TL: THE WORLD BANK'S GREENWASH: TOUTING ENVIRONMENTALISM WHILE TRASHING THE PLANET SO: Cameron Duncan, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: April 1992 Keywords: banks world bank economy un aid plans problems gp third world policy development global warming atmosphere terrec / [Part 3] [BOX] The World Bank Energy Sector Lending Contributes to Global Warming: PullQuote: "Currently, the Bank is the single largest worldwide source of finance for energy development in the South, funding projects that contribute to global warming." Currently, the Bank is the single largest worldwide source of finance for energy development in the South, funding fossil fuel projects that contribute to global warming. Energy is now the Bank's largest lending sector, accounting for 19% of new loans in 1990. In 1991, more than 16% of the Bank's energy lending went directly for coal ($491 million), over 40% went directly for gas and oil development ($1.3 billion), and much of the rest was for electrical transmission from fossil fuel powered generating units. Moreover, the Bank has targeted loans of over $1.2 billion for coal and $2.2 billion for gas and oil development between now and 1996. [15] The Bank's own studies have shown that, in Brazil and India, as much as half of the projected new power demands over the next decade could be met by efficiency and conservation investments - at less than half the cost of new power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Despite these estimates, the World Bank plans to devote no more than 1% of its energy sector lending to energy conservation during 1992-95. [16] The World Bank administers only $175 million in GEF projects designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions.[17] The paltry financial resources the Bank contributes to reduce CO2 emissions, either through its own energy efficiency projects or those of the GEF, will do nothing to offset the contributions to global warming from its other lending activities. PullQuote: The paltry financial resources the Bank contributes to reduce CO2 emissions...will do nothing to offset its contributions to global warming.." Not surprisingly, the World Bank has no formal policy on global warming. As a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, the Bank generally does not consider climate change to be a problem. In the Draft of the World Development Report 1992, the Bank downplays the risks of climate change by claiming that "global warming will impose costs sixty years from now that are equivalent to about 1 percent of world GDP." [18] Not only does this statement ignore the potentially catastrophic ecological, social, and economic consequences of global warming, it reduces the threat to a mere accounting problem. Such economic logic, exhibited by an institution poised to administer billions of dollars in funds to offset global warming, underscores Greenpeace's concerns that the Bank should not become the global manager for environmental funds. [END OF BOX] Bank Exposed by Summers Call to Send Dirty Industries South: PQ:"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs (less developed countries)?" ... Lawrence Summers, Chief Economist, the World Bank. While the World Bank aims to convince the world of its sincere concern for protecting the planet, the recent disclosure of a confidential Bank memorandum provides evidence of the persistent anti-environment views of many Bank senior managers. In December 1991, Chief Economist and Vice President Lawrence Summers, who directs the department responsible for producing the World Development Report, wrote an astounding memo on trade policies to his staff in which he asked: "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs (less developed countries)?"[19] He proceeded to list the reasons, noting that "underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted"; that carcinogenic emissions are of greater concern in a country "where people survive to get prostate cancer" than in one where a fifth of the population dies in childhood; and that countries with the lowest wages should have "a given amount of health- impairing pollution" because the social costs of such pollution are based on lost earnings from increased death and disease. "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 it," Summers concluded. The memo triggered a flurry of press coverage and outraged people around the world, including Jose Lutzenberger, Brazil's environment minister at the time. In a letter to Summers, Lutzenberger called his views "a concrete example of unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in".[20] Summers' cynical logic reflects the dominant belief of development economics espoused by the World Bank. Summers put on paper a view that has long thrived behind the World Bank's closed doors: that the South is no more than a dumping ground for the toxic wastes and dirty industries of the industrialized world. Hundreds of millions of lives in Southern nations are, in one form or another, affected by the decisions of the World Bank, a fact that makes Summers' disgraceful views even more alarming. Summers later tried to do damage control of his appalling comments, claiming they were a "sardonic counterpoint, an effort to sharpen the analysis." World Bank Structural Adjustment Contributes to Ecological and Social Problems: During the 1980s, the World Bank devoted 25% of its lending to structural adjustment loans. These loans are intended to boost the fiscal standing of Southern governments in the face of a crushing debt burden by cutting import costs, encouraging privatization, and maximizing export production and revenue. Such loans also compel borrowing governments to lighten their fiscal load by eliminating public programs in health, education, agricultural extension, and other sorely needed services. The social and ecological consequences of structural adjustment are well documented. [21] In theory, structural adjustment policies are supposed to help indebted countries increase their export earnings. But with so many countries competing to sell the same commodities, few have managed to do so. Adjustment loans have created an exaggerated need for foreign exchange, thus promoting extraction of timber and minerals, construction of roads, dams, and power plants, increased chemical-intensive cultivation of export crops, and expanded tourism facilities. The environmental consequences have been devastating: bays and beaches have been polluted by oil and sewage, coral reefs damaged by siltation and chemical pollution, mountain slopes laid bare by erosion, rainforests razed by logging and road building, and farmers and agricultural workers poisoned by pesticides. Structural Adjustment Programs have also destroyed subsistence economies. In much of the South, the foreign debt problem and the structural adjustment "solution" have drained the lifeblood of poor nations, reinforcing dependency, devastating the environment, and undermining the potential for future development. The alternative to Northern-imposed structural adjustment is not a return to business-as-usual before adjustment. This would not address the economic crises that led to the call for adjustment in the first place. These crises are rooted, above all, in unequal relations of power and exploitative systems of trade between the North and South, which are supported by the World Bank lending policies. The crises have been made worse by great inequalities, misplaced government priorities, and in many cases, corruption and repression in Southern nations. Public Accountability and Access to Information: Local communities and NGOs must play an active role in ensuring ecologically sound and socially just development, and must have meaningful participation in development decision-making. [22] A critical component to such participation and decision-making is access to information. The Bank, however, severely restricts public access to information about its policies and operations, while paying lip service to the importance of involving local NGOs and community groups in Bank activities. Adequate oversight of Bank operations is not possible unless citizen organizations can review project documents and participate in project design before lending decisions are made. The Bank refuses to make public environmental impact assessments, project identification reports, appraisal reports, and evaluations. 3. GLOBAL FINANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: ACCOUNTABILITY, PARTICIPATION & TRANSFORMATION New international agreements to protect the global environment will need to include commitments to provide financial resources to Southern countries. Before agreeing to the institutional form of new funding mechanisms, however, negotiators at the Earth Summit should commit to basic principles of ecological sustainability, accountability, and citizen participation in development decisions. Such a commitment requires the transformation of existing institutions or the creation of new ones. Principles for Accountability and Participation 1. UNCED must call for direct public accountability in any financing mechanism for the global environment. Global environmental breakdown cannot be avoided unless citizens and their organizations are given a decisive voice in the use of natural resources. New funding mechanisms must be directly responsive to the needs of local people and NGOs. Such mechanisms must be open to public scrutiny and accountable to locally determined priorities for meeting global targets. Thus administration of environment and development funds must: * be based on transparency and provide the public in donor and recipient countries access to complete documentation on projects at every stage of the project cycle; * allow for consultation and broad participation in policy meetings and an active role for NGOs and affected communities in project development and implementation; * include mechanisms to monitor funding activities, oversee consultation with local NGOs and communities, and hear public complaints; and * acknowledge the right of communities to refuse projects that will damage their livelihoods or culture, and to demand ecologically sound, socially equitable alternatives. 2. Institutions should prioritize financial support to governments that actually adopt policies that uphold the rights to land and livelihood of indigenous people and other traditional communities, curb commercial exploitation of their natural resources, and plan for ecological development. 3. Rational resource management and environmental regeneration, can only be accomplished with the conscious, empowered involvement of people who live with, and depend upon, that environment. The involvement of people in the decisions that affect their lives is the essence of democracy. 4. Institutions should cease supporting projects that cause the destruction of forests and other non-renewable resources, destroy the livelihoods of people, or disregard the rights to land of indigenous peoples. 5. Governments should dissociate their aid programs from structural adjustment schemes. Institutions should recognize the harmful effects of existing forms of structural adjustment and conditional program lending on poverty and the environment, and reorient their programs in accordance with such recognition. Governance Principles: Control of the GEF 1. World Bank control of the GEF should be halted. 2. Donor countries must not have full control over new funds, as they do presently over the Global Environment Facility. The governing body should include a balanced representation of participating governments, including recipient governments. Local and international NGOs and people's organizations must have the right to observe meetings related to the negotiation and operation of financing mechanisms. 3. Where NGO institutional capacity exists, a substantial portion of new funds should be granted to NGO and local indigenous organizations, which are best placed to develop and employ appropriate technology, and to use biological diversity in a sustainable manner. Sources of Funds UNCED should consider how new financial resources for the environment could be mobilized through measures that would begin to address the roots of the problem: 1. Debt relief. Official debt forgiveness should be granted to all heavily indebted countries, with no conditions which impose orthodox structural adjustment policies on debtor countries. 2. Reduced military spending. Oversized military budgets should be converted to environmental, economic and human security budgets under civilian control. Governments should commit themselves to cutting military budgets by 50 percent or more over the next three years, and to use the dividend to pursue sound development strategies at home and abroad. 3. Private sector contributions. A tax on the use of fossil fuels and electricity in industrialized countries could generate a fund of approximately $30 billion a year raised by a levy, in OECD countries, of $1.20 a barrel of oil or oil equivalent. Detailed studies on alternative forms of such an "ecological tax" should be initiated by UNCED.[23] 4. CONCLUSION: Global environmental issues cannot be addressed by the transfer from North to South of the relatively small amount of funds committed in the GEF at a time when debt servicing requires a net flow of $45 billion a year from Southern debtors to Northern creditors. The GEF cannot be a substitute for fundamental changes in the international system of finance and aid. Nor does the GEF address the destructive lending practices of the World Bank and other MDBs. A truly democratic global environment fund would be directly accountable to both its member governments and the local communities most affected by proposed development projects. As long as the World Bank continues to fund environmentally destructive projects, and fails to support a transparent and participatory process, its management of the GEF will amount to nothing more than an expensive and elaborate greenwash. Unless the world community addresses the problems of increasing international inequity and poverty, global economic and environmental decline are certain to accelerate. The key tasks are to reduce the debt burden, to rechannel development aid and military spending toward protection of the environment and participatory development, and to transform and democratize the World Bank and other multilateral financial institutions. Until these realities become the keystone of national and international policies, and are reflected in Agenda 21, real environmentally sound and socially just development will continue to elude us. [BOX] The World Bank Energy Sector Lending Contributes to Global Warming: PullQuote: "Currently, the Bank is the single largest worldwide source of finance for energy development in the South, funding projects that contribute to global warming." Currently, the Bank is the single largest worldwide source of finance for energy development in the South, funding fossil fuel projects that contribute to global warming. Energy is now the Bank's largest lending sector, accounting for 19% of new loans in 1990. In 1991, more than 16% of the Bank's energy lending went directly for coal ($491 million), over 40% went directly for gas and oil development ($1.3 billion), and much of the rest was for electrical transmission from fossil fuel powered generating units. Moreover, the Bank has targeted loans of over $1.2 billion for coal and $2.2 billion for gas and oil development between now and 1996. [15] The Bank's own studies have shown that, in Brazil and India, as much as half of the projected new power demands over the next decade could be met by efficiency and conservation investments - at less than half the cost of new power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Despite these estimates, the World Bank plans to devote no more than 1% of its energy sector lending to energy conservation during 1992-95. [16] The World Bank administers only $175 million in GEF projects designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions.[17] The paltry financial resources the Bank contributes to reduce CO2 emissions, either through its own energy efficiency projects or those of the GEF, will do nothing to offset the contributions to global warming from its other lending activities. PullQuote: The paltry financial resources the Bank contributes to reduce CO2 emissions...will do nothing to offset its contributions to global warming.." Not surprisingly, the World Bank has no formal policy on global warming. As a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, the Bank generally does not consider climate change to be a problem. In the Draft of the World Development Report 1992, the Bank downplays the risks of climate change by claiming that "global warming will impose costs sixty years from now that are equivalent to about 1 percent of world GDP." [18] Not only does this statement ignore the potentially catastrophic ecological, social, and economic consequences of global warming, it reduces the threat to a mere accounting problem. Such economic logic, exhibited by an institution poised to administer billions of dollars in funds to offset global warming, underscores Greenpeace's concerns that the Bank should not become the global manager for environmental funds. [END OF BOX] Bank Exposed by Summers Call to Send Dirty Industries South: PQ:"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs (less developed countries)?" ... Lawrence Summers, Chief Economist, the World Bank. While the World Bank aims to convince the world of its sincere concern for protecting the planet, the recent disclosure of a confidential Bank memorandum provides evidence of the persistent anti-environment views of many Bank senior managers. In December 1991, Chief Economist and Vice President Lawrence Summers, who directs the department responsible for producing the World Development Report, wrote an astounding memo on trade policies to his staff in which he asked: "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs (less developed countries)?"[19] He proceeded to list the reasons, noting that "underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted"; that carcinogenic emissions are of greater concern in a country "where people survive to get prostate cancer" than in one where a fifth of the population dies in childhood; and that countries with the lowest wages should have "a given amount of health- impairing pollution" because the social costs of such pollution are based on lost earnings from increased death and disease. "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 it," Summers concluded. The memo triggered a flurry of press coverage and outraged people around the world, including Jose Lutzenberger, Brazil's environment minister at the time. In a letter to Summers, Lutzenberger called his views "a concrete example of unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in".[20] Summers' cynical logic reflects the dominant belief of development economics espoused by the World Bank. Summers put on paper a view that has long thrived behind the World Bank's closed doors: that the South is no more than a dumping ground for the toxic wastes and dirty industries of the industrialized world. Hundreds of millions of lives in Southern nations are, in one form or another, affected by the decisions of the World Bank, a fact that makes Summers' disgraceful views even more alarming. Summers later tried to do damage control of his appalling comments, claiming they were a "sardonic counterpoint, an effort to sharpen the analysis." World Bank Structural Adjustment Contributes to Ecological and Social Problems: During the 1980s, the World Bank devoted 25% of its lending to structural adjustment loans. These loans are intended to boost the fiscal standing of Southern governments in the face of a crushing debt burden by cutting import costs, encouraging privatization, and maximizing export production and revenue. Such loans also compel borrowing governments to lighten their fiscal load by eliminating public programs in health, education, agricultural extension, and other sorely needed services. The social and ecological consequences of structural adjustment are well documented. [21] In theory, structural adjustment policies are supposed to help indebted countries increase their export earnings. But with so many countries competing to sell the same commodities, few have managed to do so. Adjustment loans have created an exaggerated need for foreign exchange, thus promoting extraction of timber and minerals, construction of roads, dams, and power plants, increased chemical-intensive cultivation of export crops, and expanded tourism facilities. The environmental consequences have been devastating: bays and beaches have been polluted by oil and sewage, coral reefs damaged by siltation and chemical pollution, mountain slopes laid bare by erosion, rainforests razed by logging and road building, and farmers and agricultural workers poisoned by pesticides. Structural Adjustment Programs have also destroyed subsistence economies. In much of the South, the foreign debt problem and the structural adjustment "solution" have drained the lifeblood of poor nations, reinforcing dependency, devastating the environment, and undermining the potential for future development. The alternative to Northern-imposed structural adjustment is not a return to business-as-usual before adjustment. This would not address the economic crises that led to the call for adjustment in the first place. These crises are rooted, above all, in unequal relations of power and exploitative systems of trade between the North and South, which are supported by the World Bank lending policies. The crises have been made worse by great inequalities, misplaced government priorities, and in many cases, corruption and repression in Southern nations. Public Accountability and Access to Information: Local communities and NGOs must play an active role in ensuring ecologically sound and socially just development, and must have meaningful participation in development decision-making. [22] A critical component to such participation and decision-making is access to information. The Bank, however, severely restricts public access to information about its policies and operations, while paying lip service to the importance of involving local NGOs and community groups in Bank activities. Adequate oversight of Bank operations is not possible unless citizen organizations can review project documents and participate in project design before lending decisions are made. The Bank refuses to make public environmental impact assessments, project identification reports, appraisal reports, and evaluations. 3. GLOBAL FINANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: ACCOUNTABILITY, PARTICIPATION & TRANSFORMATION New international agreements to protect the global environment will need to include commitments to provide financial resources to Southern countries. Before agreeing to the institutional form of new funding mechanisms, however, negotiators at the Earth Summit should commit to basic principles of ecological sustainability, accountability, and citizen participation in development decisions. Such a commitment requires the transformation of existing institutions or the creation of new ones. Principles for Accountability and Participation 1. UNCED must call for direct public accountability in any financing mechanism for the global environment. Global environmental breakdown cannot be avoided unless citizens and their organizations are given a decisive voice in the use of natural resources. New funding mechanisms must be directly responsive to the needs of local people and NGOs. Such mechanisms must be open to public scrutiny and accountable to locally determined priorities for meeting global targets. Thus administration of environment and development funds must: * be based on transparency and provide the public in donor and recipient countries access to complete documentation on projects at every stage of the project cycle; * allow for consultation and broad participation in policy meetings and an active role for NGOs and affected communities in project development and implementation; * include mechanisms to monitor funding activities, oversee consultation with local NGOs and communities, and hear public complaints; and * acknowledge the right of communities to refuse projects that will damage their livelihoods or culture, and to demand ecologically sound, socially equitable alternatives. 2. Institutions should prioritize financial support to governments that actually adopt policies that uphold the rights to land and livelihood of indigenous people and other traditional communities, curb commercial exploitation of their natural resources, and plan for ecological development. 3. Rational resource management and environmental regeneration, can only be accomplished with the conscious, empowered involvement of people who live with, and depend upon, that environment. The involvement of people in the decisions that affect their lives is the essence of democracy. 4. Institutions should cease supporting projects that cause the destruction of forests and other non-renewable resources, destroy the livelihoods of people, or disregard the rights to land of indigenous peoples. 5. Governments should dissociate their aid programs from structural adjustment schemes. Institutions should recognize the harmful effects of existing forms of structural adjustment and conditional program lending on poverty and the environment, and reorient their programs in accordance with such recognition. [Greenbase Inventory May 28, 1992 ] TL: THE WORLD BANK'S GREENWASH: TOUTING ENVIRONMENTALISM WHILE TRASHING THE PLANET SO: Cameron Duncan, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: April 1992 Keywords: banks world bank economy un aid plans problems gp third world policy development global warming atmosphere terrec / [part 4] Governance Principles: Control of the GEF 1. World Bank control of the GEF should be halted. 2. Donor countries must not have full control over new funds, as they do presently over the Global Environment Facility. The governing body should include a balanced representation of participating governments, including recipient governments. Local and international NGOs and people's organizations must have the right to observe meetings related to the negotiation and operation of financing mechanisms. 3. Where NGO institutional capacity exists, a substantial portion of new funds should be granted to NGO and local indigenous organizations, which are best placed to develop and employ appropriate technology, and to use biological diversity in a sustainable manner. Sources of Funds UNCED should consider how new financial resources for the environment could be mobilized through measures that would begin to address the roots of the problem: 1. Debt relief. Official debt forgiveness should be granted to all heavily indebted countries, with no conditions which impose orthodox structural adjustment policies on debtor countries. 2. Reduced military spending. Oversized military budgets should be converted to environmental, economic and human security budgets under civilian control. Governments should commit themselves to cutting military budgets by 50 percent or more over the next three years, and to use the dividend to pursue sound development strategies at home and abroad. 3. Private sector contributions. A tax on the use of fossil fuels and electricity in industrialized countries could generate a fund of approximately $30 billion a year raised by a levy, in OECD countries, of $1.20 a barrel of oil or oil equivalent. Detailed studies on alternative forms of such an "ecological tax" should be initiated by UNCED.[23] 4. CONCLUSION: Global environmental issues cannot be addressed by the transfer from North to South of the relatively small amount of funds committed in the GEF at a time when debt servicing requires a net flow of $45 billion a year from Southern debtors to Northern creditors. The GEF cannot be a substitute for fundamental changes in the international system of finance and aid. Nor does the GEF address the destructive lending practices of the World Bank and other MDBs. A truly democratic global environment fund would be directly accountable to both its member governments and the local communities most affected by proposed development projects. As long as the World Bank continues to fund environmentally destructive projects, and fails to support a transparent and participatory process, its management of the GEF will amount to nothing more than an expensive and elaborate greenwash. Unless the world community addresses the problems of increasing international inequity and poverty, global economic and environmental decline are certain to accelerate. The key tasks are to reduce the debt burden, to rechannel development aid and military spending toward protection of the environment and participatory development, and to transform and democratize the World Bank and other multilateral financial institutions. Until these realities become the keystone of national and international policies, and are reflected in Agenda 21, real environmentally sound and socially just development will continue to elude us. NOTES 1. UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Report of the Secretary General of the Conference. A/CONF.151/PC/101, Financial Resources and Mechanisms, p. 2. 2. "UN Opens Environment Talks; Europe Spurs US to Act Urgently," New York Times (March 3, 1992), p. A11. See also "Future Evolution of the GEF: Issues and Options," (Washington: Environment Department, World Bank, February 1992). 3. Criteria for Eligibility and Priorities for Selection of Global Environment Facility Projects, Prepared by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility; Initial Implementation Draft, November, 1991 (STAP Guidelines). 4. World Bank Environment Department briefing for NGOs in Washington DC, April 25, 1991. 5. Op. Cit. at 3, (STAP Guidelines). See also Global Environment Facility: What is the GEF? The World Bank, United Nations Environment Programme, and United Nations Development Programme. 6. Ibid., (STAP Guidelines). 7. Op. Cit. at 4. 8. "A Threat to Congo's Biodiversity and the Global Environment," Environmental Defense Fund, Washington DC, November 1991. 9. Op. Cit. at 3, (STAP Guidelines). 10. "Projet d'amenagement et de gestion des aires protegees du Congo" (Wildlands Protection and Management Project Congo), United Nations Development Programme, New York, September 1991, p. 3. 11. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 65. 12. The NGOs consulted by Greenpeace were: Fundacion Neotropica; Centro Cientifico Tropical; Asociacion de Voluntarios para el Servicio en las Areas Protegidas (ASVO); Asociacion Ecologista Costarriquense (AECO); Asociacion para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza (ASCONA). Local community organizations consulted included: Asociacion de Productores de Rancho Quemado; Cooperativa Cogestionaria de Agromuebles; Asociacion de Productores de Finca Sandalo; Cooperativa Marti; Reserva Indigena Guaymi; Asociacion Ambientalista Cerro Brujo; SIPRAICO. 13. See Susan George, A Fate Worse than Debt: the World Financial Crisis and the Poor (New York: Grove Press, 1988). 14. Funding Ecological and Social Destruction: The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Washington, D.C.: The Bank Information Center, September, 1989). 15. "Annual Energy Sector Review FY91," World Bank Energy Development Division, Washington DC, October 1991, Table 3. 16. Ibid., Executive Summary. 17. "Monthly Report on Bank Implemented GEF Operations," World Bank Environment Department, Washington DC, November/December 1991. 18. Draft of World Development Report 1992: Overview, World Bank, Washington DC, February 1992, p. 9. 19. "World Bank Official's Irony Backfires," Washington Post, February 10, 1992. 20. Letter from Jose Lutzenberger to Lawrence Summers, February 6, 1992. 21. T. Panayotou, "The economics of environmental degradation," Development Discussion Paper No. 335, Harvard Institute for International Development, Cambridge MA, 1990; also see Cheryl Payer, Lent and Lost: Foreign Credit and Third World Development (London: Zed Books, 1991), Chapter 21. 22. Op. Cit. at 11, (Our Common Future). 23. Preventing a Climate Holocaust: A Global Defence Agenda, June 1991, Greenpeace International. =end= [Greenbase Inventory May 28, 1992 ]