Y2000 Environmental Setbacks Overshadow Victories
by Danielle Knight
| |
|
by Danielle Knight |
|
|
(IPS) WASHINGTON --
From
stalled talks on reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gases to a victory on banning some of world's most dangerous chemicals, the year 2000 yielded both triumphs and defeat for attempts to protect the global environment.
Still hovering over international efforts to protect the environment is the recent failure of negotiations in The Hague to finalize the details of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty which requires industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While some progress was made to translate the Protocol into an enforceable agreement, the Europe Union accused the United States of thwarting the treaty because it wanted to give credit for using forests and farmland to absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. In late November talks were suspended without resolution. A subsequent attempt to continue negotiations in Ottawa, Canada did not produce any consensus. The breakdown in negotiations in The Hague, according to Alden Meyer, director of government relations at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "represents a tremendous failure by governments to respond to the growing public demand for action on global warming." But if governments were moving slowly on the Kyoto Protocol, they did not do so when addressing the issue of dangerous chemicals. Advocacy groups have been praising the recent success of another environmental treaty. In mid-December environmentalists hailed the final draft of a global treaty agreed to by 122 countries to phase-out some of the most dangerous chemicals on the planet. The treaty eliminates the use of 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) recognized as the most dangerous in the world, which include eight pesticides, two industrial solvents, and two chemicals produced by combustion and industrial processes. Exposure to POPs has been linked to a wide range of negative impacts on health and wildlife, including cancers, endometriosis, learning disorders and the disruption of the endocrine system that regulates hormones. The treaty states that dioxins, released during the incineration of wastes and by industries that use chlorine, should be eventually eliminated. It says that companies and governments need to work to replace materials, products and production processes which release dioxins with non-polluting substitutes. The POPs treaty also includes language based on the 'precautionary principle' which recognizes that lack of scientific certainty should not prevent action. Kevin Stairs, a political advisor for Greenpeace International, says the agreement sends a clear message to industries that they must reform and "stop using the Earth as a testing ground for their dangerous pollutants." "The tap that pours new persistent organic pollutants into our environment will now by turned off, " he says.
|
|
|
While
the POPs treaty negotiations co-ordinated through the United Nations has been considered a success, some activists warn that a new undertaking launched this year by the UN threatens the institution's mission to protect the environment.
In July, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, togather with the UN agencies for the environment (UNEP), labor (ILO) and human rights (UNHCHR), launched the Global Compact. The Compact involves a UN partnership with about 50 major global corporations, including Shell, BP Amoco, Nike and Dupont. The companies will be allowed to use the UN logo if they enact nine principles derived from international agreements on labor standards, human rights and environmental protection. But environmentalists argue that while the reputation of the companies will likely benefit from the UN logo, the principles are voluntary and there is no enforcement mechanism. "Rather than leading to anything real or substantial in terms of corporate activities and their impact on the environment, the Global Compact has been a sophisticated public relations response to the Seattle movement that seeks to rein in some of the corporate power," says Kenny Bruno, a research associate with the Transnational Resource and Action Center (TRAC), a California-based group that monitors the impact of multinational corporations. While advocacy groups keep a close watch on the Global Compact, other human rights and environmental activists this year found reason to celebrate when the World Commission on Dams (WCD) released its much-anticipated report in November. Confirming what dam critics have long argued, the report says dams often fail to deliver promised benefits while devastating the lives of millions of poor people in developing countries and degrading the environment. The precedent-setting report, which outlines guidelines and standards for future development projects, was unanimously endorsed by the WCD's 12 commissioners, whose membership includes affected communities in developing countries as well as dam builders and governments. The lack of equity in the distribution of the promised benefits of dams has "called into question the value of many dams in meeting water and energy development needs when compared with alternatives," says the report. If the builders and funders of dams follow the recommendations of the WCD, "the era of destructive dams should come to an end," says Patrick McCully, campaigns director of the California-based International Rivers Network. While dam critics were vindicated by the report, advocacy groups were dealt a strong blow in October when the Indian Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated ruling, decided to allow construction to resume on the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. Activists against the dam, which include prize-winning writer Arundhati Roy, say the project and its associated infrastructure threaten to displace nearly 500,000 people, mostly poor farmers and indigenous people. Tens of thousands of hectares of fertile arable land, forests, ancient temples and sacred burial grounds are also to be submerged by water. Determined to save their homes and livelihoods from inundation, for more than a decade, the Indian-based Narmada Bachao Andolan (also known as NBA or Save the Narmada Movement) continues to organize demonstrations, marches and fasts to stop the project. "The verdict has made (the people affected by the dam) more determined," said Medha Patkar, the leader of the NBA movement, who was one of the 12 WCD Commissioners. "For them it is a question of life and death."
Albion Monitor
December 31, 2000 (http://www.monitor.net/monitor) All Rights Reserved. Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to use in any format. |
