Greenpeace's Priority Issues - for the UN General Assembly Special Session - Earth Summit 2 Five years after nearly

120 heads-of-state and 172 governments gathered in Brazil for the Earth Summit, the largest environmental gathering ever, the UNGA's 23-27 June 1997 Special Session (UNGASS) serves as the first formal review of that event. The Earth Summit was very important, focusing attention on issues linked with evolving concepts of "sustainable development." It also provided exciting opportunities for 18,000 NGOs from around the world to come together to share experiences, network and plan for the future. Nonetheless, Greenpeace hung a banner in Rio at the end of that Summit, with "SOLD" stamped over the planet. In our view, governments had failed to come to grips with critical matters facing decision makers

in 1992, e.g., transnational corporations, financial institutions, states' abuse of "sovereignty" rights, non-binding promises and other issues affecting humankind's relationship with the planet. Now, five years later, the "big picture" assessment of Earth Summit implementation strongly indicates that those and other problems still have not been remedied. On issues such as climate, forests, toxics, fisheries, nuclear power and nuclear wastes, the key environmental indicators show that we are still going in the wrong direction away from, not toward, sustainability. Globally, there have been some positive steps forward - e.g., the Basel Convention ban on transboundary shipments of hazardous waste, commitments to curb the use of ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, the London Convention ban on ocean dumping of radioactive and hazardous wastes, the new global fisheries

agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, and UNEP's recent decision to convene the negotiation of a new global treaty on persistent organic pollutants. However, most of the "successes" have been little more than "paper victories," overshadowed by growing real world evidence of troubling developments that are not being dealt with adequately. The recent United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) and UN Secretary-General's Earth Summit-related overview and trends reports, inter alia, provide revealing, comprehensive accounts of the challenges facing all of us. They also make for disturbing reading, as is the case with the following excerpt from UNEP's GEO (page 3):

from a global perspective the environment has continued to degrade during the past decade, and significant environmental problems remain deeply embedded in the socio-economic fabric of nations in all regions. Progress towards a global sustainable future is just too slow. A sense of urgency is lacking. Internationally and nationally, the funds and political will are insufficient to halt further global environmental degradation and to address the most pressing environmental problems even though technology and knowledge are available to do so. As a result, the gap between what has been done thus far and what is realistically needed is widening. Given the critical decision making roles that governments and the private sector have, much though by no means all of the blame for grim findings, such as the above, lies at their door. With few exceptions, too many governments and too many businesses have

been far too willing to sacrifice the environment for the sake of short-term financial gain and special interests. There are some success stories and heroes, but they are way too few, given what is needed. Moreover, the record shows that NGOs have been largely on target in their warnings over the decades. The denials of big industry and some governments of the existence or severity of various environmental problems should now be seen in perspective. Overall, NGOs have a solid record of accuracy. Rather than allow debates again to become polarized, industry and governments should welcome NGO inputs, however uncomfortable those may be. UNGASS/ES2 must be seen as a real WAKE UP CALL! The results of the Special Session must include a strong message that "business as usual," which has contributed signficantly to the current, unacceptable state of affairs, will end. To be

realistic, we realize that the likelihood of that happening is not good. The drafts of the two official documents - the political statement, and detailed program of Agenda 21 implementation - are little more than restatements of Earth Summit words, promises layered on top of promises, rhetoric without real action. Moreover, the endless stream of 7-minute speeches by heads-of-state and other dignitaries in the UN General Assembly Hall, while occasions for individual leaders to commit to bold initiatives, offer limited opportunities for real dialogue and collective steps forward. In Greenpeace's view, governments, as well as UN/international agencies and the private sector, need to agree four changes if UNGASS/ES2 is to have any chance of succeeding. First, they need to accept the urgency of the situation. Denial, finding fault with the details of various grim reports, or wishing the problems would just go away

won't get the job done. Second, they need to very clearly recognize that nowhere near enough is being done to chart development along a sustainable course. Third, they need to ensure that UNGASS/ES2 comes together around a set of concrete, inspirational actions and targets that directly and adequately respond to the nature of the threats. This includes bold directional policy shifts, such as the beginning of the phase-out of fossil fuels. Fourth, they need to agree a package of substantial first steps that are measurable, allowing for accountability. Greenpeace remains committed to helping implement strong commitments, wherever we can. Not only will we continue to let government and corporate leaders know our views on what they are and are not doing right, but we also will help show that paradigm shifts are possible in habits and ways of thinking. We will point to behaviours, policies and technologies (some

even commissioned by Greenpeace!) which prove that faster, positive change is possible, now. With regard to the need for concrete, inspirational actions and targets that are measurable, we call upon heads-of-state and other government leaders, at UNGASS/ES2, to take bold decisions in relation to the following twelve (12) issues, among others: 1. SAVE THE CLIMATE: 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 "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, industrialized countries should commit themselves at the "Climate Summit" in Kyoto, Japan in December

1997, to legally binding CO2 emission cuts of 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2005. In parallel, there should be a halt to development in these countries of new oil fields, and a removal of taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels, as soon as possible; 2. SAVE THE FORESTS: Land clearing and "clearcut" type forestry are devastating the remaining ancient forests, among the richest reservoirs of biological and social diversity on the planet. As forests are degraded and disappear, soil erosion, flooding, desertification and species extinction follow. Climate change is expected to add to forest loss in the next century. Beginning in the industrialized countries, governments must pledge to stop destruction by 2000 of all remaining primary, old growth forests, and to restore degraded forest lands. As part of these efforts, governments should

closely monitor the ecological impact of forest companies, promote ecologically responsible forest use, ensure maximum reuse and recycling of wood and wood products, and provide for the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decisions on forest use. In parallel, governments need to commit to tripling, by 2002, the total global area of protected forest areas. On critical issues, the intergovernmental policy dialogue on forests, under CSD auspices, should continue. However, rather than enter into the lengthy negotiation of a likely "chainsaw" convention that risks deferring or delaying needed action, leaders should, in addition to carrying out the abovelisted actions, implement the 130-plus "actions" agreed in the recent global forest policy dialogue (IPF/CSD); 3. BAN TOXIC CHEMICALS:

The long-term health and environmental effects of the estimated 70,000 different synthetic chemicals currently in use are largely unknown and untested. About 1,000 new chemicals enter the market every year. Many of these are toxic, are spread globally and concentrate in the food chain, ending up on our dinner plates. In particular, the group of chlorine-based chemicals are known to damage the immune and reproductive system in animals and humans, and pose major risks to developing foetuses. An urgent commitment is necessary to move towards a global system of `clean production', within a generation. As a first step, governments should conclude by 2000 at the latest, a legally binding international treaty banning persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In addition, the export of all hazardous chemical wastes from industrialised to developing countries should be halted through

universal ratification of the Basel Convention ban by the end of 1997; 4. RESPONSIBLE FISHING: The capacity of the world's fishing fleet greatly exceeds the amount of fish that can be caught on a sustainable basis. In the last 40 years alone, the world fish catch has increased four-fold. As a result, most of the world's major fisheries are now either depleted, overexploited or fully-exploited. Too many boats, especially big ones, are chasing too few fish, often using subsidies paid from tax dollars. Governments must commit themselves to protect remaining fish stocks through urgent national, regional and global measures. As a first step, OECD governments must reduce total fishing capacity, particularly by large-scale industrialized fishing vessels, by at least a quarter by 2000. In parallel, there

should be a global moratorium by 1998 on any further intensive shrimp aquaculture unless it is both ecologically sound and socially equitable; 5. END NUCLEAR POWER/NUCLEAR WASTE: The nuclear industry is arguing for a major expansion, supposedly to combat climate change and meet the increasing worldwide demands for electricity. However, such an expansion would entail massive economic costs, while dramatically increasing the risks of Chernobyl-type nuclear accidents resulting in potential radioactive contamination of tens of thousands of people over many years. As a first step, governments must halt further investments in and subsidies to nuclear power and initiate phase-outs of the existing nuclear power plants. In parallel, they must greatly increase

investment in improving energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy such as solar power. With regard to radioactive waste, after more than 50 years of nuclear power, the waste produced at every stage of nuclear operations has contaminated the planet's oceans, rivers, land and air - threatening the environment and human health. Over 400 nuclear power reactors in about 30 countries continue to produce ever larger amounts of radioactive waste. Reprocessing plants discharge radioactive waste directly into the oceans adding to the radioactive waste problem. Much of this waste will be radioactive for many thousands of years, with no safe solution for its long-term management. In addition to the abovestated urgent need for halting reactor construction and phasing-out of nuclear

power, the highest possible standard of care must be applied in the management of existing wastes, including a ban on all discharges, and application of the "proximity principle" that wastes should be stored as close as possible to their source; 6. DISARM/MILITARY WEAPONS: Conventional and nuclear weapons continue to offer no security against the threat of global pollution and environmental destruction - the real enemies of the planet in the next century. In spite of some positive trends in areas to reduce military budgets and weapon numbers, they still command far too high a share of national budgets. Leaders must commit to concluding an agreement by 2000 that would ban the production and use of weapons-usable fissile material immediately, and nuclear weapons between 2000-2010. In the

nearer term, governments should adopt a global, legally binding ban on antipersonnel land mines by 1998 applicable both within and between countries; 7. BIOLOGICAL POLLUTION/GMOS: Molecular biology has started to reveal the basic code of life. Applied as genetic engineering technology, this enables genes to be transferred between completely unrelated species and the creation of artificial organisms. However science is still far from understanding and predicting the consequences of their release into the natural environment. Any genetic mistakes or adverse effects encoded into the engineered organisms, can result in "biological pollution", which could spread quickly - and irreversibly - through the natural environment.

While natural species are being made extinct at an unprecedented rate as a result of human activities, multinational chemical companies are investing in the creation and patenting of new crops, animals and micro-organisms to make them pesticide resistant or toxic, or simply grow faster or bigger. Apart from the ecological risks of this development, there are commercial and cultural disadvantages for farmers and consumers, who will have reduced crop diversity. Also, the ethical and social implications of increasingly placing the world's food supply in the hands of a few multinationals owning the patents needs to be addressed. International standards are urgently required to apply the precautionary principle to regulate strictly the use of all genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs). The release of all GMOs into the environment should be prohibited in a

new Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Property rights on natural organisms and their genes must be banned under international patent law; 8. PROTECT FRESHWATER: Currently, 1/5th of the world's population lacks access to safe water, 1/2 of the population lacks access to safe sanitation, and over 5 million people die annually from waterborne-related diseases. Studies show that if these trends continue, as many as 70% of the world's population will suffer water shortages in the next 25 years. Freshwater reserves are a significant sink for the dumping of wastes from urban and industrial sources, agricultural chemicals and other human activities. At the global and regional levels, effective international agreements need to be negotiated by no later than 2002. In

addition, governments sharing common watersheds/airsheds should take the necessary steps, nationally and regionally, to make freshwater quality, conservation and supply a priority including shifts to clean production in relation to industrial, municipal and agricultural sector uses of toxic substances and wastes - as part of sustainable freshwater management; 9. FINANCING CHANGE: Sustainability requires fundamental structural changes in society. While many changes can be made at a net economic saving (e.g., energy and processing efficiency), many will require the injection of large amounts of private and public finance. Leaders should pledge at UNGASS/ES2 to establish an Intergovernmental Finance Panel with the achievement of ecologically sound and socially just development as its central, guiding tenet. Given the

dominant role of private capitol as a source of development and international project financing, among other tasks, the Panel should propose mechanisms to enable a global environmental audit of private sector finance in relation to the goal of sustainable development. Simultaneously, OECD countries should meet the 0.7% of GNP target for aid by 2002, and achieve half (0.35%) of that target by 1999, including a 50% increase in the current Global Environmental Facility (GEF) replenishment, and targeted debt reductions in the most indebted, least developed countries (in return for initiatives to further sustainable development); 10. SUSTAINABLE TRADE: The role of international trade in contributing to sustainable development remains unclear. Currently, the World Trade Organisation is not accountable to the UN General Assembly, nor are its

activities audited in relation to potential environmental impact. Moreover, there is a disturbing trend in the WTO to overrule national and international laws that limit trade, with little or no regard for sustainable development. Leaders must commit to ensuring that environmental laws will not be set aside, and follow that up, e.g., with a formal understanding by 1998 that multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) shall not be bound by WTO-imposed requirements or restrictions. On related fronts, a trade and environment Ministerial Summit should be convened before the next WTO Ministerial in Geneva (May 1998), and transparency and effective opportunities for NGO participation within the WTO and its Committee on Trade and Environment needs to be ensured; 11. CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY:

The globalization of the economy has meant that corporations have benefited most from the ability to shift finance and production around the planet. While it is a governmental prerogative to set and implement local production and investment standards, multinational corporations and host governments must acknowledge a responsibility to ensure that regulations and corporate behaviour add to, rather than set back, efforts to achieve global sustainability. As a matter of principle, "double standards," e.g., observing one level of conduct in one place and a lower level in another, must be rejected. In this respect, governments should commit to full and transparent environmental audits of corporate operations. With that objective in mind, leaders should agree at UNGASS/ES2 to create a permanent Corporate Accountability Subcommission of the CSD, with a mandate to develop

internationally agreed mechanisms ensuring far greater accountability of multinational corporations; and 12. NGO ACCESS/PARTICIPATION: Consistent with transparency and participation measures that have evolved as part of Earth Summit follow-up, especially activities under the auspices of Commission on Sustainable Development , as well as the important contribution, more generally, of NGOs in UN decision making processes, Governments need to take appropriate steps to ensure effective strengthening of NGO access to and participation in the UN General Assembly, its Main Committees and subsidiary bodies, as well subsequent Special Sessions based, at minimum, on the revised Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental Organizations - Part VII of Resolution 1996/31.

Words may sink Eco-Summit Many poor countries have to use resources regardless of consequences, writes EVELYN LEOPOLD in Now York. Now they fear the big powers may just offer words Instead of protecting the environment. UNITED NATIONS - Forests, farmlands and coral reefs are dwindling, pollution is increasing, oceans are overfished and one billion people are so poor they threaten to use any resource available just to stay alive. Environmentalists are jittery. And so are the organisers of the second Earth Summit, apprehensive that speeches from world leaders will be bereft of concrete action. As the fifth anniversary of the landmark Summit in Rio de Janeiro approaches, more than 65 heads of state or government will meet at United Nations headquarters. Their aim is to set hew targets on "sustainable development" economic growth moving in tandem with ecological goals. But days before this week's conference, . experts were huddling to complete a draft paper that lacks agreement on several basic issues financing for poor nations, climate change, energy, fishing and forests preservation. 'This should be a wake-up call," said Clifton Curtis of Greenpeace International. "We should be beyond promises of Rio and into implementation." Chancellor Kohl of Germany is expected to propose that all the United Nations environmental bodies be in one place Bonn - when his govemrnent moves to Berlin. President Clinton has promised some initiatives, although Europeans find Washington shying away from specific goals. An many developing nations are refusing any commitments until rich states keep their promises in Rio for assistance they need for basic technological, health and educational programmes. But such aid is decreasing rather than rising. "If it becomes universally accepted that even aid is no longer an option, then one can predict that discussions on international cooperation will collapse," Tanzania's minister plenipotentiary Msuya Waldi Mangachi told a recent meeting. What remains is a call for each country to find its own resources, "if it can, and do whatever it can or wants." In Rio, about 10,000 diplomats produced "Agenda 21" - some 2500 goals followed by treaties on biological diversity, climate change or conservation and "desertifaction" or land degradation. And at least 1800 communities set up their own environmental programmes. But the scarcity of fresh water, the loss of agricultural land and forests and the downward spiral of poverty are undermining a rise in food production, health standards and a slower population growth. "Overall, we haven't made the fundamental changes of course promised in Rio," said Canadian businessman Maurice Strong, who was secretary-general of that conference. According to John Gummer, Britain's former environment minister, "We do have to recognise that the rich notions have to pay the price. "We benefit from pollution, from over-exploitation of fishing and so on. 'And richer nations are more able to deal with geographical catastrophes. But Mr Gummer said developing countries could not opt out of negotiations. "The North cannot operate unless it is seen that the South is part of the process," he said. Another highly contentious issue is climate change and energy efficiency. The European Union has set

targets to reduce so-called 'green- house gases" such as carbonon dioxide or nitrous oxide, to roll back global warming, affecting climate changes. The EU formula calls for a 15 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 level by the year 2010, Small island states are righting for a 20 per cent reduction by 2005. To achieve these goals, energy usage has to be more efficient, subsidies for fossil fuels have to be phased out and wind or solar energy altematives have to be explored. But the United States wants no specific targets now, preferring to leave itself negotiating room at a December conference on the issue in Kyoto, Japan. And not much can be done without full participation from Washington. Despite many American innovations toward energy efficiency, experts say it still takes 120 workers to produce the energy needs for the average American, 60 for each European but only eight for each Chinese and one for each person in Bangladesh. Dire Warning at Earth Summit - Poor condemn broken promises NEW YORK - The United Nations Earth Summit opened with Europe attacking the United States for not doing enough to combat global warming and poor nations condemning broken promises by the rich. The week-long, 173-nation conference is taking stock of what has been done to save the planet from ecological disaster since the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. President of the United Nations General Assembly Razali Ismail of Malaysia said achievements since Rio had been "paltry" and predicted castrophe if action was not taken soon. "We as a species, as a planet, are teetering on the edge, living unsustainabty and perpetuating inequity, and may soon pass the point of no return," he said. Challenging the United States, the world's largest polluter, to do more against climate change, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We in Europe have put our cards on the table. It is time for the special pleading to stop and for others to follow suit." Europe failed at the Group of Seven summit in Denver last week to push President Bill Clinton into setting speciflc targets for cutting greenhouse gases. Britain, Germany and the Netherlands renewed the pressure on New York At a separate news conference, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, South African Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong underlined their support for targets proposed by the European Community. The four said they expected the summit to send the world a "clear message", calling for 15 per cent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010, with a 10 percent reduction by 2005. Dr Kohl also asked that the United Nations put its myriad environmental agencies under one roof in a 'global environmental umbrella organisation" with the Nairobi-based United Niations Environmental Programme as a "major pillar." This week's second' Earth Summit comes five years after a heady conference in Rio where 10,000 diplomats and environmentalists outlined an ambitious blue-print to safeguard the planet, covering nearly every aspect of human, animal and plant life. Concrete results include framework treaties on conserving wildlife, preventing the spread of arid lands and committing industrial states to lower their emissions

But since Rio, forests, farmlands and coral reefs have dwindled, pollution is increasing, oceans are overfished and 1.3 billion people are so poor they threaten to use any resource available just to stay alive. Worldwide carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, like oil or coal, climbed. to 6.25 billion tonnes in 1996, altering the atmosphere and the climate. Japan and Canada, whose carbon emissions are rising, have also made no commitments on cutting the gases. REUTER July 1997 Summit Big on Words - Not so Hot on Action NEW YORK - A week-long UN Earth Summit ended with its chairman delivering the verdict: "Our words have not been matched by deeds." Razali Ismail, the blunt Malaysian UN General Assembly president, called the results of the session attended by, dozens of presidents and prime ministers sobering' but "honest" in not attempting to gloss over failures. He accused the more than 170 participating nations of lacking the "political will to tackle critical issues" set out at a landmark 1992 enviroranent summit in Rio de Janeiro. But he said there was wide-spread recognition that abject poverty affecting 1.3 billion people had to be eradicated if the world was to make economic and ecological progress. And, he said, 'we have advanced our understanding on the need for action on fresh water, forests, climate change and energy policies. - Delegates made no firm commitments on greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate changes or on providing more aid to developing countries so they would not follow the polluting paths of wealthier industrialised nations. Prospects, however, were good for new agreements on protecting fresh water in separate negotiations after the conference ended. On protecting forests, the session put off until 2000 a decision on whether to negotiate a treaty, pushed by Europe, Canada, Malaysia and Russia but opposed by the United States and Brazil. Echoing Mr Razali's words, Tanzania's UN ambassador, Daudi Ngelautwa Mwakawago, representing Third World states, told the meeting: "The world is. crying for positive answers. This session has not provided them." Most industrial countries pledged at Rio to increase foreign aid to 0.7 per cent of their gross national product, a goal on the UN agenda since 1972. Only Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have ever achieved this goal. Elswhere aid has fallen to below 0.3 per cent, with the United States registering the sharpest drop in the past few years. After five days of speech-making, the conference's main committee completed its work in a lighthearted atmosphere as a blizzard of amendments was gavelled into acceptance. The paper patchwork was then stitched together and passed on to and adopted by the General Assembly's plenary. The final summit document, however, failed to include a political statement of intent because governments could not agree on one. Instead a more general, shorter preamble was attached to the voluminous final document reaffirming the lofty principles set forth in Rio that enshrined the concept of 'sustainable development" - economic growth compatible with social justice and ecological safety. While acknowledging a number of positive achievements since Rio, the text said: 'We are deeply concerned that the overall trends for sustainable development are .worse today than they were' in 1992." As expected, a Major battle will take place before agreements ort global warming are reached among industrial states meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December.

Greens attack Clinton Speech NEW YORK - Environmental groups attacked President Bill Clinton yesterday for refusing to announce specific targets for cutting the greenhouse gases that cause global warming when he addressed the United Nations Earth Summit. But a key business group welcomed his cautious approach, saying he had softened his position from several months ago. "He resisted the temptation to use this highly public event -to unveil draconian measures that would be harmful to our economy and harmful to the American people," said Gail McDonald -, president of the oil and coal industry-backed Global Climate Coalition. "We urge the President to continue to evaluate the economic impacts of his climate policy and how it will affect American workers and their families." Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defence Fund, said: "If countries whose economies are weaker than the United States are willing to commit to significant reductions in green-house gases, what does that say about the United States?" In his speech, Mr Clinton pledged to cut "significantly" United States green-house gases and promised to spend $US 1 billion ($1.47 billion) to help developing nations reduce their production of the gases. But he rejected European Union targets for sharp cuts as "impossible.' "To help developing nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the United States will provide them with $1 billion in assistance over the next five years," Mr Clinton said. Most of the $1 billion aid plan will come from money already ear-marked for foreign assistance. United States officials said $750 iWIlion would be shifted from existing foreign aid programmes. Mr Clinton said the United States, the world's biggest polluter, had clear responsibilities to control its own emmisions of carbon dioxide and to help the efforts of developing nations. Sensitive to the complaints of European leaders that the United States has failed to commit itself to specific reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, Mr Clinton said he would seek specific targets when a United Nations conference on global warming meets in Kyoto, Japan, at the end of the year. "We will work with our people - and we will bring to the Kyoto conference a strong American commitment to realistic and binding limits that will significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses. "Here in the United States, we must do better with 4 per cent of the world's population, we produce 20 per cent of its greenhouse gases." But Richard Mott of the Worldwide Fund for Nature said: "He devoted his entire speech to global warming and the best he can do is offer up one million solar roofs." Barbara Dudley of Greenpeace said Mr Clinton had not "used this pulpit to do anything dramatic but he hasn't said 'no'." "He is feeling the pressure from both sides, and right now the pressure from industry is greater." REUTER