alia, a) reducing the debt burdens of heavily indebted forested countries and thus lessening pressures for the unsustainable cutting of their natural forests for foreign exchange; b) dramatically improving the scientific rigor and comprehensiveness of global forest assessments of the state of the world's forests, with a particular emphasis on forest quality indicators; c) helping local communities to promote better conservation and sustainable use of their forests; d) investigating and working to eliminate trade in illegally cut timber; e) improving forest valuation techniques in order to reflect the full range of environmental and social services provided by forests and not just their timber values; and f) adopting full-cost accounting techniques which include environmental and social costs RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) "Forests, the FAO Ministerial and 1995 CSD - The Way Forward," briefing document prepared for the CSD intersessional meeting, NY, 27 February - 3 March, 1995. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam; 2) "Options for Strengthening the International Legal Regime for Forests. Prepared by the IUCN Law Center for the European Commission, with the European Forest Institute and the Center for International Forestry Research, 1997 (78 pp.). KEY CONTACTS: Greenpeace International, Clifton Curtis (tel: 1.202.319.2473; fax: 1.202.462.4507; e-mail: ) or Bill Barclay (tel: 1.415.512.9025; fax: 1.415.512.8699; e- mail:). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUE: NUCLEAR POWER SUMMARY: Commercial nuclear power was born out of the so called "atoms for peace" programme after World War II. Scientists and politicians made enthusiastic claims about the benefits that nuclear energy would bring to the world. It was claimed that nuclear electricity would become "too cheap to meter". At the end of 1996 there were 437 commercial nuclear reactors in operation around the world, and "officially" 39 under construction. There is more nuclear power capacity being lost through reactor closures than there is by reactors being built. PROBLEM STATEMENT: The consequences of a major nuclear power accident are truly catastrophic. No other electricity generating system creates such risks. The accident that "could never happen", happened at Chernobyl in 1986, caused radioactive contamination to spread across the European continent. Chernobyl has caused and continues to cause health, environmental, economic and social impacts thousands of miles away. In the countries most affected it is expected that the total cost of the accident will be over $300 billion. At the time of the accident over 400 000 people were evacuated from their homes. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle: uranium mining; enrichment; fuel fabrication; reactor operation; and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Most of the current proposed 'solutions' for dealing with nuclear waste envisage burying it underground with the hope that radioactivity does not escape. This "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy was born largely under the pressures of having to convince a worried public that nuclear industry knows how to dispose of its wastes rather than having been based on a proven safety case. While nuclear waste certainly will be a problem in the future, it is also a problem for today's society. In country after country, region after region, individuals and communities are rejecting nuclear waste disposal schemes. For example, in 1996 protests against the dumping of radioactive waste in the north of Germany caused the mobilisation of over 30,000 police and cost the taxpayer over 100 million DM (US$53m). The only "solution" to the problem is that nuclear waste should stop being produced anywhere in the world and that the existing waste be managed to the highest possible standard. The original use of separated plutonium was the manufacture of nuclear weapons. As well as producing a nuclear waste legacy, nuclear power plants produce plutonium, the primary material used in most nuclear weapons. The links between the civilian use of nuclear technology and military applications is one of the most disturbing aspects of the nuclear age. But it is hardly surprising. The very first crude nuclear reactors were specifically built in the 1940s and 1950s in order to produce plutonium for the United States, the former Soviet Union and British nuclear weapons. As nuclear power technology spreads around the globe so does the risk of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons can be constructed using plutonium from military or civilian sources. Today, the growing stockpiles of "civilian" plutonium add greatly to the concern of nuclear proliferation. Ultimately, the only way to stop nuclear weapons production and proliferation is an international accord banning the production and use of plutonium and other weapons-usable fissile materials. SOME KEY FACTS: Reactors world-wide are ageing, creating new and unanticipated safety problems. These problems start to occur when the reactors have about 20 years of operation, sometimes less. By the turn of the century about 200 nuclear power plants will have been in operation world-wide for longer than 20 years. Half of these will be at least 25 years old. **** Some radioactive waste is so highly radioactive that it will have to be isolated from the environment for 250 000 thousand years. This entails building a containment which will last 50 times longer than the time that the first Egyptian pyramids have existed until today. **** Over 160,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel alone, had been produced by the end of 1995. Thousands of cubic metres of other types of radioactive waste already exist. **** Over 2000 nuclear weapons tests took place in the atmosphere, under the sea and underground, before a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Greenpeace has been working against the development and use of nuclear weapons since the Organization started in 1971, with a protest against nuclear weapons testing by the U.S. In 1978 Greenpeace began its campaign against the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, a year before the Three Mile Island accident occurred. At the same time, in Europe, Greenpeace began a campaign against the dumping of radioactive waste at sea, which would continue until 1993 when the dumping was finally banned. The campaign against the transportation and reprocessing of nuclear waste began in 1979 and continues today against the reprocessing industries in France, Japan and the United Kingdom. Following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, Greenpeace intensified its work on the safety of nuclear reactors by highlighting the dangers that nuclear power posed and the viability of alternative sources of energy. Greenpeace continues to campaign for a phase-out of nuclear power and an end to the separation of plutonium. SOLUTIONS: The essential solution is a phase-out of nuclear power and the end to nuclear fuel reprocessing. Nuclear power must be replaced by ecologically sustainable energy systems - such as solar, wind, bio-fuel plantations, energy efficiency and conservation. This will require: 1) an immediate halt to the construction of all new nuclear reactors; 2) all loans and grants for the completion and/or upgrading of nuclear reactors should be abandoned and redirected to renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies; 3) all countries with nuclear power must develop sustainable energy programmes based on the rapid phase-out of existing nuclear power plants; 4) transfer of all government subsidies from nuclear power to renewable and energy efficiency programmes; 5) all national and international funding for research and development on developing nuclear power should be redirected into renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes; 6) an immediate halt to the separation and use of all weapons-usable fissile materials; and 7) existing radioactive waste must be kept in a monitorable, retrievable condition. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) International Nuclear Reactor Hazard Study, Greenpeace 1986. World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 1992, 1995, 1997; 2) Liquid Discharges from European Reprocessing Facilities, May 1997; 3) Energy Subsidies in Europe. How Governments use taxpayers' money to promote Climate change and nuclear risk, 1997. KEY CONTACTS: Latest updates on Greenpeace Nuclear campaign and nuclear facility maps can be found at: http://www.greenpeace.org/no.nukes. For further information on the campaign, contact Greenpeace International's Shaun Burnie (tel: 31.20.523.6257; fax: 31.20.523.6200; e-mail: ); Antony Froggatt (tel: 44.171.865.8282; fax: 44.171.865.8257; e-mail: ); Karen Richardson (tel: 44.171.865.8281; fax: 44.171.865.8257; e-mail: ). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUES: GLOBAL BAN ON PERSISTENT TOXIC CHEMICALS SUMMARY: As follow-up to the Earth Summit, governments agreed in February 1997 to negotiate a legally binding global convention to reduce and/or eliminate persistent organic pollutants or "POPs." POPs are toxic substances that disrupt ecosystems and injure human health. They travel long distances and can become more concentrated as they move up the food chain. Most POPs are chlorine-containing, synthetic compounds, as are all of the POPs that have been given highest priority. Greenpeace has been campaigning for over a decade to eliminate POPs and their sources. POPs negotiations, scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 1998, can reach commitments by governments for action that will eliminate this grave threat. Greenpeace will do all in our power to make certain this happens. PROBLEM STATEMENT: Persistent Organic Pollutants or "POPs" are a class of pollutants that, by definition, have the following characteristics: 1) POPs remain in the environment for a long time and resist; 2) degradation; 3) POPs can travel long distances (across boundaries) on currents of air or water, or by other means; and 4) POPs are highly toxic and can injure biota and humans at very low concentrations and in regions distant from their source. Many POPs disrupt the endocrine system and are associated with reproductive failure, immune system disorder, behavior and learning disorders, cancers, tumors and other afflictions. POPs disrupt ecosystems and injure human health. POPs often build up through the food chain and can reach concentrations in wildlife and humans thousands of times higher than in the surrounding air, water and soil. POPs are now found at dangerous levels in people and biota in every region of the globe. Many POPs tend, over time, to migrate from warmer to colder regions. Evidence shows POPs have injured birds, mammals and humans at locations thousands of miles from their likely source. There is no place to hide. Political agreements have been signed to eliminate POPs and similar pollutants in some regions of the world, but there has been little practical implementation. Given the global nature of POPs contamination, international action is required. At its 19th Governing Council Meeting in February, 1997, UNEP agreed to start negotiations toward a legally binding global convention to address POPs. The first meeting of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) will take place in January-March 1998. Most identified POPs are products and/or by-products of industrial chlorine chemistry. Each of the POPs identified by UNEP on its early action short list are chlorine-containing compounds called "organochlorines." Substances on that short list -- the ultra-toxic dioxins and furans -- are generated as unwanted wastes whenever organochlorine materials or chlorine- dependent processes are used. SOME KEY FACTS: Some 170 organochlorines of industrial origin have been found in human tissue, even more in animals. Over 11,000 organochlorines are currently in commerce. Organochlorines are also present in breast milk, human blood and semen. **** All 12 of the POPs on the short list for immediate global action are organochlorines: DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor, endrin, mirex, aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans. **** Of the 12, DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor, endrin, mirex, aldrin and dieldrin are pesticides. PCBs and hexachlorobenzene are industrial chemicals. Dioxins, furans, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene and toxaphene can arise as by-products of the production, use and disposal by incineration of chlorine-containing chemicals. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Greenpeace was among the first Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) pressuring governments, corporations and others to take action that will eliminate persistent organic pollutants at their source while promoting clean production as the way forward. This has been a centerpiece of Greenpeace toxics campaign work in over 20 countries for the past decade. Greenpeace has raised demands for intergovernmental action to phase out sources of persistent organic pollutants, especially organochlorines, in regional seas fora over the past decade, especially fora addressing pollution of the Great Lakes (US/Canada International Joint Commission); the North Sea (Oslo and Paris Commission; North Sea Ministers Conferences); the Baltic (Helsinki Commission), the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention), and others. As a follow-up to obligations that stem from the 1992 Earth Summit, Greenpeace has actively campaigned to convince governments that a legally binding global convention will be needed to rid the earth of POPs and their sources. Work toward an effective POPs Agreement and successful implementation is a Greenpeace priority. SOLUTIONS: Urgent commitments will be needed to phase out POPs and their sources, and to move toward a global system of clean production. Leaders should pledge their countries to conclude a legally binding, global agreement on POPs by 2000 at the latest. The agreement must include a realistic mechanism to expand the POPs action list beyond the original short list of twelve and must include real and enforceable commitments to: 1) Phase out production of intentionally produced POPs in every region and in every country; 2) Phase out production and use of synthetic materials that always generate POPs as unwanted wastes during their ordinary life-cycle; 3) Clean up POPs stockpiles and environmental reservoirs using technologies that do not create by-products that are also POPs; 4) Introduce clean products and processes that can serve as effective replacements to POPs and their sources; 5) Provide newly industrializing countries the needed financial, technical and other assistance required to take appropriate action. In this context, governments in OECD and newly industrializing countries can hasten the shift to non- toxic and resource-efficient food and manufacturing systems. If priority is placed on the development and use of existing and economically viable alternative systems and materials, POPs could be phased out rapidly. RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) Report of the Ad Hoc POPs Working Group, Intergovernmental Forum On Chemical Safety; Manila, the Philippines, June 1996; 2) International Experts Meeting on Persistent Organic Pollutants: Towards Global Action, Meeting Statement; Vancouver, Canada, Signed by approximately 100 experts, June, 1995; 3) Statement from the Work Session on Environmental Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Neural, Endocrine, and Behavioral Effects, Erice Italy, Signed by 18 scientists, November 1995, 7 pages. Body of Evidence: The Effects of Chlorine on Human Health, Greenpeace International, May 1995, 90 pages; 4) Death in Small Doses: The Effects of Organochlorines on AquaticEcosystems, Greenpeace International, September 1992, 28 pages; 5) Dioxin From Cradle to Grave, Greenpeace USA, April 1997, 59 pages; 6) Achieving Zero Dioxin: An Emergency Strategy for Dioxin Elimination, Greenpeace International, December 1994, 52 pages. KEY CONTACTS: Greenpeace International: Remi Parmentier (tel: 31.20.523.6242, fax: 31.20.523.6200; email: remi.parmentier@dialb.greenpeace.org), Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Greenpeace USA: Jack Weinberg, 847 W. Jackson Blvd.-7th Floor, Chicago, Illinois, USA 60607. (tel: 1.312.563.6060 x 213, fax: 1.312.563.6099;email: jack.weinberg@dialb.greenpeace.org); Greenpeace Science Unit: Pat Costner, Earth Resources Center, Exeter University, North Park Rd, Exeter, UK EX4 4QE. (tel: 44.1.392.263 917, fax 44.1392.263.907; email: pat.costner@dialb.greenpeace.org); UNEP Chemicals Office, Geneva Switzerland, Case postale 356; 15, Chemin des Anemones; CH 1219 Chatelain; Geneva (tel: 41.22.979.9111, ). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUE:THE DESTRUCTIVE LEGACY OF SHRIMP FARMING SUMMARY: Over the past fifteen years, the shrimp farming industry has rapidly expanded to meet growing consumer demand in the United States, Europe and Japan. This uncontrolled expansion has caused extensive environmental damage and social upheaval in several tropical developing coastal countries in Asia and Latin America. PROBLEM STATEMENT: In a 1995 review of the state of world aquaculture, The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) characterized the problems as follows: "The inexorable global expansion of marine shrimp farming generated by market demand, short-term gain and government support because of export earnings has brought with it super-intensive systems, nomadic farmers, environmental and sociological disputes, water quality and disease problems and crashes in the production of some countries." Vital coastal wetlands and farmlands are destroyed by shrimp farms. During operations a `toxic soup' of waste and pollution is generated through the intensive application of feeds, fertilizers, and other chemicals which is discharged, with shrimp feces, into surrounding areas - posing environmental and human health threats. Draining brackish wastewater from ponds is also responsible for salinization of agricultural land and freshwater reservoirs and/or groundwater supplies. Extraction of large amounts of freshwater from underground supplies can result in damaging hydrological impacts, such as major land subsidence, and compound the problem of salinization of freshwater aquifers near the coast. Biodiversity threats arise when large areas of coastal habitats are transformed into shrimp farms - for example, mangroves are vital as fish rearing and feeding grounds, and also provide overwintering grounds for many migratory birds. Other biodiversity threats result from reductions and genetic changes in wild populations of the cultured species, the introduction of exotic species into the environment, contamination of the surrounding environment by disease and/or pharmaceuticals introduced into the production cycle (e.g., dissemination of antibiotics in medicated feeds) to fight them, and predator control (i.e., deliberate culls of predators and introduction of chemicals to control predators and pests). The heavy reliance of shrimp aquafeed on fishmeal also means increasing competition for dwindling fisheries resources. Social conflict in areas where shrimp farms take over is intensifying. Affected communities are dispossessed of several vital resources over which they had traditional rights based on long-standing use patterns - e.g., for rice lands, mangrove forests and freshwater supplies. Displaced families (traditional fishers and farmers) are often forced to resort to destructive fishing methods or improper methods of husbandry to extract livelihoods from areas that are diminishing in size and deteriorating in quality. Otherwise, displaced rural families migrate to cities in the hope of finding jobs, contributing to the growing urban migration crisis being confronted in the developing world. SOME KEY FACTS: Top Shrimp Producers in 1995 (% of World Production/Production - metric tons): Thailand (31%/220,000); Ecuador (14%/100,000); Indonesia (11%/80,000); China (10%/70,000); India (8.5%/60,000; Vietnam (7%/50,000); Bangladesh (4%/30,000); Others (14.5%/112,000) - for a total of 100%/712,000 metric tons. **** Shrimp Trade: Shrimp is the single most valuable seafood product traded internationally - about 900,000 tons enters international trade worth about seven billion dollars a year (about 18 percent of the value of all global fisheries exports). Even though farmed shrimp is only about 1/4th of total annual shrimp production, it constitutes nearly 1/2 of all shrimp traded internationally. The U.S. and Japan consume the bulk of the world's farmed shrimp (e.g. it's estimated that up to 1/2 of all shrimp sold in the U.S. is imported farmed shrimp), and European consumption is growing rapidly. ****Destruction: More than a million hectares (2.5 million acres) of ecologically vital coastal wetlands, including mangrove forests, have been destroyed during the course of shrimp aquaculture's rapid expansion. An example can be seen in Thailand -- the world's leading shrimp farming country. An AP article from May 8, 1995 quotes Santi Bang-oa, assistant secretary-general of Thailand's National Economic and Social Development Board, saying that about 634,000 acres of his country's 950,000 acres of mangrove forests had been destroyed by years of shrimp farm construction, and that about 1/4th of the shrimp farms built are abandoned after a period and that the soil left behind is useless for other purposes. **** Unsustainable: A recent important World Bank funded study on the sustainability of Thailand's shrimp aquaculture industry produced by the private consulting firm MIDAS came to this frank conclusion: "An analysis of the development of the intensive shrimp farming industry in southeast Asia...has highlighted the historical unsustainability of the industry....the unsustainable nature of the Thai intensive shrimp industry has resulted in decreasing pond production, increased crop and farm failure...and environmental and socio-economic degradation." (page 49, MIDAS Report, 1995). **** Wasteful: Farmed shrimp feed utilizes large amounts of fresh fish. It takes about four kilograms of fresh fish ground into meal to produce one kilogram of cultured shrimp. Thus, shrimp farming, nutritionally, is a wasteful net loss of protein. **** Jobs lost: An economics study at Chittagong University in Bangladesh revealed that shrimp farming often displaces more jobs than it creates. Cultivating 100 acres of land with rice employs 50 workers, while cultivating shrimp on the same land employs just five workers. Consequently, aquaculture drives urbanization. Shrimp farming in Bangladesh's coastal Satkhira region displaced 40 percent of the area's 300,000 inhabitants to the country's overcrowded cities. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Twice in recent years Greenpeace has sent protest ships to the Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacific coast in Central America to support local communities fighting uncontrolled proliferation of shrimp farms. We currently work with other concerned local and international groups to formalize a global alliance opposed to shrimp farming, and has helped organize several conferences involving concerned local, national and international groups, such as the NGO Forum on Shrimp Aquaculture held in Choluteca, Honduras in October 1996 attended by 21 NGOs from Latin America, India, Europe and the U.S. The Choluteca Declaration was adopted outlining major demands including the call for a GLOBAL MORATORIUM on new shrimp farm construction and an end to human rights abuses caused by the shrimp farming industry. Greenpeace lobbies at various UN related conferences and assemblies dealing with sustainable development, fisheries and oceans protection seeking recognition and resolution of the problems being caused by shrimp aquaculture. SOLUTIONS: By failing to act to protect coastal and marine environments from the destructive impacts of shrimp aquaculture, governments are failing to meet the challenges contained in their 1992 Earth Summit commitments. Greenpeace is focusing on two key objectives for immediate government action: 1) an immediate halt to the expansion of new shrimp farm construction that fails to comply with environmental and social sustainability criteria set down in the Choluteca Declaration of October 1996; and 2) a broad, worldwide commitment by governments and the private sector to a transition over the next few years to ecologically responsible and socially sustainable shrimp aquaculture, to include the winding down of all current shrimp farming operations worldwide that fail to comply within a five-year time frame with environmental and social sustainability requirements set down in the Choluteca Declaration. Additionally, the companies that invest in shrimp farm development and the seafood traders that buy, sell and profit from shrimp must comply with purchasing criteria and practices that are consistent with NGO demands for environmental and social sustainability. RELEVANT REPORTS: Greenpeace. Shrimp - The Devastating Delicacy, 1997. Available in print from GP USA (TEL: 1.202.462.1177; fax:1.202.462.4507; or on the Worldwide Web: KEY CONTACTS: Greenpeace International Fisheries Campaign, Matthew Gianni (tel: .415.512.9025; fax: 1.415.512.8699; e-mail: ), or Mike Hagler (tel/fax: 64.9.445.2548; e-mail: ). GREENPEACE/ES2 ISSUE: INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN WASTES SUMMARY: In the five years since Rio, excellent progress has been made toward stopping the worst of the international trade in hazardous wastes. The key action was the decision of the Basel Convention in March 1994 to prohibit waste shipments from the rich countries of the OECD to the rest of the world. For wastes headed for final disposal, the ban came into effect immediately; for recycling, the ban takes effect at the end of 1997. This decision, also known as the "Basel Ban," is the fulfilment of a recommendation in Agenda 21. Other areas of toxic trade have not seen such substantial progress. Trade in toxic, banned pesticides still occurs. While negotiations for a prior informed consent procedure are well underway, this procedure will not prevent trade in those pesticides. Exports of genetically manipulated organisms which can cause harm to ecosystems in importing countries are just beginning, virtually without regulation. Trade in spent nuclear fuel from Europe and Japan to France and Britain for storage and reprocessing continues unabated. Discharges from three commercial reprocessing facilities in Europe continue to release radiation to the environment. The same facilities have large stockpiles of plutonium and high level radioactive wastes. Shipments of plutonium fuel (mixed plutonium/uranium oxides, or MOX), are scheduled to increase over the next few years, as are shipments of high level wastes. In addition, there have been attempts to begin trade in so- called "low level" radioactive wastes from Taiwan to North Korea. PROBLEM STATEMENT: "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that...under populated countries such as Africa are vastly under-polluted." --Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist of the World Bank. In the late 1980s Greenpeace researchers discovered a pattern of waste shipments from richer industrialized nations to poorer, less industrialized ones. Initially the preferred dumping grounds for toxic wastes was Africa. After scandals in the late 1980s that shifted to Latin America and Eastern Europe. Currently, Asia is the last dumping ground for waste from the West. As waste disposal became more stringently regulated and more expensive in the North, waste generators and brokers thought up hundreds of schemes to send these wastes to the developing world, sometimes disguising their plans as humanitarian aid or environmentally beneficial recycling. Most of these schemes died once made public, but many cases of waste exports did occur. Toxic incinerator ash from Philadelphia was dumped on a beach in Haiti. PCBs from Italy wound up on a farm in Koko, Nigeria. Obsolete pesticides from Germany ended up in Albania. The path of toxic waste trade was the path of least resistance. After the scandals of the late 1980s and early 1990s involving this exploitative trade in wastes, most of these schemes began incorporating some form of recycling to justify them. Some of these "recyclable" wastes were never recycled, like some 10,000 barrels of U.S.-generated mercury wastes which sit in a warehouse in South Africa. Even where recycling did take place, the process often caused devastating toxic contamination of workers and surrounding communities. Examples include the recovery of lead from car batteries, and zinc from galvanizing ash. The 1994 decision of the Basel Convention represented a very special victory for the developing countries which proposed and supported it. While there are still attempts to undermine the ban on hazardous waste trade, most of the worst of the trade is at an end. In 1995 the Basel Convention adopted the Basel Ban as an Amendment to the Convention. The European Union has fully endorsed the ban. Australia, which is a Party to the Convention, still maintains the ban is not binding, while the U.S. remains the only industrialized country to remain outside the Basel Convention entirely. GREENPEACE'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE: Greenpeace has been deeply involved with this issue since 1988. We have documented literally hundreds of schemes, taken direct action against many of them, published dozens of reports, produced several videos, and sent a substantial delegation to all meetings of the Basel Convention and its working groups. Greenpeace remains vigilant regarding implementation of the Basel Ban. We are monitoring attempts to sign bilateral agreements which circumvent and undermine the ban. In addition, we have exposed the ongoing trade in zinc and lead wastes between OECD countries and India, despite Court orders against such trade in India. SOLUTIONS: To its credit, the Commission on Sustainable Development also has supported the progress of the Basel Convention. UNGASS/ES2 should: 1) Support and commend the progress made at the Basel Convention; 2) Call on Parties to ratify the Basel Ban; 3) Call for more progress on preventing trade in dangerous products such as banned pesticides; and 4) Call upon governments, via the Basel Convention and/or other relevant regimes, to halt all trade in dangerous nuclear materials RELEVANT REPORTS: 1) The International Trade In Wastes: A Greenpeace Inventory, Vallette et al Washington, DC 1993; 2) A Victory for Environment and Justice: The Basel Ban and How it Happened, Jim Puckett and Cathy Fogel, Ecologist Reprint available from Greenpeace International, Amsterdam; 3) The Basel Ban: The Pride of the Basel Convention and other Greenpeace briefing papers prepared for the Basel Convention Conference of Parties II and III, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. KEY CONTACTS: Marcelo Furtado, Greenpeace Brazil (tel: 55.11.3061.2934; fax: 55.11.881.4940; email: marcelo.furtado@dialb.greenpeace.org); Anjela Wilkes, Greenpeace International (tel: 31.20.523.6263; fax: 31.20.523.6200; e-mail: anjela.wilkes@ams.greenpeace.org). At the Second Conference Of Parties, the Basel Convention decided (Decision II/12) to: 1) ...prohibit immediately all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes which are destined for final disposal from OECD to non-OECD States; 2) ...to phase out by 31 December 1997, and prohibit as of that date, all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes which are destined for recycling or recovery operations from OECD to non- OECD countries.