Setting the Stage for the Earth Summit: Brazil 1992

Thomas L. Adams Jr. and Jose Martinez-Aragon

Editors' Summary: From June 1 to June 12, 1992, the United Nations (U.N.) Conference on Environment and Development, commonly referred to as the Earth Summit, is scheduled to meet in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This conference has been hailed as a "constitutional convention" for the global environment. Conference organizers estimate that 15,000 representatives from more than 150 nations will participate. Issues on the agenda include such high-profile topics as climate change, forest conservation, and biodiversity. The authors discuss the background of the conference, beginning with the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. They review the U.N. preparatory committee meetings that have been held in preparation for the Rio conference, and review the principle items on the agenda. The authors next analyze the subjects of contention among the countries and regions that are expected to be the main players at the conference and in future international negotiations on global environmental problems. The authors conclude that it is still too early to predict the outcome of the conference. Although the negotiations leading up to the conference indicate that there is much disagreement on fundamental issues, the amount of public attention generated by the preparations for the conference at least raise hopes that the Earth Summit will produce some positive steps toward a new environmental world order.

Mr. Adams is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Dechert Price & Rhoads. From 1970 to 1972, he served as an appellate attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, Land and Natural Resources Division. From 1972 to 1974, he worked as the minority counsel for the Subcommittee on Environment and Consumer Affairs of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. He served as Deputy General Counsel in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1983 to 1986. In 1986, he was appointed by the President to be the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring at EPA. Mr. Adams received his J.D. in 1970 from Vanderbuilt Law School and his B.A. in 1963 from the University of Virginia.

Mr. Martinez-Aragon is currently working in the Legal Unit of the Directorate General for the Environment, at the Commission of the European Communities. He has lectured on European Economic Community environmental law at Pace University in New York and in the Faculty of Law of Barcelona, Spain. Mr. Martinez-Aragon received his J.D. in 1985 from the University of Barcelona, his LL.M in 1987 from Yale Law School, his LL.M. Environmental Law in 1988 from Pace Law School, and his J.S.D. Candidate in 1989 from Stanford Law School.

The opinions expressed in this Article are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Commission of the European Communities or Dechert Price & Rhoads.

[22 ELR 10190]

"We have clearly arrived at a turning-point. For the first time people are realizing that we ought to change the relationship with our planet, and to bind ourselves in an ecological contract to protect the Earth."

— Javier Perez de Cuellar

Environment and Development:

Only One Earth, September 13, 1989

This year's United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) places environmental issues at the forefront of international diplomacy. The conference, commonly referred to as the Earth Summit, is scheduled to meet in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from June 1 to June 12, 1992, and is to be convened at the highest political level, that of heads of state and government.

Acknowledging that the deterioration of the environment has been caused predominately by patterns of production and consumption that are unsustainable, the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly, at its 44th session in 1989, decided to convene an international forum that would integrate the relationship between environment and development into every aspect of economic life and behavior.¹ Significantly, the 1992 meeting would be the first world summit conference on environmental matters formally called for by the U.N. General Assembly.

Conference organizers estimate that 15,000 people representing more than 150 nations will participate with official accreditation as members of national delegations, the United Nations, and other institutions.² Political leaders such as former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, Prime Minister John Major of Britain, the former Prime Minister of Japan, Toshiki Kaifu, and the President of the Commission of the European Communities, Jacques Delors, announced that they planned to attend the summit.³ It is unclear whether President Bush will be present at the summit on the brink of the presidential campaign.

As set forth by the General Assembly in Resolution 44/228,⁴ the conference is expected to act on the following items:⁵

* legal agreements already under consideration by several international bodies — conventions on the protection of the atmosphere, biodiversity, and deforestation;

[22 ELR 10191]

* measures to extend or accelerate the implementation of existing programs such as the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification;⁶

* agreements for financing sustainable development, the technology transfer, and institution building; and

* declarations on the environment and development as well as an environmental agenda for the international community for the 21st century.

The prominence of the political representatives attending the summit and the broad array of environmental problems to be discussed could make the UNCED a "kind of constitutional convention for the world's environment."⁷ But this ambitious agenda has still to overcome numerous hurdles. The conference's major goal of integrating environmental concerns and international economic policies cannot be achieved without a mutually satisfactory compromise by industrialized and less developed countries. The preparatory work for the conference has demonstrated the linkage in the negotiations of issues that most immediately impact industrial countries, such as changes in their pattern of energy consumption, with issues that most immediately impact developing countries, such as biodiversity and deforestation.⁸ Unless industrialized nations show strong leadership in the negotiations for a climate convention and take some initiative to finance environmental preservation, the whole agenda of the conference risks being stalled by the group of less developed countries.⁹ Some developing countries, indeed, are already voicing concern about the fragmentary direction of the negotiations and their intention to hold an alternative Earth Summit.¹⁰ If the conference fails, it would be a lost opportunity of historic dimensions.

From Stockholm to Rio: 1972-1992

The celebration of the Earth Summit in Rio will mark the 20th anniversary of the Declaration of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment,¹¹ held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Just as the celebration of Earth Day in the United States in the late 1960s moved the environment into the U.S. political sphere, so the Stockholm Conference put it on the international agenda. Twenty years later, the Earth Summit, in the words of its Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, will aim at "moving [the environment] into the center of economic policy and decision making."¹²

The Stockholm conference was the first attempt by the international community to address global environmental problems. Individual aspects of the environment had been the objects of international negotiations and arrangements, but never before 1972 had the totality of issues been addressed in such a comprehensive manner. The representatives of 113 nations gathered in Sweden to draw up a Declaration of Principles and an action plan for international cooperation on the environment. The conference also reorganized the institutional structure of the United Nations, and created a specific body, the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), to catalyze public and private organizations into including an environmental component in their decisionmaking process.¹³ Despite the emphasis in many addresses by the delegates of poor countries on the relevance of development issues, the primary concern in Stockholm was focused on the control of pollution and the conservation of resources.¹⁴ Environmental preservation was seen then by most poor countries as a sacrifice for their right to economic growth.

Since 1972, the intimate connection between economic development and environmental degradation has grown to be the main concern on the international environmental agenda. This change of perspective — particularly among developing countries — was already manifest in 1982, when a "Session of Special Character" was scheduled in Nairobi, Kenya, to evaluate the first 10 years of the Stockholm declaration.¹⁵ In order to reflect those changes and to propose economic policies capable of integrating development and environmental considerations, a year later the U.N. General Assembly appointed the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), chaired by the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brutland.¹⁶ The 1987 WCED report (the Brutland Report), Our Common Future,¹⁷ spelled out the concept of "sustainable development," and opened a public debate on the means to translate that concept into practical measures for action. Among its recommendations was a proposal that regional and global meetings be held to continue the original work of the [22 ELR 10192] WCED. In calling for the 1992 conference, the General Assembly intended to realize part of that proposal.¹⁸

The Road to Brazil: Preparatory Work and PrepCom Meetings

To pave the way for the Rio conference, the General Assembly established the Preparatory Committee or PrepCom as it is commonly known, entrusted with the organization of the preparatory sessions and the development of the agenda.¹⁹ Resolution 44/228 also scheduled the celebration of five preparatory sessions before the Earth Summit. The organizational session took place in New York in March 1990, followed by three substantive preparatory meetings. The first one was held in Nairobi in August 1990; the other two were convened in Geneva during the months of March and August 1991. The last preparatory meeting will be held in New York in March 1992.

The objective of these preparatory meetings is to produce specific political proposals to address all the issues included in Resolution 44/228. The extensive agenda for the conference, as envisioned by the U.N. General Assembly, has put a heavy burden on the Secretariat of the PrepCom. The items for discussion at the summit will most probably include the following:²⁰

* protection of the atmosphere (climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, and transboundary air pollution);

* protection of land resources (combating deforestation, soil loss, and desertification and drought);

* conservation of biological diversity;

* protection of freshwater resources;

* protection of oceans, seas, and coastal areas, and the rational use and development of their living resources;

* environmentally sound management of biotechnology and hazardous wastes, including toxic chemicals;

* prevention of illegal traffic in toxic products and wastes;

* improvement in the quality of life and human health; and

* improvement in living and working conditions of the poor by eradicating poverty and stopping environmental degradation.

These issues will also most likely be included in several of the documents to be produced by the summit. Following the criteria outlined by Secretary-General Strong, the outcomes expected from the Earth Summit are the following:²¹

(1) signing of international conventions dealing with protection of the world's forests, global warming, and the survival of species of animals and plants (biodiversity), which are presently being negotiated;

(2) an Earth Charter — or Terra Carta — that will embody basic principles to govern the economic and environmental behavior of peoples and nations;

(3) Agenda 21, an action plan for sustainable development for the 21st century;

(4) an agreement on the financial and institutional resources to carry out the provisions of Agenda 21; and

(5) an agreement on strengthening international institutions that deal with environmental and development issues.²²

In the organizational session, the Secretariat of the UNCED was set up under the chairmanship of Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore. The first substantive meeting in Nairobi was devoted to organizational matters, primarily the establishment of two working groups, which are to cover the whole agenda. Working Group I covers climate change, biodiversity, biotechnology, ozone, and transboundary air pollution; Working Group II covers freshwaters, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, and oceans and protection of coastal areas.²³ The PrepCom assigned some tasks to the UNCED Secretariat, calling for the preparation of over 40 reports for the second session.²⁴ It also issued guidelines for the preparation of the reports on the state of the environment that individual governments and international organizations are required to transmit to the Secretariat.²⁵ These reports have been prepared by U.N. member states, with the participation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to identify significant development and environmental challenges, to discuss what has been accomplished to date, to identify principles to guide future policy, and to develop specific action plans to respond to those challenges.²⁶ Parallel to these PrepCom meetings,a series of regional conferences have been held for the purpose of formulating each region's position on related questions.²⁷ Regional conferences have taken place in Bergen, Norway; Bangkok, Thailand; and Mexico City, Mexico.

The second PrepCom meeting in Geneva last March was expected to move beyond the structure and process of the conference and address some substantial issues.²⁸ To the dismay of many delegates, the session only achieved concrete progress on two issues: the world's forests and the creation of Working Group III.²⁹ Although the initial proposal in Nairobi [22 ELR 10193] had devised a new working group responsible for all the remaining issues on the agenda, the pressure of the U.S. delegation confined the responsibilities of this group to legal and institutional matters, leaving the consideration of divisive issues such as financial assistance, technology transfer, environmental education, and environmental health for the plenary session of the Preparatory Committee.³⁰ Part of the negotiations of this second session was devoted to some of the conventions to be signed in Rio.

The general acceptance of the preparatory document of the working group on tropical forests settled some controversial issues, such as the scope of the treaty and its linkage to the other conventions on biodiversity and climate.³¹ However, it left unresolved some important obstacles related to the legal nature and timing of the agreement.³² No positive steps were achieved in the negotiations for the climate change and biodiversity conventions. Indeed, there were some disputes on the role of the Preparatory Committee in addressing those issues in view of the fact that they had been negotiated in separate international fora.³³ Despite the numerous discussions at working group levels, no concrete decision was reached on the other items of the agenda, namely the program of action of the conference — Agenda 21 — and its declaration of principles — Earth Charter. Very few proposals were adopted, and those were merely adopted in a tentative draft form, leaving the approval of the final text for further discussions in August.

In preparation for the third preparatory meeting, the Secretariat completed and distributed to the national delegations a comprehensive report³⁴ covering most of the items to be discussed at the conference.³⁵ The document included draft language for options and recommendations on specific proposals for Agenda 21 and a list of principles for inclusion in the Earth Charter.³⁶ With this point of reference, the new negotiating process was expected to lay down the blueprint for the conference.³⁷ However, the third preparatory conference ended without remarkable achievements.

The discussions were marked by confrontation between industrialized and less developed countries, mostly over financing for new environmental actions.³⁸ Even though clear differences of perspective created opposition between these two groups in previous sessions, it had never threatened to stall the whole negotiating process. Major aspects of the negotiation, such as the declaration of environmental principles, the scope of Agenda 21, financing, and technology transfer still remain unresolved. Tentative agreements were reached on only a few, technical issues related to chemical products, waste management,³⁹ and ocean and freshwater protection.⁴⁰ Very little progress has been made on most of the legal and institutional issues⁴¹ for which Working Group III is responsible.⁴² In short, the third preparatory meeting has left unresolved many issues on the agenda.

With such lack of progress, the bulk of the negotiations has been shifted to PrepCom IV next March. The gathering in New York appears to be the last opportunity to complete the negotiations, since there will be no negotiations in Rio during the celebration of the summit. The lack of meaningful achievements until now has created pessimism concerning the success of the summit. Some delegations, such as those from Sweden and Norway, have already voiced their dismay at the lack of progress.⁴³ Unless this last preparatory meeting [22 ELR 10194] at the U.N. headquarters radically alters the direction of the negotiations, the delegates in Rio may find themselves empty handed, and the output of the summit may be confined to ambiguous compromises and hollow rhetoric.

Preparations for the Summit: Governments, NGOs, and Industry

Government Participation

Since the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 44/228 to convene the summit, national governments and some international organizations have set up special working groups to prepare their positions for the items to be discussed. Even though the UNCED meeting is to be held by delegates from U.N. member countries, the decisions adopted at the summit could have a potential impact beyond that official sphere. Acknowledging the implications of the conference, the Preparatory Committee provided for the participation of NGOs in the tasks of the different working groups.⁴⁴ Most of those organizations represent the views of trade unions, industry, and a large segment of the environmental community.

The U.S. delegation has been established under the control of the Department of State. Its Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Curtis Bohlen, is the U.S. coordinator for the conference. However, the State Department established the U.S. UNCED Coordination Center as the interagency group in charge of the preparatory work and appointed Ambassador Robert J. Ryan to head the U.S. delegation. The staff of the Coordination Center includes officials from other agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Agency for International Development (AID), the U.S. Information Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. Interagency coordination is provided by the UNCED Working Group of the Policy Coordinating Committee of the National Security Council and several officials designated by the federal agencies involved in this process, including the AID, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Department of Energy, EPA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.⁴⁵

The U.S. National Report for the 1992 UNCED is being prepared by the CEQ, with major support from EPA and other federal agencies. A draft report⁴⁶ was released this past spring, and then discussed in five roundtable sessions held in different parts of the country.⁴⁷ Although the text was due in July, the final version of the U.S. report is tentatively scheduled for release in February 1992.

The U.S. delegation to the Preparatory Committee has been led by Assistant Secretary Bohlen and Ambassador Ryan. In addition to representatives from different governmental agencies, the delegation also integrates six official observers appointed by the State Department representing NGOs and congressional staff.⁴⁸

The input of the U.S. delegation into the preparatory work of the UNCED has been modest. Significantly, the only specific U.S. proposal until the last PrepCom meeting was a call for the Executive Director of the UNEP to head a revised Environmental Coordination Board.⁴⁹ Furthermore, the U.S. delegation has been reluctant to undertake a more active role in the preparation of some of the basic documents of the summit (i.e., Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter), leaving the initiative with the UNCED Secretariat.⁵⁰ On one of the most divisive issues of the conference — the transfer of financial resources for environmental projects to developing countries — the United States has opposed new financial contributions and proposed the diversion of existing development funds.⁵¹ Despite some rhetorical assertions, the indecisiveness of the U.S. delegation at this point evidences an unwillingness to take the lead in negotiations and may signal an administration position that U.S. preparation for UNCED is not a priority.⁵²

This position contrasts sharply with the preeminent role of some other industrialized countries, such as Japan⁵³ and Great Britain,⁵⁴ and of the European Community.⁵⁵ Japan has openly expressed its commitment to make the UNCED process successful, despite its indecisive stand during negotiations.⁵⁶ Some analysts have pointed out the fact that Japan could take a leading role during the summit in an effort to improve its international image, and to foster the expansion of its environmentally [22 ELR 10195] friendly industry.⁵⁷ Notably, the European Community has undertaken a significant role in the entire process by contributing to bridging the gap between the positions of industrialized countries — particularly the United States — and most of the less developed countries. This could position the European Community as the potential broker in the conclusion of the negotiations.

NGO and Industry Participation

NGOs have taken a very active role at the local level by participating in the preparation of the national reports and at the international level by taking part in the working groups in the preparatory sessions.⁵⁸ In addition, more than 700 NGOs are planning to host a parallel meeting in Rio during the celebration of the official summit.⁵⁹ In preparation for these events, a major NGO gathering took place in Paris from December 17 through 20, 1991.⁶⁰ Different U.S. environmental organizations have coordinated their work on UNCED through networks such as CAPE '92⁶¹ and the U.S. Citizens Network.⁶² Long-established environmental think tanks (especially the World Resources Institute) are devoting a large part of their resources to preparation for the summit.

The decisions adopted at the UNCED meeting will have important implications for the business community. The conclusion at the summit of an agreement on carbon dioxide (CO₂) reductions could impose substantial costs on industry. But more generally, the main concern of many people in industry is that the conference could set the tone for tighter governmental pollution regulations.⁶³ In preparation for this possible outcome and to clarify their position for Rio, business leaders met in Rotterdam at the beginning of last April at the Second World Industry Conference on Environmental Management. The conference was organized by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The main outcome was the Business Charter for Sustainable Development,⁶⁴ a voluntary code of conduct for industry with 16 basic principles. The code is aimed at helping "business around the world improve its environmental performance" through assessment of environmental impacts of new operations, the use of regular green audits, and the appropriate designs of products and activities to prevent environmental damage.⁶⁵ The code could be used by industry's representatives in Rio as an alternative to traditional "command-and-control" methods of regulation. In addition, ICC is undertaking to discuss the possibility of establishing a method of monitoring members' performance.⁶⁶

Aware of the need to integrate the business community in the works of the conference, Secretary-General Strong appointed a Swiss industrialist, Stephan Schidheiny, as the chairman of the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD).⁶⁷ More than 40 chief executive officers from major corporations have joined the BCSD. BCSD's objective is to ensure that the world's business community participates in the formulation of ideas and solutions to be considered at the Earth Summit. Council members organized a series of meetings with local officials and business leaders in different locations⁶⁸ and prepared a series of proposals on the main issues to be discussed at the summit. BCSD's final report was approved by the council last November, although it is only to be disclosed shortly before the gathering in Rio. Apparently, the recommendations of the BCSD report advocate new accounting and pricing mechanisms to take account of natural costs, the use of environmental audits, and a more progressive approach for the transfer of environmentally friendly technologies.⁶⁹

A Closer Look at the Main Issues on the UNCED Agenda

The UNCED's primary objectives at the Earth Summit are the signing of several global conventions and the completion of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21.⁷⁰ The success of the conference will depend entirely on the extent of compromise in these areas.

Conventions

It is expected that at the opening of the summit several conventions of global importance on climate change, biodiversity, and forestry will be presented for signature.⁷¹ The negotiations of those international agreements were initiated in separate international fora before the UNCED process began. However, those issues have been linked to the work of the UNCED Secretariat and the different PrepComs due to the comprehensive character of the summit.⁷² The relationship [22 ELR 10196] between the negotiation process for these global conventions and the activities of the working groups at the UNCED level is still unclear.

Convention on Climate Change. Global warming is the most prominent issue on the UNCED agenda and a litmus test for the whole negotiating process. According to many scientific experts, the increase in the Earth's temperature due to the emission into the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases could produce in the near future catastrophic consequences for the whole planet.⁷³ The search for possible solutions has resulted in confrontation between industrialized countries and developing countries.

Most of the existing atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases — especially of CO₂ — has had its roots in the economic growth of industrialized countries.⁷⁴ However, given the rapid pace of economic development and energy use growth in countries such as China, India, and Brazil, it is expected that a major increase in CO₂ emissions in these countries will occur in the near future.⁷⁵ The delinkage between greater energy use and CO₂ emissions will require more efficient energy policies in these countries. Yet, they have shown little willingness to implement these costly political steps unless the industrialized countries take the lead and reform their pattern of energy consumption.⁷⁶ This has made discussions on climate change a significant test for the new "world environmental order"⁷⁷ that the summit is expected to create. If no agreement is reached on climate change, there is a risk that the negotiations on other issues, such as biodiversity, tropical forests, and humans settlements, will be stalled.⁷⁸

In 1985, scientists first warned of a potential increase in temperature due to emissions of gases from human activities into the atmosphere.⁷⁹ By the end of the decade, what had began as a scientific issue became an international political issue, and some national governments as well as international organizations started pushing for concrete measures to prevent and limit the potential consequences of the problem. In 1988, a meeting of governments in Toronto called for a 20 percent reduction in CO₂ emissions by the year 2000. At the same time, the issue of global warming was taken up by the U.N. General Assembly, which recommended further scientific study on the matter. By that time, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had already been instituted by the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization to study the scientific uncertainties surrounding stratospheric ozone depletion.⁸⁰ In 1989, the General Assembly first expressed the need for a framework convention,⁸¹ and in August 1990, the final report of the IPCC predicted that without actions to reduce emissions, global temperatures will increase 2-5 degrees C (3.6-9 degrees F) over the next century.⁸²

Under the auspices of the General Assembly,⁸³ the delegates from 137 nations agreed in November 1990 at the Second World Climate Conference to set up an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to prepare a framework convention on climate change. This convention should be ready for signature at the UNCED.⁸⁴ It is believed to contain general principles, to delineate goals, to affirm the obligations of the governments, and to include an initial timetable for stabilizing and eventually reducing global emissions.⁸⁵ The UNCED Secretariat has been monitoring the negotiating process at the INC and ensuring coordination between the climate negotiations and those on other closely related subjects, such as forestry and biodiversity.⁸⁶ Some developing countries, however, have insisted that the fourth PrepCom take a more active role in the negotiations.⁸⁷

Three INC meetings have already been held in Nairobi, Virginia, and Geneva. The meetings did not produce a draft framework convention, and the only visible result was the adoption of guidelines to continue the negotiations. Most statements from developing countries insisted on the primary responsibility of industrialized countries for the potential consequences of the problem and the need for industrialized countries to take the lead in the search for alternative solutions.⁸⁸ Agreement within the industrialized countries has proved unsuccessful until now, due to the [22 ELR 10197] U.S. opposition to setting international goals and timetables for reducing CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions.⁸⁹

The position of the Bush administration aims at stabilizing or reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by the year 2000 to the 1987 level.⁹⁰ Such reductions are to be achieved through existing regulatory provisions, primarily the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act and the National Energy Strategy.⁹¹ Within this comprehensive approach, all greenhouse gases are put at the same level, without specific provisions for CO₂ reductions.⁹² Under this approach, reductions in chlorofluorocarbons that had been already agreed to in the Montreal Protocol would be reconsidered. This policy would allow U.S. industry to increase CO₂ emissions by 15 percent by the year 2000.

This position contrasts sharply with the commitments of all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, except Turkey, to stabilize their CO₂ emissions at 1990 levels. All other industrialized countries have already pledged stabilization or reductions of CO₂ emissions. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Italy, and New Zealand are committed to 20 percent CO₂ reductions by the year 2005;⁹³ Germany has pledged a 25 percent reduction;⁹⁴ Belgium, France, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland are committed to stabilization by 2000;⁹⁵ the United Kingdom is committed to stabilization by 2005;⁹⁶ and Japan is committed to stabilization by 2010.⁹⁷ Indeed, the European Community has decided to stabilize CO₂ emissions at 1990 levels for the community as a whole by the year 2000.⁹⁸ This widespread response by developed countries can hardly be dismissed as an ideologically naive "fidelity to the global warming disaster thesis."⁹⁹

Since the United States is the biggest carbon dioxide producer with 23 percent of all emissions,¹⁰⁰ if it does not agree with the other industrialized countries on a common position for negotiations with the developing countries, the prospects for a climate change convention by June 1992 seem dim. The possibility of such a high-profile setback for one of the expected outcomes of the conference could make some delegations accept a minimal agreement based on a mere "pledge and review" formula. This strategy would leave the determination of timetables or reductions for specific greenhouse gases to further protocols, much as the 1985 Vienna convention on stratospheric ozone depletion did.¹⁰¹ It is still to be seen whether developed countries other than the United States (particularly Japan and the European Community), which are already implementing measures to reduce or stabilize CO₂ emissions, would be ready to give up their initial position to salvage these negotiations.

Convention on Forest Conservation. The conservation of forests is another significant issue to be addressed at the summit. The rate of deforestation, especially in tropical areas, has accelerated in the last decade to an annual rate of 16.8 million hectares (40.5 million acres).¹⁰² However, increased attention on forest conservation has resulted from the close connection between this problem and the more general issue of climate change. Forests serve as a natural sink for CO₂ by absorbing it and transforming it into oxygen. As a result, deforestation contributes significantly to the increase of CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere. In addition, the burning of wood produced by deforestation also contributes to this problem.

The international relevance of deforestation and the need for a global convention were proposed at the 1990 Economic Summit of industrialized G-7 countries in Houston, Texas.¹⁰³ In the final declaration, those countries committed themselves to pursue a global forest convention to halt deforestation.¹⁰⁴

The proposal was taken up by the Secretariat of the UNCED, adding the negotiation process for the convention to the responsibilities of Working Group I in the sessions of the Preparatory Committee.¹⁰⁵ During the discussion last March in Geneva at PrepCom II, the idea was received with distrust by some poor countries, which perceived forest conservation as an impediment to their economic expansion. Most of these countries are reluctant to accept any additional burden on their economies, unless they receive adequate financial and technological compensation. Significantly, [22 ELR 10198] these countries have stated their resistance to any restrictions on forest development as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without parallel sacrifices by industrialized countries to reform their energy policies and reduce their CO₂ emissions.¹⁰⁶

During the negotiations in Geneva, problems arose over the link between forestry and climate change. While European countries, particularly the European Community, appear to support a framework convention on climate change with two related protocols on energy and forestry, the United States has sought to address forest conservation separately, independent of parallel negotiations on climate change.¹⁰⁷ The scope of a convention on forests also remains unclear after those preliminary negotiations. The first official U.S. proposal¹⁰⁸ called for a "national strategy for improving forest management," but it never mentioned primary, or old-growth, forests.¹⁰⁹ It is also unclear how the necessary resources for addressing deforestation and promoting forest conservation will be obtained.

At the end of PrepCom III a draft document was produced calling for national plans for forest management and conservation.¹¹⁰ However, some pivotal aspects, such as access to information, targets, and timeframes, were still unresolved.¹¹¹ In view of the problems that such a convention is facing and the limited time left for its completion, U.S. officials could instead opt to negotiate a declaration with a set of principles,¹¹² in the hope that a legally binding text could be negotiated by the end of 1992.

Convention on Biodiversity. Of the three conventions that could be presented for signature at the Earth Summit, the biodiversity convention seems most likely to be signed.¹¹³ The proposed convention addresses the conservation of biological diversity, as well as access to and application of biotechnology. The draft has been negotiated through the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Convention on Biological Diversity. The scope of the convention and its basic principles were already agreed on at the third negotiating session held in Madrid last July.¹¹⁴ During that meeting, the delegates moved forward on the controversial issue of intellectual property rights by deciding that it should be discussed in the more suitable forum of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.¹¹⁵ After two more negotiating sessions in Nairobi and Geneva, some of the more contentious issues of the agenda — access to biological resources by "high-tech" companies, transfer of biotechnology to poorer nations, and financial mechanisms to implement the proposed treaty — still remain unresolved.¹¹⁶ Similar to other negotiations taking place under the UNCED umbrella, the differences on adequate financing measures appear as the greatest obstacle for a final agreement.¹¹⁷ Developing countries have insisted on the creation of new funds for biological diversity, somewhat analogous to the financing scheme of the Montreal protocol on the protection of the ozone layer. In contrast, most developed countries propose that any environmental aid must be channelled through the existing Global Environmental Facility at the World Bank.¹¹⁸ Despite these disparities, the opinions of most delegates suggest that compromise can be reached during the next two rounds of negotiations in February and May 1992.¹¹⁹

Earth Charter and Agenda 21: Principles for Action

While the conventions to be signed at the summit will deal with specific environmental problems and have been negotiated parallel to the UNCED process, the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 are expected to represent the most direct and important results of the conference and to address a comprehensive range of environmental issues.¹²⁰ The two documents are closely related, since Agenda 21 is supposed to be a "program of action for the principles enunciated in the Earth Charter."¹²¹ The UNCED Secretariat initiated the proposal to produce a declaration of environmental principles and a program of action for their implementation.¹²² Although the specific directives for these projects are contained in the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 44/228,¹²³ the UNCED Secretariat, and particularly Secretary-General Strong, have played a prominent role in expanding the definition and scope of both texts.¹²⁴

[22 ELR 10199]

The Earth Charter — or Terra Carta, as it is also known¹²⁵ — will set out the "basic principles for the conduct of peoples and nations towards each other and the earth to ensure our common future."¹²⁶ This nonbinding declaration of principles on environment and development should lay the ethical foundation for Agenda 21. Some have seen this charter as functioning in a way similar to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights¹²⁷ by serving as a universal declaration of environmental rights and by elevating the right to a sound environment to the same level as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights raised certain fundamental individual rights.¹²⁸

Several regional charters have sought to promote these types of environmental rights and to establish mechanisms for their legal protection. The U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Charter on Environmental Rights and Obligations is the most recent example.¹²⁹ Drawing on some of those declarations, the UNCED Secretariat prepared a list of principles for discussion at PrepCom III in Geneva.¹³⁰ The resulting consolidated draft was not accepted by the Group of 77 developing countries, which insisted that the stress be placed primarily on issues such as poverty and development.¹³¹ As a result of this conflict, the UNCED Secretariat opted to review its consolidated text for the coming PrepCom IV.¹³²

The document's definition of environmental rights and the scope of its protection seem to be some of the most delicate issues for discussion at PrepCom IV. Some European delegations and Latin American countries have already supported the extension of those rights to individuals, while other delegations would like to restrict those rights to nations as originally drafted in U.N. Resolution 44/228.¹³³ The U.S. delegation has appeared receptive to some of the suggestions of the alternative document presented by representatives of the U.S. environmental community,¹³⁴ without committing, however, on any further compromises.¹³⁵

Agenda 21 is expected to be the other fundamental outcome of the summit. The document contains the program of action for the implementation of the Earth Charter. As defined in the preliminary meetings, the document should provide "the basic framework and instrumentality which will guide the world community on an ongoing basis in its decisions on goals, targets, priorities, allocation of responsibilities and resources in respect of the environment and development."¹³⁶ Some of the key elements to be addressed by the document are the linkage between environmental and development issues, and the priority policy initiatives to be promoted in that common area. Aspects such as the legal framework of the actions, technological requirements, implementing mechanisms, and financial considerations will also be covered in the text.¹³⁷

All those specific environmental issues have been discussed at the working group level in previous PrepCom meetings. At the beginning of PrepCom III in Geneva last August, the Secretariat completed and distributed to the national delegations comprehensive reports covering a wide range of program areas. Most of those reports also included draft language for options and recommendations on specific proposals for Agenda 21. Except for negotiations on such topics as chemical products, waste management, ocean protection, and freshwater, the negotiations on Agenda 21 issues are still very preliminary.¹³⁸ There has been compromise on the structure and organization of the final document; as a result, each program area item to be discussed at the summit¹³⁹ will have to be accompanied by a section on the means to implement the proposed initiatives, including financial resources.¹⁴⁰

Due to the unwillingness of most delegations to accept any compromise, the draft texts for Agenda 21 appear presently as an amalgamation of conflicting proposals. In this preliminary text, the sections on poverty, atmospheric production, and financial resources indicate the greatest conflict.¹⁴¹ [22 ELR 10200] The U.S. delegation has already stated its opposition to some of the options included in those sections, such as the increase of financial assistance for population programs or poverty alleviation, the need to reform energy policies, and a possible prohibition on trade in domestically prohibited products.¹⁴² But in the section related to financial resources the disagreement between the industrialized and less developed countries has been more manifest.

The report¹⁴³ of the Secretariat has stated the need for an increase in environmental assistance to support existing international institutions, implement environmental conventions, and effectuate sustainable development in developing countries.¹⁴⁴ However, it is unclear what the mechanisms for this assistance will be. While the Beijing Declaration of the Ministerial Conference of Developing Countries¹⁴⁵ supported the creation of a common "Green Fund" to provide financing to developing countries to address their environmental problems,¹⁴⁶ the statement of the leaders of the G-7¹⁴⁷ suggested, without committing new financial resources, that the existing Global Environmental Facility at the World Bank should be the primary funding vehicle for those projects.¹⁴⁸ The European Community, however, has taken a more flexible position during the past negotiations in Geneva, admitting that funds to remedy environmental pollution should not come exclusively from existing overseas development budgets.¹⁴⁹ The burden of confronting the issue of financing the more than 100 area programs contained in Agenda 21 and the global environmental agreements to be signed at Rio, one of the thorniest issues of the summit, has shifted to the next New York session.

Conclusion

The U.N. Conference on Environment and Development appears on the horizon of 1992 as a unique opportunity to shape the pattern of addressing global environmental issues in coming years. The conference could produce a new perspective in development and environmental matters, rather than grandiloquent goals and empty declarations.

It is still too early to augur specific outcomes. The final content of the conventions on climate change, forest conservation, and biodiversity to be presented at the summit remains unclear and will depend on the ongoing negotiations. Other basic documents, such as the Earth Charter and Agenda 21, are still to be defined with more precision. The problems encountered by the UNCED Secretariat in preparing for the negotiations at the Rio meeting leave an open question as to whether the conference will succeed, fail, or end up on some inconclusive middle ground. Some people are already questioning whether the meeting will be a mere exercise of public relations for the world leaders present at Rio. The expectations among many NGOs, the business community, and governments are high. Yet, many hurdles have to be overcome if the summit is to achieve part of its ambitious agenda. Despite many grim predictions, the preparatory work for the conference is attracting increasing public attention. As a result, one hopes that it will produce some positive steps toward world order instead of a grand specter of yet another political shell game.

1. See G.A. Res. 44/228, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., Annex I, Supp. No. 228, Agenda Item 82(f), U.N. Doc. A/44/228 (1989).

2. Mario Osava, Environment: Rio Itself for 1992 Summit, Inter Press Service, June 1, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

3. Environment: Pele Named Ambassador to "Earth Summit," Inter Press Service, July 19, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

4. See G.A. Res. 44/228, supra note 1, at 5-8.

5. U.N. DEPT. OF PUB. INFO., UNITED NATIONS TO HOLD CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN BRAZIL IN 1992, UNITED NATIONS FOCUS 1 (1990).

6. See LYNTON K. CALDWELL, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY EMERGENCE AND DIMENSIONS 216-18 (1984).

7. Statement of Edmund Muskie at the Hearings on U.S. Policy Toward the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 3 (1991).

8. See Maurice F. Strong, ECO '92: Critical Challenges and Global Solutions, 44 JOURNAL INT'L AFF. 287, 291 (1991).

9. This opinion has been expressed by Hans Alder, Netherlands Minister of Environment, and currently Chairman of the European Community's Council of Environmental Ministers: "What is on the agenda of UNCED is the credibility of the industrialized world. If there is no agreement [on climate change], there is a risk that we will have no position at all on any issue, such as forestry, biodiversity, human settlements, water management, oceans or desertification." Interview With Hans Alder: Europe to the USA — "Join the Club," American Political Network, July 31, 1991, available in LEXIS, CMPTN Library, GRNWRE File.

10. See S. Sivam, Environment: Malaysia Wants Alternative Third World "Earth Summit," Inter Press Service, Aug. 24, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

11. Report of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 48/14/Rev.1 (1973).

12. Maurice F. Strong, Agents of Change, EARTH SUMMIT NEWS (UNCED), Mar. 1991, at 1.

13. CALDWELL, supra note 6, at 53.

14. See id. at 50; see also PETER S. TACHER, WORLD RESOURCES INST., PREPARATORY PAPER FOR THE WORLD FEDERATION OF UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATIONS, PROJECT ON GLOBAL SECURITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT 3 (1991).

15. See MOSTAFA KAMAL TOLBA, EARTH MATTERS: ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES FOR THE 1980s (1983); see also Anita Solkolsky & Tomme Young, Resource Use Tops '92 Agenda, NAT'L L.J., May 13, 1991, at 19.

The conclusions of the 10th-anniversary assessment have been published in two UNEP documents, which evaluate the achievements and pitfalls of those years, and also make some recommendations for future action: The Environment in 1982: Retrospect and Prospect (1982); and The World Environment 1972-1982: A Report by the United Nations Environmental Program (1982).

16. G.A. Res. 38/161, U.N. GAOR, 38th Sess., Supp. No. 47, at 131-32, U.N. Doc. A/38/47 (1983).

17. WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, OUR COMMON FUTURE (1987).

18. See G.A. Res. 44/228, supra note 1, at 2, 6.

19. Id. points 1-3.

20. See G.A. Res. 44/228, supra note 1, at 5-8; Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, U.N. GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. 48, at 31, U.N. Doc. A/46/48, pt. I (1991).

21. See Strong, supra note 12, at 1; Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31.

22. See THE CENTER FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE, NETWORK '92, No. 5, WHAT UNCED IS ALL ABOUT 1, 4 (Mar. 1991).

23. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., Supp. No. 48, at 13-14, U.N. Doc. A/44/48 (1990).

24. Id. at 18.

25. Id.

26. See Strong Defines Purposes of UNCED, NGO NETWORKER (World Resources Inst., Washington, D.C.), Winter 1991, at 2.

27. UNITED NATIONS, PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR 1992 CONFERENCE ENDS CURRENT REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ISSUES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT, Apr. 8, 1991 (press release).

28. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, UPDATE-1 E & D FILE 1992, No. 10, at 3 (Feb. 1991).

29. See Norway, Sweden Express Disappointment at Progress of UNCED Preparatory Meeting, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), May 6, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File, see also Analysis: Potholes in the Road to Rio, American Political Network, May 1, 1991, available in LEXIS, CMPTN Library, GRNWRE File.

30. See Statement of Curtis Bohlen, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, at the Hearings on U.S. Policy Toward the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 4 (1991) [hereinafter Bohlen Statement]; Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 30.

31. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, UPDATE-2 E & D FILE 1992, No. 13, at 1, 2 (May 1991); see also The Road to UNCED 1992 — Second Preparatory Committee Meets in Geneva, NGO NETWORKER (World Resources Inst., Washington, D.C.), Spring 1991, at 1, 3.

32. See U.S. Principles Downplay Primary Forests, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), July 1991, at 1.

33. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II: WORKING GROUP I, UPDATE-2 E & D FILE 1992, No. 13, at 2 (May 1991); see also Environment: U.S. Hits Proposals on Greenhouse Gases, Inter Press Service, Aug. 13, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

34. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 52-53. See also Earth Summit Negotiations on Agenda 21 to Begin in August, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), July 1991, at 2.

35. Those items include ocean issues, land resources, biodiversity, biotechnology, freshwater, hazardous waste, toxic chemicals, ozone depletion, transboundary air pollution, desertification and drought, prevention of illegal traffic of toxic chemicals, and human settlements. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 52-53; Earth Summit Negotiations on Agenda 21 to Begin in August, supra note 34.

36. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 52-53. See also UNCED PREP. COMM. III, UPDATE-3 E & D FILE 1992, No. 16, at 1 (July 1991).

37. See Michael McCoy, Now Comes the Hard Part, DEV. F., May-June 1991, at 9.

38. See U.S. Against More Funds, Favors Private Sector Role, Inter Press Service, Aug. 28, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File; see also Third World Fears a New Era of Green Conditionality, Inter Press Service, Aug. 15, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

39. There are still some unresolved problems about the export of hazardous waste. While some Third World countries and, indeed, the European Community would be willing to go beyond the Basel Convention and support a total ban on exports of hazardous wastes, the United States has argued for bilateral agreements and better waste management practices. See Environment: Hazardous Waste Debate Heats Up, Inter Press Service, Aug. 20, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

40. For the decisions in those fields, see Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 80-83. The UNCED document on freshwater has stressed the need to resort to market mechanisms such as widespread water tariffs. See Environment: Poor States Reject Global Water Tariffs, Inter Press Service, Aug. 27, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

41. These include review of environmental programs, procedures, and agreements administered by U.N. agencies; measures for effective implementation, compliance, assessment, review, and adjustment of legal instruments; participation of developing countries in negotiating and implementing legal instruments; and conflict resolution and prevention measures.

42. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 91. See also Legal and Institutional Issues, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Special Supp., Oct. 1991, at 3; UNCED Daunted by Evaluation of 100 Treaties, Inter Press Service, Aug. 17, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

43. See Norway, Sweden Express Disappointment at Progress of UNCED Preparatory Meeting, supra note 29.

44. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 23. See also UNCED PREP COMM. II, supra note 28, at 3.

45. See U.S. UNCED COORDINATION CENTER, DEP'T OF STATE, U.S. PREPARATION FOR UNCED (1991); U.S. UNCED COORDINATION CENTER, DEP'T OF STATE, U.S. STATEMENTS PRESENTED AT UNCED PREPCOM 2 (1991); U.S. UNCED COORDINATION CENTER, DEP'T OF STATE, U.S. STATEMENTS PRESENTED AT UNCED PREPCOM 3 (1991).

46. U.S. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, U.S. NATIONAL REPORT FOR UNCED (1991).

47. This review process has proven very critical for the work of the CEQ. Some participants, especially NGOs, have charged the document with being very limited in scope and not accurately reflecting the scale of environmental problems faced in the country. See U.S. Report for UNCED Meeting to Be Finalized in Autumn, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), July 15, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

48. Id.

49. See U.S. UNCED COORDINATION CENTER, DEP'T OF STATE, U.S. STATEMENTS AT UNCED PREPCOM 2, U.S. Proposal for Improving U.N. Institutional Involvement in Environmental Affairs: Enhancing Central Coordination and the Role of UNEP (1991). See also U.S. Position: No New Money for UNCED Initiatives, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), July 1991, at 3.

50. See Bohlen Statement, supra note 30, at 6; see also Statement of Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, U.N. Representative, Sierra Club, at the Hearings on U.S. Policy Toward the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights and International Organizations Foreign Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 3 (1991) [hereinafter Robinson Statement].

51. See U.S. Position: No New Money for UNCED Initiatives, supra note 49, at 3.

52. See Robinson Statement, supra note 50, at 2.

53. See Analysis: Will Japan Clean Our Clock in the 21st Century?, American Political Network, July 16, 1991, available in LEXIS CMPTN Library, GRNWRE File.

54. See Amanda Brown, Major Attacks Bunter Behavior, Press Association Newsfile, Aug. 1, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, PANEWS File.

55. See Interview With Hans Alder: Europe to the USA — "Join the Club," supra note 9.

56. See Japan to Donate 1.5 Million Dollars for Earth Summit, Kyoto News Service, July 2, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

57. Kaifu Asked to Take Lead on Environment, Jiji Press Ltd., July 4, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

58. See UNCED, HOW TO PARTICIPATE: ACCESS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROCESS & NGO WORK AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, E & D FILE 1992, No. 7, at 1-3 (Nov. 1990).

59. See Brazilians Plan "Parallel" NGO Meeting, NGO NETWORKER (World Resources Inst., Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991, at 2.

60. The conference became the largest international conference of NGOs in 1991 related to the Earth Summit. More than 1,000 participants from all over the world gathered in Paris with the financial support of the French government. The meeting sought to delineate the program of action of NGOs for 1992. See Plans Advance for Largest International NGO Meeting of 1991, EARTH SUMMIT NEWS (UNCED), Mar. 1991, at 4.

61. CAPE '92 stands for Consortium for Action to Protect the Earth. In preparation for the Earth Summit, this organization is coordinating the activities of several U.S. environmental groups: the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.

62. This organization has gathered together more than 250 different groups and organizations to facilitate their efforts in respect of the UNCED.

63. See John Hunt, Business and the Environment, FIN. TIMES, Apr. 17, 1991, at 12.

64. See ICC, Publication No. 210/356 C (1991).

65. Id. at 2.

66. See Hunt, supra note 63.

67. See William Dullforce, Earth Summit Charter Set for Signing, FIN. TIMES, Apr. 3, 1991, at 6.

68. See BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, OFFICIAL BROCHURE (1991).

69. See Business Council Calls for Policy Shifts, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Dec. 1991, at 2.

70. See Strong, supra note 12, at 1.

71. Although the original mandate for the conference — Resolution 44/228 — contained no reference to this aspect, the expectations of the Secretariat of the UNCED were that "the ECO '92 conference will provide a basis [for] this kind of action process." See Strong, supra note 8, at 292.

72. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31.

73. See UNITED NATIONS, WORLD METEROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION (WMO)/UNEP, REPORT OF THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE WMO/UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (1988); see also UNITED NATIONS, WMO/UNEP, IPCC FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT: OVERVIEW (1990).

74. See Report of the Secretary General: Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., at 5, P6, U.N. Doc. A/45/696/Add 1 (1990).

75. See generally JOSE GOLDEMBERG, ENERGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD (1988); see also GEORGE RATHJENS, Energy and Climate Change, in PRESERVING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT: THE CHALLENGE OF SHARED LEADERSHIP 209 (Jessica Tuchman Mathews ed., 1991).

76. DAVID A. WIRTH & DANIEL A. LASHOF, BEYOND VIENNA AND MONTREAL: MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS ON GREENHOUSE GASES 304-10 (1990).

77. This term was coined by the Secretary of UNCED, Maurice Strong. See Official Says Major Debt-for-Nature Efforts Could Be Used to Fund Technology Transfers, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), May 16, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

78. Such a clear link has been recognized not only in statements by developing countries, see Kunda Dixit, Economy First, Not Ecology, Inter Press Service, Aug. 15, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File, but also by representatives of industrialized nations, see Interview with Hans Alder: Europe to the USA — "Join the Club," supra note 9.

79. WMO, UNEP, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC UNIONS, THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECOSYSTEMS (SCOPE 29) (1986).

80. The IPCC was convened as a partnership effort of the WMO and the UNEP in November 1988. At its first session in Geneva, the panel was structured in three working groups on scientific analysis, socioeconomic effects, and policy responses; a bureau was responsible for the coordination of the working groups. See WMO & UNEP, REPORT OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE WMO/UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (1988).

81. G.A. Res. 44/207, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 130-32, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989).

82. The IPCC also recognized some of the limitations of their tasks: "There are many uncertainties in our predictions, particularly with regard to timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change." See IPCC, FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT 2 (Aug. 1990).

83. See G.A. Res. 45/212, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., Supp. No. 49A, at 147-49, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).

84. See U.N. NONGOVERNMENTAL LIAISON SERVICE, UPDATE-1 E & D FILE 1992, No. 10, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS 2 (Feb. 1991).

85. See William A. Nitze, A Proposed Structure for an International Convention on Climate Change, 249 SCIENCE 601 (1990).

86. See Strong, supra note 12, at 1.

87. See UNCEP PREP. COMM. II, supra note 31, at 2.

88. Id.

89. Activists Disappointed at Conference End, UPI, Feb. 15, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, UPI File.

90. This policy is contained in the document America's Climate Change Strategy — An Action Agenda. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AMERICA'S CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY — AN ACTION AGENDA 5 (1991).

91. Clean Air Act §§ 101-618, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, ELR STAT. CAA 006-183.

92. See OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, supra note 90, at 3-5. The views of the administration have been expressed at length in statements by several high ranking officials. See Richard Darman, Statement at the Second Annual Albert H. Gordon Lecture, Harvard University (1990).

93. See Lori Rodgers, Global Warming Debate Continues, 127 PUB. UTIL. FORT., May 1, 1991, at 38.

94. See CO₂/G-7 Summit, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), July 18, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

95. For a summary of the announced country-by-country goal for CO₂ reductions, see WORLD RESOURCES INST., WORLD RESOURCES REPORT 1990 ch. 24 (1990). See also Rodgers, supra note 93, at 38.

96. See Brown, supra note 54.

97. See ENV'T INFO. CTR., ENV'T AGENCY, GOV'T OF JAPAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY IN JAPAN — 1991, at 3 (1991); see also, Climate Control: Japanese Minister Urges U.S. to Back Greenhouse Gas Curbs, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), Aug. 2, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

98. Interview with Hans Alder: Europe to the USA — "Join the Club," supra note 9.

99. See C. Boyden Gray & David B. Rivkin Jr., A No Regrets Environmental Policy, FOREIGN POL'Y, June 1991, at 49.

100. One of the most accurate statistical studies on greenhouse gases production and their geographical distribution is the World Resources Report 1990 produced by the World Resources Institute. See WORLD RESOURCES INST., supra note 95, ch. 24, tbl. 24.2.

101. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1985, 26 I.L.M. 1516 (1987). A comparable proposal with similar aims was addressed in a recent statement by Elliot L. Richardson before Congress. Statement of Elliot L. Richardson, Co-Chairman of the National Council U.N. Association of the United States of America, at the Hearings on H.S. Policy Toward the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 14 (1991).

102. See Forestry, Idea of Instrument Posed for Discussion, EARTH SUMMIT NEWS, Mar. 1991, at 13.

103. GROUP OF SEVEN INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS, COMMUNIQUE OF THE 1990 SUMMIT CONFERENCE (1990).

104. Id. proposition 64.

105. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 37.

106. This quid pro quo has been particularly explicit in the statements of the Malaysian delegation, acting on behalf of the Group of 77. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, supra note 31, at 2.

107. See South Asserts Right to Exploit Forest, Inter Press Service, Aug. 14, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

108. See U.S. UNCED COORDINATION CENTER, DEP'T OF STATE, U.S. PROPOSAL ON FOREST PRINCIPLES (1991). The document was sent in June 1991 to the G-7 delegates in London.

109. See U.S. Principles Downplay Primary Forests, supra note 32, at 1.

110. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 74.

111. See U.S. Rejects Targets in Forest Negotiations, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Sept. 1991, at 2.

112. See Jim Lobe, Environment: U.S. Proposal on Forest Described as Flawed, Inter Press Service, June 24, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

113. See Three Treaties Being Prepared for UNCED, NGO NETWORKER (World Resources Inst., Washington, D.C.), Summer 1991, at 2.

114. See Negotiations on Biodiversity Pact Upbeat, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), July 22, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

115. See Three Treaties Being Prepared for UNCED, supra note 113.

116. See Issue-by-Issue Summary of Prep-Com 3: Biodiversity, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.) Oct. 1991, Special Supplement, at 2.

117. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 42.

118. See Biodiversity Treaty Negotiations Progress, But Key Issues Remain Stalemated, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Inst., Washington, D.C.), Dec. 1991, at 3.

119. See Statement of Eleanor W. Savage, Director of the U.S. State Department Office of Ecology, Health, and Conservation, at the Hearings on U.S. Policy Toward the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991)), reprinted in Negotiations on Biodiversity Pact Upbeat, supra note 114.

120. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31.

121. See THE CENTER FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE, supra note 22, at 1.

122. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31. See also Strong, supra note 12, at 1.

123. See G.A. Res. 44/228, supra note 1, at 5-8.

124. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31. For the leading role of the Secretary-General in the definition of the original items envisioned in founding resolution 44/228, see THE UNCED AGENDA — AND HOW TO RAISE THE MISSING POINTS, E & D FILE 1992, No. 5, at 1, 2 (Nov. 1990).

125. Alternatively, representatives of developing countries insisted during the last PrepCom III meeting in Geneva that this declaration of principles be called "Rio de Janeiro Charter on Environment and Development." This proposed new title sought to stress the link between environment and development as the primary components of the document. See Delegates Clash on Title, Procedure in Charter Discussion, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Sept. 1991, at 1.

126. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31.

127. G.A. Res. 217 (III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., pt. 1 (1948).

128. See Jolke Oppewal, Experts Looking for Teeth in International Law, Inter Press Service, Aug. 13, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File. For a historical elaboration of this link, see ALEXANDER CH. KISS, L'ETAT DU DROIT DE L'ENVIRONMENT EN 1981: PROBLEMES ET SOLUTIONS 485 (1981).

129. See ECE Charter on Environmental Rights and Obligations adopted at the Experts Meeting in Oslo, Norway, October 29-31, 1991.

130. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 132.

131. In support of this position, some representatives from the Group of 77, as well as different NGOs, came forward with a position paper entitled UNCED Fails on Poverty, cited in Niala Maharaj, Will the Poor Inherit the Earth?, Inter Press Service, Aug. 27,1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.

132. See Positive Steps But Hard Negotiations Ahead, Inter Press Service, Sept. 4, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File; see also, Delegates Clash on Title, Procedure in Charter Discussion, supra note 125, at 1, 3.

133. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, supra note 31, at 3.

134. During the negotiations for a draft text for the Earth Charter, the U.S. delegation used some proposals made by the environmental NGO U.S. Citizen Network. See Earth Charter Draft Includes Citizen's Network Language, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Sept. 1991, at 3.

135. See U.S. Noncommittal on Earth Charter, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Aug. 1991, at 4.

136. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 31.

137. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, supra note 28, at 4.

138. See generally Issue-by-Issue Summary of Prep-Com 3, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Inst., Washington, D.C.), Oct. 1991. For the decisions in those fields, see Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 80-83.

139. See supra text accompanying notes 19-27.

140. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 92. See also Agenda 21 Negotiations Put Off to PrepCom IV, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Sept. 1991, at 3.

141. See Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 42, 47.

142. See U.S. Will Oppose Key Agenda 21 Options at PrepCom III, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Aug. 1991, at 1.

143. Report of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, supra note 20, at 42.

144. See UNCED PREP. COMM. II, supra note 28, at 2.

145. Declaration of the Ministerial Conference of Developing Countries, AP, June 18, 1991, available in LEXIS, ADPR Library, AP File.

146. See Ministers Vow to Vigorously Support Plan for a Third World "Green" Fund, Int'l Env't Daily (BNA), July 23, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, OMNI File.

147. Economic Declaration Building World Partnership, Economic Declaration of the London Summit of the Seven Major Industrial Democracies, Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA), July 24, 1991, at 1128.

148. See G-7, Developing Country Communiques Highlight UNCED Conflicts, EARTH SUMMIT UPDATE (Envtl. & Energy Study Inst., Washington, D.C.), Aug. 1991, at 2.

149. See Environment: U.S. Against More Funds, Favors Private Sector, Inter Press Service, Aug. 28, 1991, available in LEXIS, Nexis Library, INPRES File.