Global Environmental Protection in the 21st Century

By David Hunter, June 1, 1999

In the past three decades, protecting the global environment has emerged as one of the major
challenges in international relations. No fewer than ten global environmental treaties have been
negotiated as well as literally hundreds of regional and bilateral agreements. Governments have
also endorsed dozens of comprehensive action plans, most notably the 400-page Agenda 21,
which set forth a blueprint for implementing sustainable development. The result is an
increasingly complex and rich body of international environmental law and policy. At least on
paper, this provides a broad framework for moving toward a more environmentally sustainable
future.

Unfortunately, this rich body of treaties, action plans, and other instruments has not reversed
global environmental decline. Virtually every major environmental indicator is worse today than
it was at the time of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or the
Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro. Climate change has caused the warmest decade in
recorded history, the ozone layer continues to deteriorate, species extinction is at the highest rate
since the end of the dinosaur era, fish populations are crashing, and toxic chemicals are
accumulating in every part of the planet and in every living organism, including humans.

This essay looks first at the promise of the Earth Summit and then proceeds to analyze several
critical areas where implementation has fallen short—and where U.S. leadership can make a
difference in the next century.

The Promise of Rio

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was heralded as the turning point for global environmental policy.
More than one hundred countries came to the Rio summit, which sought to merge two critical
international concerns—environmental protection and economic development—that had been
evolving on different tracks during the 1970s and 1980s. For developing countries, the merger of
environment and development was a major improvement over earlier environmental conferences
and provided hope for increased North-South cooperation. In addition, the cold war had recently
ended, and the rise of a one-superpower world meant that East-West conflicts would not
dominate this conference, as they had earlier international environmental efforts.

On paper, at least, the Earth Summit did provide a potential vision for moving toward sustainable
development—that is, toward both greater environmental protection and greater economic
justice. The Earth Summit yielded two legally binding treaties: the Framework Convention on
Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Also a product of the Summit were
a set of nonbinding general principles known as the Rio Declaration, a set of nonbinding
principles on forest management, and the blueprint for sustainable development entitled Agenda
21.
The assembled governments also established the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD) to integrate environment and development into the UN system while providing a forum to
monitor the implementation of summit commitments.

Looking for U.S. Leadership

More than any other country, the United States is responsible for the existing gulf between Rio’s
rhetoric of international environmental consciousness and the post-Rio environmental reality.
Not only is the U.S. the world’s only remaining economic and political superpower, it’s also the
largest polluter and the largest user of most important resources. Although the United States is
often in the vanguard in recognizing global environmental threats and in calling for a multilateral
response, it often lags in changing its own behavior. Once considered the leader in environmental
regulation, the United States now lags well behind Germany and other European countries in
adopting new and innovative regulatory approaches such as ecological taxes, extended product
responsibility, and the precautionary principle on avoiding probable environmental damage.

Although a leader in previous environmental conferences and negotiations, the United States
(under then-President George Bush) almost single-handedly undermined the Earth Summit. Just
days before the Rio summit opened, for example, the United States announced that it would not
sign the Biodiversity Convention, despite provisionally adopting the draft version at the end of
the negotiation session two weeks before. Instead, the United States emphasized the need to
conserve the world’s forests and offered what was considered a small, $150-million aid package
to protect forests in developing countries. Southern leaders immediately labeled this gesture as
"greenwash," viewing U.S. support for forest conservation as a cynical effort to shift the focus
from the North’s responsibility to control industrial pollution to the South’s responsibility to
conserve forests as carbon sinks. Malaysia’s Ambassador Ranji Sathia responded, "The [$150
million] does not impress us. They are just trying to divert attention from their failing elsewhere
—for example, in the watering down of the climate change convention and their refusal to sign
the biodiversity treaty."

Filling the Environmental Policy Gaps

Despite the many environmental regimes and action plans negotiated in the past quarter century,
important gaps still exist in the international environmental policy framework. The framework
has not developed in any systematic or strategic way. Rather it is a collection of numerous
treaties, each addressing relatively discrete global or regional environmental issues.
Superimposed over these binding treaties are a set of broader, nonbinding declarations or
resolutions, such as the Stockholm and Rio declarations. No binding set of general
environmental principles currently exists. Moreover, some new or particularly complicated
environmental issues still await international attention, compounding the policy gaps.

Developing a Binding Framework of Environmental Principles. The lack of an overarching

binding framework has many implications for the future effectiveness of international
environmental policies. In trade and environment disputes, for example, environmental concerns
are at a disadvantage, because the set of rules for international environmental protection is not as
clear as the WTO’s trade rules. Binding environmental principles could help to achieve more
balanced integration between environmental protection and other social goals like trade. Such
principles could also provide a substantive basis for coordinating the activities of the many
international institutions that currently claim a role in environmental policy. Finally, binding
principles could help in establishing minimum environmental standards—both for private sector
activities and for governments—by assisting in the harmonization of domestic environmental
laws.

Despite the potential importance of binding principles, the United States has consistently
opposed the development of any general environmental covenant. It argues that any covenant
negotiated today would not sufficiently protect the global environment, because developing
countries would defend their sovereign right to develop. The negotiation of a binding covenant
may indeed magnify the overall influence of developing countries, because they do not generally
have the financial and human resources to participate effectively in the contemporaneous
negotiations of many separate environmental treaties and instruments. In fact, it may be exactly
those fears of negotiating on a level playing field that drives U.S. opposition to a covenant rather
than a fear that the resulting principles would be too weak.

Instead of pursuing a binding covenant, the United States seems intent on weakening some of the
key proposed principles. For example, the United States is one of the few remaining countries
still opposing the precautionary principle (which holds that a lack of scientific certainty should
not be used to prevent cost-effective action to address potentially irreversible environmental
threats). The U.S. approach to environmental regulation requires that there be proven
environmental damage before control measures are taken.

Washington stands virtually alone in rejecting the precautionary principle—a guideline with
significant implications for many global environmental issues. Based in part on the precautionary
principle, Europe is championing a much stronger regulatory approach to biosafety issues such
as the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To make matters worse, the U.S. has
been threatening to challenge Europe’s precautionary approach to GMOs in the World Trade
Organization, basing its argument on the lack of definitive science for justifying GMO trade
restrictions.

Getting the Rules Right Regarding the Climate Regime. Climate change may be the single
most significant environmental issue of the next few decades. In the Kyoto Protocol,
industrialized countries committed to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions an average of
5% from 1990 levels by 2012. In addition, the parties also established an international trading
system in carbon emissions. Tons of carbon emissions will soon trade like other commodities
throughout the world. To incorporate as many countries as possible, the Kyoto Protocol was
necessarily general, leaving many critical issues for future negotiations. By the end of 2000 the
Conference of the Parties to the Protocol must address such issues as how to count the carbon
sequestered by forests, landfills, and agricultural practices in calculating a country’s net
greenhouse gas emissions; how to facilitate the trading of carbon emission credits between
countries; and how to monitor and enforce such a trading system. Given America’s position as
the world’s supreme carbon emitter and energy user, U.S. leadership in getting these rules right
will be critical if the climate regime is to have any hope of responding effectively to the threat of
climate change.

Imposing Liability and Providing Compensation. Few international environmental regimes

have addressed the question of liability and compensation for harm caused to the environment.
The Montreal Protocol, widely viewed as the model for all international environmental treaties,
effectively banned the production and use of most ozone-depleting substances. But it did not
hold those responsible for ozone depletion legally accountable, nor did it provide for
compensating persons or countries that have suffered from ozone depletion. Even where liability
issues have been generally acknowledged in international law—e.g., concerning damage caused
by transboundary shipments of hazardous wastes—the parties have been deadlocked in trying to
operationalize the concept of liability. The U.S. has often opposed international liability in these
contexts, ostensibly out of concern that minimum levels of due process and fairness may be hard
to ensure in international forums. However, America’s disproportionate responsibility for many
global environmental threats and its vulnerability to liability claims also help explain U.S.
opposition.

Emphasizing Environmental Restoration. Given how far we have come in damaging the
global environment, international environmental efforts in the future will have to be focused
more on environmental restoration than protection. Although more expensive and less effective
than protecting resources in the first place, restoration may sometimes be the only choice left.
Environmental restoration is now a dynamic part of domestic environmental management and
will undoubtedly begin to inform future global environmental negotiations. In this country, for
example, the increasing trend toward removal of dams, reintroduction of endangered species, and
large-scale restoration projects—like the attempt to recover the Florida Everglades—portends a
future focus of international cooperation.

As an example, international aid agencies are discussing whether to undertake a massive effort to
restore coastal mangroves and interior watersheds in Central America. Many mangrove forests
have disappeared as a result of shrimp aquaculture, and the region’s watersheds have been
deforested for export timber. As a result, Hurricane Mitch struck with greater devastation. In the
hurricane’s wake, political pressure has been building in the region for governments to restore
these important ecosystems—so fundamental for the region’s environmental sustainability.

Addressing Persistent Chemicals. In June 1998, negotiations began in Montreal to establish a

global convention to eliminate or manage twelve of the world’s worst chemical contaminants,
including dioxins, PCBs, DDT, and other pesticides. These chemicals persist in the environment
and accumulate in human and animal tissues. Many of them have been linked to cancer and to
adverse affects on human endocrine systems. Although most countries concur on how to regulate
the twelve chemicals currently identified in the agreement, major differences exist about how to
add new chemicals to the list of globally regulated or prohibited substances. Also critical to any
global accord will be the decision about whether countries that are the source of existing
stockpiles of phased-out chemicals should be responsible for their disposal. The document (to be
completed by 2000) has been closely monitored by the chemical industry, which is pressing the
United States to narrow the agreement’s purview.

Water Shortages. Most experts agree that access to fresh water may be the most important
natural resource issue for the next century. Human health, the environment, and even a country’s
national security depend on access to adequate water supplies. But according to a recent UN
Freshwater Assessment, humans are already using "about half" of the 12,500 cubic kilometers of
water that is readily available. With world population expected to double in the next 50 years and
with water consumption historically increasing at twice the rate of population, our global water
situation is bleak. To make matters worse, water is allocated unevenly around the globe. Today,
460 million people or 8% of the world’s population live in countries already facing serious water
shortages. Regional water shortages may thus exacerbate international conflicts and threaten
national security if international management efforts are not successful. A 1997 UN convention
on transnational water uses provides a beginning framework for managing these regional
disputes, but long-term financial and political leadership from the United States and other
powerful countries will be required for the convention to be successful.

Consumption Levels. The Earth Summit recognized explicitly that achieving sustainability
would require addressing both population and consumption. Two years after the Earth Summit,
the world’s governments came together at the Cairo Population Summit to negotiate a
comprehensive plan to curb population growth, but the North has yet to allow any meaningful
dialogue on consumption. The United States, in particular, has blocked international efforts to
address consumption levels. Domestically, the U.S. lacks any comprehensive effort to "green"
consumption and lags well behind Europe, for example, in adopting green taxes, ecolabeling
procedures, "take-back" legislation (requiring industries to take back and dispose of their by-
products at the end of their useful life), or other policies aimed at greening consumption. In the
next century, no serious effort at achieving sustainable development will be able to avoid
tackling the issue of Northern consumption levels and patterns.

Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal was adopted in 1989 and entered into force in May 1992. This global
environmental treaty regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and obliges its
parties to ensure that such wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner. It also protects the right of states to ban entry of foreign waste into their territories. The
United States signed the Basel Convention on March 22, 1989, but has not yet ratified it.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by over 150 governments at the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992 and entered into force in 1993. It has become the centerpiece of international
efforts to conserve the planet's biological diversity, ensure the sustainable use of biological
resources, protect ecosystems and natural habitats, and promote the fair and equitable sharing of
the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The convention was signed on June
4, 1993, but the United States has failed to ratified it.
Convention on Climate Change
Over 150 states signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in June
1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, recognizing climate change as "a common concern of
humankind." The convention aimed to reduce emission levels of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels
by the year 2000 but failed to set binding goals. The United States signed the treaty on June 12,
1992, ratified it on October 15, 1992, and entered it into force in the United States on March 21,
1994.

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change

The agreement sets, for the first time, legally binding limits on the heat-trapping greenhouse
gases that cause global warming. Under the protocol, 38 industrialized countries agreed to reduce
their overall emissions to about 5% below 1990 levels by 2012, and a range of specific reduction
requirements was set for other countries. The U.S. signed the protocol on November 12, 1998,
but has not yet ratified it.

Convention to Combat Desertification

The Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought
and/or Desertification, Especially in Africa (CCD) promotes an integrated approach to managing
the problems posed by dry-land ecosystems and encourages developed nations to support such
efforts internationally. The convention came into effect in 1996 and has over 120 parties. The
United States has signed but not ratified the convention.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

CITES establishes international controls on global trade in endangered or threatened species of
animals and plants. For example, CITES prohibits all commercial trade in wildlife species
threatened with extinction. CITES was ratified by the United States on January 14, 1974, and
implemented as the Endangered Species Act. More than 125 countries are members.

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

The Montreal Protocol—and subsequent revisions—is the primary international regime for
controlling the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs, halons,
and methyl bromide. As of June 1994, 136 states, including virtually all major industrialized
countries and most developing countries, had become parties to the protocol. The United States
signed the protocol on September 16, 1987, and ratified it on April 21, 1988. The protocol and its
subsequent revisions modified the original 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer.

International Environmental Law Principles

These principles have been adopted, as indicated, from either the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development or the IUCN Draft Covenant on Environment and Development.
Improving the UN Architecture

No single institution legislates or manages international environmental problems. Scores of

official and semiofficial organizations and agencies have at least some environmental mandate.
In the future, global environmental governance will continue to involve an array of multilateral,
national, and intergovernmental organizations together with citizen groups and treaties. This is as
it should be, given that the concept of sustainable development embraces so many different
disciplines and issues. But as Professor Dan Esty, a leading international environmental lawyer,
has observed: "The difficulty with existing international institutions that address environmental
issues . . . is that they have been given narrow mandates, small budgets and limited support. No
one organization has the authority or political strength to serve as a central clearinghouse or
coordinator."

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) is widely considered the primary international

environmental agency. Its mission is to "facilitate international cooperation in the environmental
field; to keep the world environmental situation under review so that problems of international
significance receive appropriate consideration by governments; and to promote the acquisition,
assessment, and exchange of environmental knowledge."

In recent years, financial and political support of UNEP has lagged, and most observers question
whether it can effectively champion environmental issues within the UN system.

Partly in response to UNEP’s weaknesses and partly because of the many different international
institutions that exercise at least some environmental authority, governments created the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) at the 1992 Earth Summit to coordinate and
integrate environmental and economic issues within the United Nations. Unfortunately the
CSD’s role is limited to providing a political forum for discussion, without any operational
mandate or authority. The result is that international environmental governance is still spread
across too many institutions with diffuse, conflicting, or weak authorities.

Given these problems in the UN architecture for international environmental governance, there
may be no escaping the need for broad institutional reform. Several important leaders have called
for such reform. In a 1997 speech to the UN General Assembly, German Chancellor Helmut
Kohl suggested amending the UN Charter to include sustainable development as one of the two
overall purposes of the UN and to establish a global environmental umbrella organization, with
UNEP as a major pillar. In addition, Brazil, South Africa, Singapore, and New Zealand have also
proposed a new, stronger UN environmental body.

Other specific proposals have been advanced, including the creation of an environmental
organization with powers analogous to that of the World Trade Organization. Such an
organization could consolidate the different environmental secretariats and UNEP, creating one
organization responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of environmental
treaties. If a binding set of principles existed, a World Environmental Organization could also
resolve environmental disputes more efficiently than can the current processes.
Less ambitious, and perhaps more realistic in the short term, would be to strengthen the growing
number of regional environmental institutions that are being established to manage shared
natural resources. For example, the International Joint Commission between the U.S. and
Canada, which primarily aims at managing the Great Lakes, has been highly regarded as a model
for the environmental management of shared watersheds. Regional fisheries management
organizations are also emerging in many areas of the world and have been given potentially
strong enforcement powers under recently negotiated global fisheries agreements.

Integrating Environmental Protection into the Global Economy

The concept of sustainable development requires the integration of environmental concerns into
the fields of international trade, investment, and finance. Since the Earth Summit,
environmentalists have made significant advances. Environmental issues are now legitimate
concerns for discussion at such organizations as the World Bank and the WTO. Indeed most of
the international financial institutions, e.g., the World Bank, have adopted new environmental
policies and increased their environmental staffs. Even the IMF has created an environmental
unit (albeit thus far with only one person).

Despite these policy and staffing advances, the successful practical integration of the
environment and the global economy lags far behind. The approach of the international financial
institutions (IFIs) continues to emphasize mitigating environmental impacts from poorly
designed and inappropriate projects, rather than finding ways to proactively promote
environmentally sustainable development. More importantly, the IFIs and trade institutions have
not fundamentally reconsidered their general approach to building a global economy in light of
the constraints implied by the concept of sustainable development. As a result, these institutions
have failed to reduce significantly their adverse impact on the global environment.

Global Financial Architecture and the Environment. In light of the role that foreign capital
flight played in precipitating the Asian and Russian economic crises, an increasing number of
people have begun to question the dominant global economic prescription offered by the IMF
and the World Bank. This prescription has long been promoted by the U.S. Department of
Treasury as a critical component of U.S. foreign economic policy aimed primarily at maintaining
stability on Wall Street by protecting foreign (i.e. U.S.) capital investments in developing
countries. As these capital investments have increasingly become short-term and speculative, the
social utility of protecting capital flows is increasingly questionable. Speculative, "hot flows" of
capital are not intended for long-term productive investments. Protecting the rights of countries
to impose capital controls, particularly on short-term investments, may be critical for ensuring
both long-term stability and increased benefits from natural resources for local people.

Over the past decade, environmentalists have also shown that the IFIs frequently saddle
developing countries with loan conditions that increase the pressures on natural resource
exploitation with devastating environmental consequences. Among other things, these structural
adjustment policies (SAPs) significantly increase the rate of forest harvesting, mining, and
fishery harvests. While these SAPs are increasing natural resource exploitation, many
governments are also being directed to reduce public spending, including funds for
environmental protection and natural resource management.
To make matters worse, large structural adjustment loan packages heap additional debt onto
already heavily indebted countries. Due in large part to civil society pressure in the past few
years, some limited debt relief may be on the way for the world’s poorest countries. But the
United States must take a much greater leadership role in prodding the World Bank and the IMF
to make broader and deeper cuts in developing country debt. Such a step could help alleviate the
pressures on low-income countries to exploit their environments in order to service their foreign
debts.

Greening International Trade. Shortly after the 1992 Earth Summit, the United States, Canada,
and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Negotiated by the
outgoing Bush administration, NAFTA originally avoided addressing the environmental or labor
aspects of free trade. Pressure from environmentalists ultimately led to negotiation of an
environmental side agreement, which ostensibly reflected the Clinton administration’s increased
commitment to integrating the goals of environmental protection and trade liberalization.
Following closely on NAFTA, the Clinton administration also promised to green the WTO in a
1993 speech by Vice President Al Gore. Unfortunately, this would later prove to be the high-
water mark of the Clinton administration’s commitment to integrating trade and the environment.

Despite occasional promises to the contrary, free trade has become the paramount value driving
most U.S. international relations under the Clinton administration. Lost is the balanced goal of
integrating environment and trade as pronounced at the Earth Summit and subsequently in the
environmental side agreement to NAFTA. A case in point is the administration’s effort to
railroad the so-called fast-track trade bill through Congress in 1997. The president’s proposal
largely ignored environmental issues and was thus universally opposed by all environmental
groups (even those who had previously supported NAFTA). Nor has the United States shown
any leadership in promoting sound environmental policies at the WTO. Although the WTO did
create a Committee on Trade and the Environment shortly after Vice President Gore’s 1993
speech, that committee has been largely ineffectual in catalyzing any meaningful trade and
environment policy.

Ultimately, the problem may be that liberalizing trade and investment is too often viewed as a
positive goal in its own right. Lost is any critical analysis of whether such liberalization always
leads to improvements in human welfare and quality of life. Goals such as environmental
protection, human rights, and social equity—which are arguably more closely linked to human
welfare than is liberalized trade—have been relegated to the back seat during the drive toward
free trade. Only by honestly evaluating the environmental and social impact of liberalizing trade
and investment, sector by sector, can we determine whether expansion or contraction of the
world trade system is more likely to lead to a sustainable future. Thus the United States should
support calls by environmentalists for a thorough analysis of the impacts of current trade policies
on environmental sustainability before supporting any expansion of liberalized trade and
investment policies.

Respecting Global Environment Agreements. IFIs and trade institutions also need to do a
better job of mainstreaming concerns about the environment into their day-to-day operations.
This general issue is highlighted by the way in which these institutions relate to the multilateral
environmental agreements (for example, the climate change regime or the Montreal Protocol
with respect to ozone depletion). The IFIs have yet to prohibit funding projects that exacerbate
the very same problems that these global environmental regimes are meant to address.

The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has recently adopted a hopeful
approach, announcing that it would not finance any projects that are inconsistent with certain
international environmental obligations—for example, projects that use ozone-depleting
substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol, projects that manufacture certain toxic
chemicals, or projects affecting sites listed under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Yet
OPIC continues to finance projects that have a significant negative impact on the climate system.
Similarly, the WTO still struggles with how to dovetail international trade law with international
environmental agreements—although in a recent decision, a WTO dispute panel did agree that
international environmental agreements should be taken into account when deciding an
international trade dispute.

Balancing Investment Rights with Privileges. In promoting broad investment agreements, such
as the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), the United States and other
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries are trying to
formalize into international law a reduction in the power of national and local governments to
control the environmental and social impacts of foreign investment. Adoption of "free trade" in
investment capital would mean that companies would enjoy all of the benefits of free capital
flow and repatriation of profits while accepting none of the environmental and social
responsibility inherent in the goal of sustainable development. Sovereign nations should be able
to retain the right to regulate how foreign investors operate in their territory and to determine the
extent to which local people should be given preferential treatment with respect to local
resources. Although this may in some cases lead to reduced environmental protection, ensuring
that local people benefit from natural resource exploitation is not only fair but, in the long run,
will likely lead to more sustainable development.

Although transnational corporations often operate in developing countries with higher

environmental standards than do local companies, transnationals typically follow lower standards
than they practice at home. Adhering to lower standards in developing countries raises serious
questions of equity and competitiveness. To minimize the impact of lower standards abroad, the
United States should ban the export of domestically prohibited technologies and goods and
should impose minimum environmental standards on U.S. corporations operating abroad. The
United States should also provide fair and equal judicial access to foreign citizens and
communities harmed by environmental damage caused by U.S. corporate activities.

Greening Technology Transfers. The markets for environmental investments are large and
increasing; for example, investments for global pollution control are expected to reach $300-600
billion per year by 2000; investments in energy efficiency projects are expected to total another
$250 billion in the next 20 years. Many of these opportunities for environmental investments are
being created or stimulated by international and domestic law. For example, the Kyoto Protocol
under the climate change regime now requires a reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions in
industrial countries, which may in turn create a massive new market for renewable and efficient
energy technologies. Transferring these green technologies to developing countries should be a
priority of both U.S. and international finance lending. Such lending should be earmarked for
shifting societies to appropriate, nonpolluting technologies and not simply for improving the
efficiencies of fundamentally unsustainable technologies, such as coal-fired power plants or
nuclear reactors.

Emphasizing the Individual to Protect the Global Environment

Perhaps the most promising development for protecting the global environment since the Earth
Summit is the rise of a global environmental movement. The number of environmental
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) addressing international issues, particularly in
developing countries, has exploded in recent years, as has their capacity to build networks,
gather and analyze technical information, and gain the attention of key policymakers. Virtually
every country has at least one environmental NGO, many of which actively seek to collaborate
with their colleagues from other countries.

Today’s communication technology has also increased the effectiveness of the global
environmental community considerably. The Internet, in particular, provides a vast opportunity
for forming and maintaining global networks, sharing information and experiences, and
coordinating international lobbying efforts. In this regard, the most important developments are
not in the formation of permanent federations or groups of formal networks but in the ability of
temporary networks and campaigns to form, adapt, and dissolve readily. This dynamic process
allows for concentrated efforts through new and changing alliances that focus on specific issues.
It allows coordinated action in many different countries around the same issue, with little need
for expensive infrastructure or costly planning meetings. Success often depends as much on
internal diplomacy—the ability to maintain the interest of a large number of NGOs through the
use of information technology—as on any external communication strategy. In the Internet
world, NGOs may have a slight advantage over corporations in that the informality of the NGO
community helps in conducting business through the Internet, and trust can build quickly among
NGOs with shared goals and vision.

Protecting Unrestricted Citizen Access to the Internet. Effective Internet use by citizen
movements has not gone unnoticed by those who benefit from isolating civil society. Given
recent pronouncements by several countries,—including Russia and Vietnam—about restricting
or monitoring international Internet communication, and given the ongoing discussions by U.S.
law enforcement agencies about obtaining the capabilities to monitor Internet messages,
maintaining unrestricted access to the Internet must be a high priority for the global
environmental movement.

Democratizing International Environmental Law. Traditionally only nation-states have had

the right to participate in the making, interpretation, and implementation of international law.
This model is being challenged with respect to international environmental law, however, as
many nonstate actors assume more prominent roles. Nowadays nonstate actors—for example,
transnational corporations and NGOs—gather their own information, make their own alliances,
and expect to participate fully in international affairs. To be sure, the primary impact of NGOs is
indirect—through pressuring national governments—but in recent years NGOs have also begun
to participate directly in international environmental negotiations. For example, the U.S.
delegations to international meetings now routinely include both environmental NGO and
industry representatives as unofficial observers. Given that environmental NGOs are generally
more likely to insist on environmental protection than are government representatives, this trend
toward the democratization of international environmental law will generally work to the
environment’s advantage.

A few forums also now exist that give citizens a more direct role in enforcing stronger
environmental policies. Prodded by NGOs and donor governments, for example, the World Bank
created an inspection panel in 1993. The creation of this panel marked the first time in history
that people harmed by an international institution could seek an investigation into that
institution’s activities without first involving their government. Although the panel process has
become highly politicized, in almost every instance claimants have received some relief and have
triggered important discussions and debate about reforms at the highest level of the World Bank.
The Asia Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank now offer similar
mechanisms for citizen-based enforcement. The International Finance Corporation (which is part
of the World Bank) recently created an ombudsman’s office to hear citizen complaints, and it is
also considering creating an inspection panel. Another recent citizen forum is the petition process
of the NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation, through which citizens can question
the effectiveness of any NAFTA country’s environmental enforcement efforts. All these citizen
forums need to be strengthened and others created to expand the role of citizens in protecting the
global environment.

Democratizing International Environmental Law. Traditionally only nation-states have had

the right to participate in the making, interpretation, and implementation of international law.
This model is being challenged with respect to international environmental law, however, as
many nonstate actors assume more prominent roles. Nowadays nonstate actors—for example,
transnational corporations and NGOs—gather their own information, make their own alliances,
and expect to participate fully in international affairs. To be sure, the primary impact of NGOs is
indirect—through pressuring national governments—but in recent years NGOs have also begun
to participate directly in international environmental negotiations. For example, the U.S.
delegations to international meetings now routinely include both environmental NGO and
industry representatives as unofficial observers. Given that environmental NGOs are generally
more likely to insist on environmental protection than are government representatives, this trend
toward the democratization of international environmental law will generally work to the
environment’s advantage.

A few forums also now exist that give citizens a more direct role in enforcing stronger
environmental policies. Prodded by NGOs and donor governments, for example, the World Bank
created an inspection panel in 1993. The creation of this panel marked the first time in history
that people harmed by an international institution could seek an investigation into that
institution’s activities without first involving their government. Although the panel process has
become highly politicized, in almost every instance claimants have received some relief and have
triggered important discussions and debate about reforms at the highest level of the World Bank.
The Asia Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank now offer similar
mechanisms for citizen-based enforcement. The International Finance Corporation (which is part
of the World Bank) recently created an ombudsman’s office to hear citizen complaints, and it is
also considering creating an inspection panel. Another recent citizen forum is the petition process
of the NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation, through which citizens can question
the effectiveness of any NAFTA country’s environmental enforcement efforts. All these citizen
forums need to be strengthened and others created to expand the role of citizens in protecting the
global environment.

Notification and Consultation

States shall provide prior and timely notification
Common Concern and relevant information to potentially affected
The global environment is a common concern States on activities that may have a significant
of humanity. (IUCN Covenant, Principle 13) adverse transboundary environmental effect and
shall consult with those States at an early stage
and in good faith. (Rio Declaration, Principle 19)
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
Peaceful Resolution of Disputes
States shall resolve all their environmental
In view of the different contributions to global
disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in
environmental degradation, States have
accordance with the Charter of the United
common but differentiated responsibilities.
Nations. (Rio Declaration, Principle 26)
(Rio Declaration, Principle 7)
The Polluter Pays Principle
Duty Not to Cause Environmental Harm
National authorities should promote the
States have the responsibility to ensure that
internalization of environmental costs and the use
activities within their jurisdiction or control do
of economic instruments, taking into account the
not cause damage to the environment of other
approach that the polluter should, in principle,
States or of areas beyond the limits of national
bear the cost of pollution. (Rio Declaration,
jurisdiction. (Rio Declaration, Principle 2)
Principle 16)
Environmental Impact Assessment
The Precautionary Principle
Environmental impact assessment shall be
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
undertaken for proposed activities that are
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
likely to have a significant adverse impact on
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
the environment and are subject to a decision
measures to prevent environmental degradation.
of a competent national authority. (Rio
(Rio Declaration, Principle 15)
Declaration, Principle 17)
Global Partnership
Public Participation
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global
Environmental issues are best handled with the
partnership to conserve, protect and restore the
participation of all concerned citizens, at the
health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem.
relevant level. (Rio Declaration, Principle 10)
(Rio Declaration, Principle 7)
Integration Right to Development
In order to achieve sustainable development, The right to development must be fulfilled so as
environmental protection shall constitute an to equitably meet developmental and
integral part of the development process and
environmental needs of present and future
cannot be considered in isolation from it. (Rio
generations. (Rio Declaration, Principle 3)
Declaration, Principle 4)
Nonrelocation of Harm
States should effectively cooperate to State Sovereignty
discourage or prevent the relocation and States have the sovereign right to exploit their
transfer to other States of any activities and own resources pursuant to their own
substances that cause severe environmental environmental and developmental policies. (Rio
degradation or are found to be harmful to Declaration, Principle 2)
human health. (Rio Declaration, Principle 14)
Per capita CO2
Emissions 1995
(metric tons)

Source: World Resources Institute, World Resources 1998-1999: A Guide to the Global
Environment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

The expansion of citizen rights within the international system will come at a cost, however. As
nation-states relinquish their monopoly on international policymaking, corporations (not just
individuals or civil society organizations) will also gain greater access and power. Already the
influence of corporations on formal international governance structures is apparent. Corporations
that contribute large sums of money to the so-called "host" committees for international
meetings, such as the recent NATO Summit in Washington or the upcoming Seattle Ministerial
of the WTO, are promised special access to the delegates. UNEP has also sought contributions
from both environmental groups and industry to help pay for the negotiations of a binding treaty
on persistent organic pollutants. Environmental groups will not be able to compete with the
chemical industry in a treaty negotiation if financial contributions become the currency for
access and political influence.

Developing Minimum and Uniform International Administrative Procedures. Transparent

and accountable procedures in international affairs can temper rising corporate influence.
Campaigns to press for increased access to information and to attain citizen rights to participate
in international institutions are ongoing simultaneously at many different international
institutions. Thus, for example, efforts to ensure minimum levels of transparency and access to
information are currently being waged at the WTO, the IMF, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the multilateral development banks.

U.S. Energy Consumption

and Population
Figures as Percentages of
the World Totals
x 1970 1995 2010(est.)
U.S. Energy Consumption* 32.7 24.8 21.0
U.S. Population** 5.5 4.6 4.3
Sources: *U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, International Energy Outlook 1997
(Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration 1997).
**United Nations Department of International Economic and
Social Affairs, World Population Prospects (New York:
UN 1994).

Conclusion

A minimum level of citizen-based rights to information, participation, and independent review

should be provided at all international institutions. Currently no minimum procedures or
standards exist, and civil society ends up duplicating its efforts for improving governance at
every institution. To avoid repeating the same battles with each regulatory body, governments
should negotiate one international "administrative procedures" treaty covering all the relevant
institutions. Models currently exist that can be used for the development of such a treaty—for
example, Europe’s Convention on Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking.

As the United States has been a leader in promoting greater transparency and participation at
individual international organizations, it should also promote harmonization of minimum
standards for international governance through an administrative procedures treaty.

Integrating Human Rights and the Environment. Human rights laws may also present
important opportunities for gaining better environmental protection. Intuitively, people support
the fundamental human right to enjoy minimum amounts of air and water free of contamination;
to grow crops in a stable climate system on land protected from harmful ultraviolet radiation; in
short, to live and raise their children in an environment conducive to human life and health.

Regardless of whether the human right to a healthy environment is recognized, however, the
relationship between environmental protection and human rights is a natural one. Environmental
damage is often worse in countries and in areas where human rights abuses are greatest,
particularly where outside forces are driving the exploitation of valuable natural resources—for
example, gold or oil—over the objections of local communities. Repression is often the only way
to force this type of "development," particularly when little or no benefit is obvious for the local
community. Leading environmental activists such as Chico Mendes and Ken Saro Wiwa have
been killed and many others have been beaten for raising their voices. In many of these
instances, the international human rights movement offers the best hope for protection from
internal oppression.

In hindsight, we can now see that the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in
Rio de Janiero never effectively addressed the speed and scale of the global economy. Although
UNCED raised questions about unsustainable levels of consumption and emphasized the goal of
sustainable development over economic growth, the conference did not herald a significant shift
away from the global preoccupation with economic growth. Indeed, at least until the economic
crises in Asia, Russia, and Brazil, the 1990s witnessed an unprecedented and uninterrupted drive
toward a global economy, with virtually no recognition of the goal of sustainable development.
Globalization is being supported by international policies and institutions that attempt to remove
regulatory barriers to the flow of goods, services, and capital. No set of governments or
institutions is managing the global economic tide, which is strong and unpredictable. At least
with respect to environmental protection, international organizations (both economic institutions
and environment and development bodies) lack both the authority and the will to manage the
global market for sustainable development. Moreover, agreements such as the MAI—designed to
facilitate global markets—will undermine national efforts to impose environmental protections.

As we have discussed, scenarios for imposing environmental controls on global markets involve
greatly strengthening current global environmental policy and institutional frameworks. Global
economic regimes could even be greened from the inside if leading economic powers made
sustainable development a priority. Human rights, too, may provide a mechanism for checking
the environmental excesses of the global market economy, although complicated and technical
environmental problems are generally more conducive to complex management regimes than to
a black-and-white system of minimum rights. Yet whatever mix of these approaches is used to
nudge the global economy toward more sustainable development, it will have little chance of
success until the United States takes a leadership role in pursuing global environmental
protection above unbridled economic growth.