TL: U.S. briefing for UNCED, released May 22 SO: Clif Curtis, Greenpeace International (GP) DT: May 22, 1992 Keywords: unced un conferences us policy greenpeace statements / May 22, 1992 STANDING IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS: U.S. OBSTRUCTION OF THE EARTH SUMMIT On May 12, 1992, President Bush ended the months-long cat and mouse game of whether he would go to the Earth Summit. The price for his trip to Rio, however, may well turn out to be the most expensive ticket ever -- for the environment, for the future of the planet, and for all its inhabitants. Since the preparatory meetings leading up to the Earth Summit began in 1990, the U.S. has obstructed, balked at and discouraged other countries from supporting strong commitments and specific programs for ecologically sound and socially equitable development. President Bush and his advisors have succeeded in substantially weakening the agreements slated for adoption at the Summit, using consensus decision making to hold the negotiations hostage until other nations capitulated. At a time when substantial advances in cooperative global action are needed to address the crises of environment and development, the U.S. is taking a backward and far too narrow-minded approach, protecting U.S. corporate interests as its first and foremost priority. With the Earth Summit, President Bush had a unique opportunity to call for positive and responsible actions concerning environment- and development-related threats now facing the world. Instead, he has opted for misguided short-term political gain, with his planned brief photo appearance in Rio confirming that his only interest is public relations. On the following key issues facing the Earth Summit, the U.S. -- through President Bush and his advisors -- has failed to act as a responsible member of the global community of nations in addressing the challenges at hand: CLIMATE: At the final Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) on global warming in New York that ended on May 9, the U.S. successfully gutted the draft framework convention on climate by refusing to commit to specific CO2 and other greenhouse gas reductions or target dates. The U.S.'s opposition to an effective agreement caused many nations to back down from stabilization commitments, leaving only a non-binding, environmentally insignificant agreement to be signed in Rio. What was to be the "jewel in the crown" of the Earth Summit -- an international commitment to halt global warming with specific action -- has been reduced to grand-standing in the name of environmental protection. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States. CONSUMPTION PATTERNS: Throughout the PrepCom negotiations, the U.S. took the lead in refusing to allow any language that recognizes and addresses the North's special responsibility in over-consumption of the world's natural resources. The Group of 77's (G-77, on behalf of nearly 130 Southern countries) draft Rio Declaration correctly focused attention on the responsibility of the North for "containing, reducing and eliminating global environmental damage" (Principle 5, L.20) by unsustainable practices. But the Rio Declaration (Principle 8) now only provides for a global reference to the need for all States to "reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption...." In a similar vein, the U.S. played a lead role in deleting from Agenda 21 substantial text containing references to consumption patterns. ECONOMIC REFORM: A process of global economic reform is essential if the South is going to gain the economic space to implement a transition to ecologically sound and socially equitable development. Yet the U.S. repeatedly opposed proposals from other countries to advance such reform. Despite stating near the end of the final PrepCom that it supported unspecified new and additional financial resources, U.S. negotiators still demanded that text be bracketed (for negotiation in Rio) which contained similar language. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY: The World Bank has an abysmal track record of choosing large-scale, often environmentally and culturally destructive projects over community-based, environmentally sustainable ones. The U.S. alone controls 16.5% of the votes among the Bank's executive directors, while 45 African nations have a combined vote share of 4.8%. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was created in 1990 under Bank administration to deal with biodiversity, global warming, international waters, and ozone layer depletion. The GEF is widely recognized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a defective mechanism for managing environmental portfolios. During PrepCom 4, the G-77 favored the creation of a new, independent "Green Fund" to administer Earth Summit-related financing for the South. At the April 1992 GEF participants meeting, the U.S. was the only major country staunchly opposed to any alternative funds to the GEF. TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS: The U.S. and other industrialized nations, with input from the Business Council for Sustainable Development, have successfully kept any discussion of transnational corporations (TNCs), the root of many of the world's environmental crises, out of the Earth Summit dialogue. In relation to Agenda 21, for example, they succeeded in deleting numerous references to TNCs during the final PrepCom. As a result, neither the Rio Declaration nor Agenda 21 calls for effective controls over TNCs in relation to protection of the environment or human health. HAZARDOUS WASTE TRADE: The U.S. delegation to UNCED joined other industrialized nations in opposing a Rio Declaration proposal by the G-77 (Principle 12, L.20) which would have banned the export of hazardous waste and substances as well as environmentally destructive technologies from one country to another. On this issue, the U.S. argued that such a proposal was too specific, and thus better dealt with in Agenda 21 (though it opposed such wording there, as well); and too negative -- lacking the "positive" focus the U.S. contended was necessary for a Declaration. In the end, the Rio Declaration (Principle 14) doesn't even use the word "hazardous" and is so vague that few readers would know that waste trade is even a concern. FORESTS: At initial PrepComs, the U.S. delegation called for a forest protection convention to be included on the Earth Summit agenda (as did most other industrialized countries). When it became clear such a convention could not be agreed to in time for the Earth Summit, the debate shifted to forestry "principles." Many Southern countries, however, believe progress on principles must be conditioned upon the U.S., and other industrialized countries, effectively addressing such issues as global warming, financing and desertification. In the U.S., only 5% of its continental ancient forests still exist. Given this, President Bush's proposal in May 1992 to allow 70 percent of the U.S.'s remaining spotted owl habitat to be destroyed sets a terrible example internationally -- "do as we say, don't do as we do." U.S. failure to protect its own remaining forests, its failure to address related issues of concern raised by the South, and the failure of the draft principles to come to grips with the root causes of deforestation (e.g., land tenure arrangements, government subsidies) suggest that the proposed Earth Summit "forestry principles" will have little relevance for real conservation. NUCLEAR WEAPONS/TESTING: During the PrepCom 4 meeting in New York, the U.S. set off the first of several nuclear weapons tests planned for this year at its Nevada test site. One week later, the French government announced a one-year halt to its nuclear testing program in the South Pacific, joining the Russian Federation which halted testing in October 1990. Despite efforts by the G-77 and others to include language in the Rio de Janeiro Declaration strongly condemning the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction -- including language identical to Principle 26 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration -- the U.S. argued that this issue was best dealt with in other forums. As a result, the Rio Declaration now contains the nearly meaningless Principle 24: "Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary." When considered side- by-side with the Stockholm Conference's statements on this important issue, the Earth Summit is clearly going backwards, rather than forward. BIOTECHNOLOGY: It is essential that the Earth Summit call for effective measures (including a code of conduct) to control the health and environmental risks of biotechnology. Despite recognition of those risks by other Northern and Southern countries, the U.S. led the opposition to regulatory measures, contending that biotechnology is just another benign technology. As a result, the U.S. succeeded in placing text in brackets in Agenda 21 on this, e.g., activities that include "preparing internationally agreed guidelines on safety in biotechnology releases, including risk assessment and risk management, liability and compensation." TRADE: Throughout all of the financing and technology debates in the PrepComs, the U.S. has defended a rigid ideological position based on "free markets" as THE solution to the world's environment and development problems. The U.S. argued that new and additional financing for the South is not important, because, with free markets, Southern economies will grow and generate their own resources for solving those problems. It also argued that no debt relief is needed for the same reasons, and that no modifications in patent regimes or subsidies for technology transfer are needed because existing "distortions" will be worked out as markets are opened. Yet it is clear that unbridled free trade has brought about many of the environmental problems facing the Earth Summit. * * * The above issue-specific topics reflect the U.S.'s unwillingness to support actions that are critical to the success of the Earth Summit. More broadly, U.S. efforts to undermine a successful Earth Summit are captured by its decision to call for brackets (and further negotiation) around the phrase "political commitment at the highest level" in the preamble to Agenda 21, which it believed was too strong. Given the resources and effort that have and are being committed to the Earth Summit, including participation by as many as 100 or more heads-of- government, the U.S.'s objection to such wording suggests President Bush and his Earth Summit negotiators are completely out-of-touch. On 30 March 1992 at PrepCom 4, members of the U.S. delegation were told privately by Michael Young, U.S. Dept. of State's Deputy Under Secretary for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, to oppose inclusion of certain matters in the Earth Summit agenda. Referring to them as the "Ten Commandments," he listed the topics that should be excluded from the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21: 1. the precautionary principle 2. sharing the benefits of technology 3. financial resource formulas 4. liability/compensation for environmental damage 5. commitments of any kind 6. environmental impact assessment requirements not consistent with U.S. law 7. new dispute resolution requirements 8. references to the military 9. new institutions 10. new UN pledges [Mr. Young's statements concerning the "Ten Commandments" were verbally leaked by one or more members of the U.S. delegation to other delegations at PrepCom 4; subsequently distributed informally in writing at the meeting by non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and publicized in one NGO newsletter (Da Zi Bao, Issue 7, #17, April 1, 1992).] On key issues facing the Earth Summit, the message of President Bush and his advisors is, regrettably, quite clear. First, in their view the global community has no business calling for initiatives or actions that impinge in any way on U.S. industrial-, military-or free trade-driven programs and policies. Second, the U.S. is not interested in working cooperatively with Northern and Southern decision makers in addressing the world's serious and growing environment and development crises. Third, the U.S. is far more interested in focusing on short-term political interests than in protecting the stake of current and future generations of Americans -- let alone other inhabitants of the planet -- in a healthy environment and sustainable global economy. __________________________________ GREENPEACE EARTH SUMMIT PRESS OFFICE (from May 29): International Press Centre, Rua Dois De Dezembro, Flamengo 22220 (Subway: Largo do Machado); Tel: (55-21) 2050101, 2050105, 2050107, 2050111; Fax: (55-21) 2050136 or GREENPEACE BRAZIL, RIO DE JANEIRO: Tel: (55-21) 2627318, 2404476, 262-9685, 220-4573; Fax: (55-21) 2401690 U.S. CONTACT: GREENPEACE, 1436 U St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S. Tel: (202) 462- 1177; Fax: (202) 462-4507. [Greenbase Inventory May 28, 1992 ]