I-
10019982
I"
55
\.
\ UNITED STATES
^g{!Z? I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WORLD AFFAIRS
ORGANIZATIONS
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SPEAKERS SERIES
COMPILATION OF SPEECHES BY
EPA OFFICIALS, 1996-1997
-------
-------
. UNITED STATES
I ^&7 | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
WORLD AFFAIRS
ORGANIZATIONS
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SPEAKERS SERIES
COMPILATION OF SPEECHES BY
EPA OFFICIALS, 1996-1997
-------
-------
EPA's NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 9
Carol M. Browner March 10, 1997 San Francisco, California
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 15
Fred Hansen November 15, 1996 Washington, D.C.
William Nitze January 16, 1997 Washington, D.C.
Alan Hecht April 24-25, 1997 Juneau and Anchorage,
Alaska
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANCE 31
Alan Hecht February 17, 1997 Grand Rapids, Michigan
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 41
Daniel Magraw February 18, 1997 Detroit, Michigan
Daniel Magraw September 11, 1997 Honolulu, Hawaii
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN EASTERN EUROPE
AND THE MIDDLE EAST 50
Valdas Adamkus March 27, 1997 Springfield, Illinois
Lee Pasarew October 6, 1997 Asheville, North Carolina
U.S./MEXICO BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 62
JaneSaginaw April 3, 1997 Dallas, Texas
Alan Hecht December 3, 1997 San Diego, California
Jose Luis Samaniego Leyva December 3, 1997 San Diego, California
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 75
William Nitze
Alan Hecht
William Nitze
December 5, 1996
September 18, 1997
October 21, 1997
San Francisco, California
Atlanta, Georgia
Boston, Massachusetts
-------
INTRODUCTORY
In August, 1996, the National Council of World Affairs and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency agreed to organize a series of speaking engagements to profile global and
domestic environmental issues.
Since Deputy Administrator Hansen's inaugural speech in November, 1997, in
Washington, D.C., on the topic of Environmental Security, Administrator Carol Browner and
eleven other senior EPA officials have been guests of World Affairs Councils across the country.
America's environmental interests do not stop at U.S. borders. The protection of U.S.
citizens and natural resources requires the cooperation of other countries. EPA's international
programs:
Protect U.S. citizens from air, water and land pollution along our borders
Reduce global environmental threats, such as pollution of the atmosphere and oceans; and
Enable the U.S. to benefit from scientific, technological, and environmental management
advances in other countries, thereby promoting cleaner, cheaper, and smarter
environmental protection in the United States.
International cooperation also serves important U.S. economic, foreign policy, and
national security interests. EPA's technical assistance programs overseas, for example, have led to
commercial opportunities for U.S. environmental businesses thereby improving the U.S. trade
balance and creating high-wage jobs for American citizens. The promise of environmental
cooperation has been an integral element of the Middle East peace process. Our technical
exchange program with Russia also is helping reduce barriers to the decommissioning of the
Russian nuclear fleet.
The presentations by the WAC were hosted in a variety of fora including speeches, panels,
and town meetings, and outlined the scope of global environmental challenges and range of
actions required to improve the global environment.
Tip O'Neill was only partially correct when he said that all politics is local - so is
environmental protection. I believe that a well-informed and engaged public is the most
important pre-requisite for the promotion of sustainable development at the local and global level.
The World Affairs Council is to be congratulated for helping undertake this very valuable public
service.
William A. Nitze
Assistant Administrator
-------
INTRODUCTORY
There are 80 world affairs councils around the country. They have 75,000 members and
300,000 participants in the annual foreign policy discussion program called Great Decisions.
Councils have outreach impact on about three million people per year.
The mission of our councils is to get Americans at the grass-roots interested, informed, and
active in international affairs. We do that through local-level speaker's programs, work with
school systems, international exchanges, business roundtables, travel programs, publications,
newspaper columns, and radio and television programs.
We teamed up with the EPA Office of International Activities to put on a series of major
local events on international environmental issues. We wanted to explore the argument that
environmental security, not military security, could well be our dominant foreign policy paradigm
in the 21st century. We also wanted to know what our own government was doing on the world
environmental stage and what our role might be locally.
Councils try to get to know government officials and programs directly rather than simply
relying on the media (or increasingly in international affairs the absence of the media) to tell us
what is happening. We believe that this "direct-access" approach grounds us better than the
national ideological debates on the environment or anything else. We always strive to be
balanced and to hear all sides of an issue.
We sponsored fifteen major local events which drew several thousand people and
considerable media coverage in San Diego, San Francisco, Washington, Grand Rapids, Detroit,
Springfield, Silicon Valley, Dallas, Juneau, Anchorage, Atlanta, Asheville, Honolulu, and Boston.
Though environmental security was the overarching theme, local events varied widely:
environment and sustainable development, global climate change, resolving environmental
conflict, problems in Eastern Europe, Arctic issues, pollution in Russia, environmental issues in
Asia, and US environmental relations with Mexico. The format varied from speeches to panels to
debates to joint governmental presentations to town meeting-style discussion. The San Diego
town meeting was the place where the new US-Mexico environmental agreement under NAFTA,
Border 21, was announced and shared with the world. We also delighted that EPA Administrator
Carol M. Browner and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen participated in the series as did most of
the senior figures in the EPA's international work.
This outreach partnership has been enormously successful for us and we hope to continue
it. We are far better grounded in the concept of environmental security and vastly more
knowledgeable about the hundreds of world-wide projects that our government is working on.
We believe we have helped in a small way produce an American public better educated in
international environmental affairs. We also believe that our approach is a far better way to
evaluate what our government is doing than the alternatives we are usuallyoffered.
jerry W. Leach
National Executive Director
World Affairs Councils
-------
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WORLD AFFAIRS ORGANIZATIONS
MISSION
Empower citizens to participate in the national debate on world affairs
Build citizen support for American engagement in the world
Stimulate communities to interact effectively in the global economy
Help people relate their local concerns to global issues
Improve international education locally, nationally, and internationally
Foster international interests among America's young people
Build alliances with counterparts locally, nationally, and internationally
Increase professionalism among councils by disseminating best practices.
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS
World Affairs Councils are non-profit, non-partisan organizations open to all who wish to
join. The national system, started in 1918, currently consists of 80 councils and 1 7
affiliated organizations. With 375,000 members and participants, it is the largest non-profit
international affairs organization in the world. Councils have about 75,000 dues-paying
members. About 300,000 participate annually in the foreign policy discussion and polling
program called Great Decisions. Over 3,100 corporations and organizations support world
affairs council work.
Councils are supported by membership dues, corporate sponsorships, grants, in-kind
donations, fund-raising events, and fee-for-service activities. All councils sponsor speaker's
programs on international affairs. Many also run business roundtables, school programs,
teacher workshops, model UN sessions for high school students, foreign policy discussions,
opinion polling, young professionals' programs, international exchanges, festivals, travel
programs, town meetings, newspaper columns, publications series, and radio and television
programs.
The national office organizes an annual conference, international fact-finding missions for
council leaders, Washington tours for local council members, a speaker referral system, and
national projects. Current projects are World Bank town meetings, EPA symposia on
international environmental issues, State Department town meetings, a commemorative
series on contemporary Europe and the legacy of the Marshall Plan, and international
education workshops.
World Affairs Councils annually reach about 2,700,000 people, including 725,000
students, with their programs. Including the national affiliates, the overall outreach figure is
8,000,000 per year.
-------
NATIONAL OFFICE
Dr. Jerry W. Leach, Executive Director
Ms. Cori L. Welbourn, Assistant Executive Director
1726 M Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-4502
Phone: (202) 785-4703
Fax: (202) 833-2369
E-mail: ncwao@aol.com
Amb. David J. Fischer Ms.
Linda Leuckel
Mr. Henri J. Mackor
Mr. James Parsons
Ms. Yvonne Shilling
Dr. Betty Crowder
NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Dr. William C. Vocke, Jr., President
Dr. John E. Rielly, Vice-President
Ms. Sue C. Root, Secretary
Ms. Barbara W. Chisolm, Treasurer
Rep. Alan Wheat
Sen. James C. Abourezk
Ms. Diane Peters-Nguyen
Mr. Noel V. Lateef
Ms. Carol E. Byrne
Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson
COUNCIL LOCATIONS
Amb. C. Philip Hughes Mr.
Curtis Mack II
Mr. Charles Miller
Ms. Barbara Schneider Ms.
Linda Wuest
Mr. Michael C. Maibach
Akron
Anchorage
Asheville
Atlanta
Boston
Buffalo
Champaign
Charlotte
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Colorado Spgs.
Columbus
Columbia
Cuernavaca MX
Dallas
Dayton
Denver
Detroit
Durham NH
Fayetteville NC
Florence SC
Ft. Worth
Gary
Grand Rapids
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Houston
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Juneau
Kansas City
Long Island
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
Miami
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
Mobile
Montgomery
Naples
Nashville
New Orleans
New York
Norfolk
Norman
Orange County
Orlando
Olympia
Palm Springs
Pittsburgh
Portland ME
Portland OR
Providence
Reading
Res. Triangle
Richmond
Riverside
Sacramento
San Antonio
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Rosa
Savannah
Scottsdale
Seattle
Sioux Falls
South Bend
Springfield IL
Springfield MA
St. Louis
Stamford
Tacoma
Tryon NC
Tyler TX
Valley Forge
Ventura Co.
Washington DC
-------
NATIONAL AFFILIATES
American Council on Germany Meridian International Center
American Forum for Global Education Overseas Development Council
American Foreign Service Association Royal Institute of Int'l Affairs
Atlantic Council US Committee on Refugees
Brookings Institution United States-Indonesia Society
Foreign Policy Research Institute United Nations Association (USA)
Council on Foreign Relations World Without War Council
Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies WorldTimes
Korean Economic Institute
NCWAO is a member ofCIVICUS, the World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
-------
CAROL M. BROWNER
ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 10,1997
Thank you, Bill Claggett, for that introduction. It is a special privilege to be back
here on the West Coast -this time to discuss EPA's proposal to revise the national ambient
air quality standards for particulate matter and ground-level ozone -better known as soot
and smog.
Let me express my deepest appreciation to the Commonwealth Club and the World
Forum of Silicon Valley for organizing this event. I know that the Commonwealth Club, in
particular, has a longstanding reputation for informed debate -and for fleshing out both
sides of controversial issues.
I will tell you, without hesitation, that these proposed air standards are the toughest
issue I've had to deal with in my four years as EPA Administrator. This proposal to
strengthen the public health protections is under a relentless attack by some industry
representatives -an "air assault," if you will. If there was ever a time for both sides to be
heard, it is now.
So I thank the Commonwealth Club and the World Forum for this opportunity. And
I look forward to your questions following my remarks.
The day after tomorrow will mark the end of the public comment period for EPA's
proposed air standards -and the conclusion of the most extensive scientific review and
public outreach process ever conducted by EPA for developing a public health standard.
This is the process set forth in the Clean Air Act.
Born under President Nixon, amended and strengthened under Presidents Carter
and Bush, the Clean Air Act is the embodiment of an ongoing, bipartisan desire to protect
all Americans from the harmful effects of breathing polluted air.
From the beginning, the Act has contemplated the march of technology and science.
It has recognized that science will always come up with better ways to
understand the health effects of the air we breathe -and that the standards of the 1970s may
not be right for the 21st Century. And, therefore, the Congress set forth this process to
-------
ensure that the standards would be set and, if necessary, revised in a manner that puts the
public health first and ensures that Americans are protected with an adequate margin of
safety.
First, it directs EPA to review the public health standards for the six major air
pollutants at least every five years, in order to ensure that they reflect the best current
science. It also lays out a specific procedure to obtain that science and, if needed, revise
the standards. This is to ensure that we never get to the point where the government tells
Americans that their air is healthy to breathe, when the scientific community knows that, in
fact, it is not.
Next, the process requires that EPA's
standard-setting work and the underlying
So, in keeping with the law-the Clean Air Act-EPA has
proposed to strengthen the air standards and expand
the public health protections -and thereby reduce the
levels of smog and soot in the nation's air. Taken
together, these proposed standards would extend
protections-cleaner air-to a total of 133 million
Americans, including 40 million children. . , .
ozone and particulate matter panels, over a
health studies -some 250 of them in this
case -be independently reviewed by a panel
of scientists and technical experts from
academia, research institutes, public health
organizations and industry. In this case, the
four-year period, conducted 11 meetings, all
open to the public -a total of 124 hours of
public discussion of the scientific data, research and the studies of the health effects of smog
and soot.
EPA has held further public meetings, at which hundreds of representatives from
industry, state and local governments, organizations -as well as members of the public
-have offered their views. As I mentioned, the public comment period comes to a close in
two days. EPA will then analyze and consider the submitted comments and, after doing so,
set a public health standard in July. Congress then has its say and may vote up-or-down on
EPA's health standards -obviously subject to the President's veto, as is any Congressional
action.
And, after a thorough review of all the scientific evidence -all of the published,
peer-reviewed and fully debated health studies -literally peer review of peer review of peer
review -the conclusion of the independent panel is that the current air standards are not
adequately protecting public health and that they should be revised. Serious health effects
are occurring in children, the elderly and other sensitive populations at particulate matter
and ozone concentrations at and below existing standards.
So, in keeping with the law-the Clean Air Act-EPA has proposed to strengthen the
air standards and expand the public health protections -and thereby reduce the levels of
smog and soot in the nation's air. Taken together, these proposed standards would extend
protections-cleaner air-to a total of 133 million Americans, including 40 million children.
So I think it's fair to say that we have not taken our responsibility lightly-that we did
not, excuse the expression, just pluck these new standards "out of thin air." EPA followed
the law, and the science, very carefully.
Nor is this a rush to judgment. It has been a decade since the last revision of the PM
standards, and nearly two decades since the last revision of the ozone standards.
10
-------
Now, I'm sure you've heard the criticism, voiced by some in industry, that EPA is
"changing the rules" and "moving the goal posts" in the middle of the game. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
Over the history of the Clean Air Act, the goal is -always has been and always will
be-clean air. Nothing in that has ever changed.
What has changed is the science-which is forever bringing advancements and
innovations to improve the quality of our lives. Science now tells us that our air pollution
standards are not adequate to protect the public's health-that the current standards leave
too many at risk.
"Oh, but the science is not fully conclusive," some in industry are saying. "The
science cannot show us exactly how smog and soot cause damage to the human body. We
should wait for further studies. We must first understand exactly how these pollutants move
through the human body-each twist and turn-before we act."
My response is simply to ask "why?" We have a cause -air pollution. We have an
effect -aggravated asthma, respiratory problems, and premature death. So why wait? We
have enough to go on -study after study -again, all thoroughly debated and peer reviewed
-showing that stronger standards will protect millions more Americans from adverse health
effects.
We know from the best, current science that strengthening the ozone standard
would protect nearly 50 million more Americans from the adverse health effects of smog
-13 million of whom are children. And the new standard for particulate matter would
result in 20,000 fewer premature deaths, a quarter-million fewer cases of aggravated
asthma, another quarter-million fewer cases of acute respiratory problems in children and
60,000 fewer cases of bronchitis -each year.
We don't need to know exactly how ozone and PM, at current levels, cause asthma
attacks and other respiratory problems in our children and in other sensitive populations -in
order to take real steps to address these problems. We don't need to wait for another
generation of Americans to grow up in order to find out exactly how polluted air causes the
health problems that we know for certain are afflicting far too many Americans.
The best, current science already shows that there is a cause and an effect when it
comes to currently-permissible levels of smog and soot.
And so we must act to protect millions of American, and especially millions of
American children, from harmful air pollution -just as we acted more than 20 years ago
when EPA ordered the phase-out of lead in gasoline -and just as the government acted to
warn Americans of the dangers of cigarette smoking.
And that is precisely what EPA is doing.
"But what about the costs to industry and society?" some have asked. "Why
shouldn't you have to first prove that the benefits of these new standards outweigh those
costs?"
Let me say that we do consider costs. We take our responsibility to do that very
seriously. But the law does not allow us to consider costs at the public health stage of the
11
-------
process. The Clean Air Act clearly requires levels of smog and soot to be based solely on
health, risk, exposure and damage to the environment, as determined by the best available
science -and not projected costs for reducing pollution.
This is no accident. In the 1970 Clean Air Act debate, Congress deliberated the
issue of cost -as well as the technical feasibility of meeting clean air standards. At the time,
there was a great deal of frustration that putting cost considerations first was preventing any
real progress toward cleaner air.
You can dust off the record from 1970 and find no less than Governor Ronald
Reagan himself testifying before the Senate that, in his words, "We would favor federal
legislation that....sets such air quality standards as relate to human health, as these are
common to all people regardless of where they live...."
Thus, the decision was made -the public health must come first. The current best
science must prevail in determining the level of protection the public will be guaranteed.
Nothing else can take precedence.
This issue has been revisited each time the Clean Air Act has been amended -in
1977 and again in 1990. And, each time, Congress and the President have come down
firmly on the side of the public health first and foremost.
Not only does the law forbid us from considering the costs in setting these
standards, but history and real experience tell us we'd be foolish to try.
Almost every time we have begun the process to set or revise air standards, the costs
of doing so have been grossly overstated -by both industry and EPA.
Let me take you back for a moment.
During the 1990 debate on the Clean Air Act's acid rain program, industry initially
projected the cost of an emission allowance to be $1,500 per ton of sulfur dioxide, while
the EPA projected it to be as much as $600. Today, those allowances are selling for less
than $100.
Likewise, the auto industry said a few years ago that the cost of meeting emission
standards here in California would amount to $1,500 per car. Again, the actual cost is less
than $100.
On everything from the CFC phase-out to cleaner gas, the predictions of economic
chaos simply have never come to pass.
Why? Because industry a/ways rises to the challenge -again and again -finding
cheaper, more innovative ways of meeting standards -and lowering their pollution.
Can it be done again? Of course it can. Here in California -where you've faced the
toughest air pollution challenges in the country - you are leading the way to cleaner air.
Innovations are bringing cleaner industries, cleaner cars, cleaner burning gas. You are
seeing dramatic improvements -particularly in the Los Angeles basin.
So I simply refuse to believe that we have to surrender our effort for cleaner air to
cost considerations. When you think of how far Los Angeles has come in this process, to
12
-------
borrow the words of a song about a city on the other coast, "if we can make it there, we can
make it anywhere."
Like administrations before us, we believe that environmental protection should
build upon the ideals that have long made this country great -our creativity, innovation,
ingenuity. The system must do more than just seek the minimum -it must demand the best.
It must reward those willing to do more than just an adequate job, to go further, to push the
envelope, to provide the strongest possible protections, to prevent pollution.
That doesn't mean that there is no role for the practicalities of attaining these
protections. There is such a role when it comes to implementing the standards. In that
case, it certainly is appropriate to weigh the costs, industry by industry, of reducing
pollution -allowing us to find the most-effective solution. If these new standards are
adopted, EPA will work with all who are affected -state governments, local governments,
community leaders, businesses large and small -just as we have done here in California -to
find cost-effective and common sense strategies for reducing pollution and providing the
public health protections. That is part of the process, too.
Clearly, this is a process that has worked and is working for America. It guarantees
strong public health protections. It provides for the clean air standards to be periodically
reviewed and updated. It ensures that we will always have the best available science,
subject to independent review. It enables everyone -businesses, state and local
governments, community groups and the public -to participate in the process and have
their say. It honors the public's right to know. And it sets out a reasonable and rational
procedure for implementing revised standards and assuring that it is done in the most
common sense, cost-effective way.
Does it challenge us? Yes.
But this nation -its industries, its communities, its people -are fully capable of rising
to that challenge. Working together, we can have cleaner air and not sacrifice our
economic vitality. We've done it before. Since 1970, emissions of the six major air
pollutants have dropped by 29 percent while the population has grown by 28 percent and
the gross domestic product has nearly doubled.
Economic growth and cleaner air. Now that's a level of progress we can all be
proud of. You can thank good old American ingenuity for that. Time and time again,
American industry and the American people have risen to the challenge of cleaner air.
So as the debate over air standards rages on, I would ask that you ask yourselves the
following question: "Have we reached the point where we should abandon our
commitment to a public health standard for air pollution?"
I believe the answer is no. Americans want clean air. They want the public health
to come first. They want their children protected. They want EPA to do its job -which is
ensuring that the air they breathe is safe and healthy. And they have every right to expect
that industry will rise to the occasion, meet the challenges, and once again reduce their
pollution of the public's air.
Clearly, this is a vital issue of tremendous importance to millions of American
families. And I think that, in this debate, we all have a responsibility to stick to the facts.
13
-------
Unfortunately, some opponents have warned about impending lifestyle changes
-that these standards would lead to the banning of barbecue grills and Fourth of July
fireworks.
Let me tell you they are nothing more than scare tactics. They are false. They are
wrong. They are manipulative. And, sadly, they detract from what could be and should be
a rational, informed debate on an issue of great importance to millions of Americans.
This is not about backyard barbeques. This is not about banning fireworks on the
Fourth of July.
Instead, this is about whether our children will be able to go outside on the Fourth
of July.and enjoy those fireworks. It is about finding ways in which we can all work
together to ensure that the air we breathe is healthy, and that our standards protect the
greatest possible number of Americans.
Let us listen to science. Let us respond as we have before. Let us work together
toward common ground -not only on this particular issue, but on all environmental and
public health issues -to improve the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and
the land on which we all live.
Let us do it for our children.
Thank you. Now, to your questions.
14
-------
FRED HANSEN
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Speech to
The World Affairs Council
November 15, 1996
I want to thank Jerry Leach for his kind invitation to meet with you today. It's a
pleasure - and an honor - to be here. I commend you for your leadership in raising public
awareness of international issues that touch the lives of all Americans, whether they realize
it or not. Your leadership will be needed even more in the future as international The
World Affairs Council environmental issues touch American lives and - indeed - the lives
of everyone on earth.
That is, in fact, why I am here today - to discuss with you how future environmental
quality will affect the health and well-being not just of individuals, or communities, but the
health and well-being of the community of nations.
The changes in the world economy tell the story most starkly. Economic growth
rates in the developing world are averaging nearly twice the growth rates in the developed
countries (U.S., Europe, Japan, e.g.) The Economist magazine recently forecast that in the
year 2020, roughly 25 years from now:
9 out of the 15 largest economies on the planet will be what we now call
"developing countries."
India will replace Germany as the 4th largest economy in the world.
Indonesia will replace France as the 5th largest.
China may well replace the U.S. as the largest economy on the globe.
Developing countries will represent 62% of the global GNP.
And while all of this change is occurring, we are adding population on the roughly
equal to another Tokyo every 40 days, most of it in the developing world. China alone
adds another Australia every year.
The challenge we face in the century ahead is to ensure that we address the
enormous environmental pressures which attach to this kind of economic and population
growth . And to meet that challenge we must pay close attention to the environment.
A few years ago the EPA Administrator asked our Science Advisory Board, a group
of eminent, independent scientists, to look beyond the horizon and - in their best
15
-------
judgment - anticipate environmental problems that may emerge in the 21 st century. Before
I came to EPA, I had the pleasure of serving on the SAB as they prepared their
report, which was published in January 1995.
global environmental quality is a matter of I So I had a hand in the effort as serious and
strategic national interest that should be I dedicated environmental scientists and
recognized - publicly and formally. I practioners came to their conclusions. And
____^^^^^^^^^_______J| one of the most forceful, unequivocal
conclusions has a direct bearing on the work
of the World Affairs Council. The SAB said, in
a nutshell, that global environmental quality is a matter of strategic national interest that
should be recognized - publicly and formally.
Why? Because of the enormous potential for environmental and natural resource
degradation to strain international relations. I quote from the SAB report: "...international
competition for natural resources like ocean
fish and potable water may pose as much of a
threat to international political stability as an
interrupted oil supply does today." Thus the
At EPA we are very proud of our work in the
international arena, particularly our cooperative
role implementing the President's foreign policy
and free trade agenda.
SAB recommended that the United States
develop strategic national policies that link
national security, foreign relations,
environmental quality, and economic growth.
In other words, the SAB recommended a fundamental change in thinking at EPA, and in
other parts of the U.S. government as well.
At EPA we are very proud of our work in the international arena, particularly our
cooperative role implementing the President's foreign policy and free trade agenda.
There is another area of EPA international activity that, while relatively new to the
Agency, is producing some encouraging results. And that's the area of environmental
security. Environmental security is a relatively new concept in the language of international
diplomacy. My colleagues at the State Department often refer to it as "environmental
diplomacy." In the Defense Department, alleviating environmental problems before they
become cause for military conflict is part of the Administration's concept of "Preventive
Defense." In a word, environmental security involves minimizing environmental trends and
conditions in other countries that could, over time, negatively affect U.S. national security
interests and potentially lead to armed conflict.
Let me mention one example. For almost two years, American experts have been
working with counterparts from Russia and Norway to design the expansion and upgrade of
a facility in Murmansk that treats low-level liquid radioactive waste. These improvements
will augment Russia's ability to safely dispose of the wastes from decommissioned of
nuclear-powered submarines.
This cooperative effort was undertaken because Russia was unable to adhere
formally to the 1993 amendments to the London Convention banning all ocean disposal of
radioactive waste. Because Russia does not have adequate facilities to store nuclear
materials, it has unfortunately resorted to dumping radioactive waste into the Arctic Sea and
the Sea of Japan. Russia is also currently storing solid radioactive waste on ships and barges
in the Arctic and, possibly, the Western Pacific. These floating storage facilities create
significant potential risks of radioactive contamination.
16
-------
With the help of the United States and Norway at Murmansk, Russia is now able to
cease ocean dumping. President Yeltsin has indicated Russia's intent to sign the London
Convention.
These examples of EPA's international activity give you a sense of the scope of the
challenge we face as an agency, and a nation. As the world shrinks, environmental and
natural resource problems cross national borders and give rise to international tensions.
EPA is working with other U.S. government agencies, and with foreign agencies, to solve
these problems. That is an effort unlikely to diminish in the years ahead.
But the Science Advisory Board posed a much larger question. They looked beyond
the ad hoc response to international environmental problems as they emerge one-by-one,
and noted that "An overall, strategic environmental policy has never been defined for this
country. U.S. foreign policy objectives related to the environment have not been
articulated, environmental risk contingencies have not been identified, and the criteria for
various levels of U.S action in the face of environmental emergencies have not been laid
out."
We must begin to define a strategic environmental policy for the United States that
is linked to, and consistent with, our strategic foreign relations, national defense, and
economic polices. I invite you to join in the national dialogue that must precede the
development of such a policy. In the 21st century, few issues will affect more Americans
more profoundly.
We must develop this strategic environmental policy, this strategic environmental
vision, not only for the sake of the American people, but for everyone on earth. The United
States has long been recognized as the environmental leader of the rest of the world. We
enacted national environmental laws before anyone else, and - in fact - our laws are often
used as the models by other nations. Our environmental and public health standards are
still the toughest in the world. Despite the noises made by the recent Congress, I am
confident that the United States will continue to lead the world environmentally in the 21st
century. And I can think of no better proof of that leadership than the development of a
strategic U.S. environmental policy that defines our international environmental interests in
the clearest possible terms. Every American, and every other country, needs to know where
we stand.
Sometime next spring EPA will host a meeting of environmental representatives
from all the G-7 countries. At that meeting the countries will share with their neighbors
what they see when they look over the environmental horizon. They also will prepare
recommendations for ongoing international cooperation in identifying environmental
problems likely to affect every nation in the 21st century. The results and recommendations
will become a part of the agenda for the G-7 environmental ministerial which takes place
later in the spring, and reinforce the spirit of international cooperation
that is essential to the protection of human health and the environment in the future. I am
hopeful that discussion will be further evidence that the United States intends to exert its
international environmental leadership in the 21st century.
I invite your interest in our shared environmental future, and I invite your questions
and comments today. Thank you very much.
17
-------
WILLIAM A. NITZE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
JANUARY 16,1997
Greetings
I want to thank you for the kind invitation to speak tonight. The World Affairs
Council is an impressive organization devoted to improving American awareness and
education in international affairs. I am especially pleased that this year, the WAC and EPA
are collaborating on a series of town meetings. EPA senior officials have been visiting local
chapters throughout the United States to talk about a number of international issues.
Today I want to talk about EPA's international role, and especially to highlight a
new direction for EPA into the area of environmental security.
EPA is a key player in carrying out U.S. foreign policy. You may not be fully aware
of the depth of our involvement in international activities. Let me begin with a story about
radioactive waste in Russia.
Murmansk Project:
At present Russia does not have adequate facilities to store nuclear materials from
decommissioned submarines and has, until 1993, resorted to dumping both high and low-
level radioactive waste into the Arctic Seas and low-level waste into the Sea of Japan.
Russia is currently storing spent and damaged nuclear fuel and other solid radioactive waste
materials on ships and barges in the Arctic near Murmansk. Such floating storage facilities
create significant risks of radioactive contamination of our environment.
The inability of Russia to manage its military nuclear waste (in both the Arctic and
Far East) has prevented it from signing the London Convention, an international agreement
that bans the dumping of all radioactive waste in the oceans. In addition, Russia has been
unable to meet its submarine decommissioning goals under the START agreement due to
inadequate liquid-radioactive waste processing capacity.
This problem has become urgent as an increasing number of nuclear submarines are
being decommissioned. Waste from these subs is being temporarily stored on land and in
floating vessels in the Murmansk region of the Kola Peninsula. Waste storage facilities are
reported to be 90-95 percent full.
18
-------
In 1993, the Russian Federation made it clear that if interested countries could assist
them in solving this problem in both northwest Russia and the Far East, then Russia would
be prepared to formally adhere to the ban under the London Convention.
In June 1994 under a U.S., Norway, and the Russian Federation initiative EPA Began
exploring the possibility of expanding and upgrading the only operational Russian low
level liquid radioactive waste processing facility. Located in Murmansk, this facility was
designed to process the waste from Russia's nuclear powered icebreakers fleet.
The idea of upgrading the Murmansk facility was presented to the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission in June of 1994 by Administrator Browner. Subsequently, on
September 28, 1994, President Clinton and Yeltsin issued a joint U.S.-Russian Summit
announcement stating that resolution of this
liquid radioactive waste processing problem
is an important component of efforts to
What pleases me most about these
activities is that we have had a real impact on
improving the quality of life in Eastern Europe.
The drinking water supply in Krakow is now safer
because of an EPA program to that supplied
technical assistance and American disinfection
equipment to that historic city in Poland.
protect Arctic environmental quality and
natural resources. Today, construction has
begun on the new facility; Russia has
voluntarily refrained from ocean dumping;
and President Yeltsin has indicated Russia's
intent to sign the London Convention.
I tell this story because it illustrates,
quite strikingly, how EPA can help achieve the U.S.Government's international
environmental objectives. This initiative was designed and implemented with EPA
leadership. Our goal was to enhance U.S. environmental security by protecting the Arctic
ecosystem and obtaining Russian compliance with an international treaty to protect the
world's oceans.
ERA'S international Role
Today EPA is interacting with dozens of governments around the world. EPA was
and remains a key agency on the ground in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism.
We opened the Regional Environmental Center in Budapest in 1990. For the past six years
we have sent dozens of missions to countries of Eastern Europe to help them build their
capability to deal with environmental problems.
What pleases me most about these activities is that we have had a real impact on
improving the quality of life in Eastern Europe. The drinking water supply in Krakow is now
safer because of an EPA program to that supplied technical assistance and American
disinfection equipment to that historic city in Poland. EPA air monitoring equipment and
training played a critical role in reducing Krakow's air pollution by 50 percent since 1989.
We have been doing the same in Russia and in many other countries.
EPA's expertise and experience in dealing with environmental problems are in great
demand throughout the world, a demand that far exceeds our limited resources. We are
therefore forced to make difficult decisions about where our modest resources will have the
largest impact. These decisions are made more difficult by the need to broaden our work
with foreign governments well beyond technical assistance. The interaction of
environmental, trade and commercial interests in the world today require us to be an
integral part of the development and implementation of foreign, trade and economic
policies.
19
-------
Environmental Security
My Murmansk story demonstrates a new dimension to EPA's international workthe
issue of environmental security. Environmental security is a relatively new concept in the
language of international diplomacy. My colleagues in the State Department often refer to
it as "environmental diplomacy." And in the Defense Department, alleviating
environmental problems before they become cause for military conflict is part of Secretary
Perry's concept of "Preventive Defense."
For EPA, environmental security is the minimization of environmental trends or
conditions involving other countries that could, over time, have significant negative impacts
on important U.S. national interests. Environmental security is the way that the U.S. will
look at international environmental issues in the future. It is the way that our environmental
activities abroad will serve our domestic responsibilities.
Political borders are not barriers to environmental problems. To protect the health
of our citizens, the environment of the U.S. and our foreign policy interests, we must pay
attention to what is happening to the
environment on a regional and global scale.
"EPA should begin working with relevant
agencies and organizations to develop strategic
national policies that link national security,
foreign relations and environmental quality and
economic growth."
The potential radioactive pollution of the
Arctic that I described above, climate change
and ozone depletion are just the first three on
what may become a long list of environment
threats to the U.S. that need to be addressed
internationally. Just as we have now integrated
economics and trade into most aspects of U.S.
foreign policy so must we broaden our concept of national security to include the concepts
of preventive defense and environmental security if we are to succeed in protecting the long
term health and quality of the life of the American people. In the years ahead, water quality
and quantity may be one of the most important environmental and security issues.
For example, there are major river systems such as the Euphrates, where there is no
existing international framework. In South Africa, five rivers flow into Mozambique without
international controls. Growing water problems in the Middle East represent major security
issues. EPA is working on these problems and is part of the Middle East Accord working
group on the environment.
Last year the EPA Science Advisory Board completed a report entitled "Beyond the
Horizon." This report urged EPA to think about future risks including threats to the
environmental security of the United States and effective response strategies. The report
said:
" EPA should begin working with relevant agencies and organizations to develop
strategic national policies that link national security, foreign relations and environmental
quality and economic growth."
The report called for an "early-warning" system to identify potential future
environmental risks.
We have taken this recommendation seriously.
20
-------
Since the end of the cold war, many parts of the world have seen marked
improvements in human rights and the spread of democracy and free markets. People who
were under totalitarian governments in the former Soviet Union and the countries in Central
and Eastern Europe just six years ago are now more free to travel and pursue opportunity.
The United States is more secure from military threats then anytime since before the Second
World War.
Much has been written and said about the global economy and the need for
America to take a global approach to business. Problems and opportunities in one region
have immediate impacts in another. This globalization accompanied by unchecked
population growth in much of the developing world will lead to greater competition for
important natural resources and increase the world's capacity to damage the natural
environment to a degree that is only now becoming frighteningly clear.
At the same time, regional instabilities, terrorism, and international organized crime
are all problems that have grown worse since the cold war ended. The epd of the cold war
exposed and unleashed many regional problems that had been suppressed by U.S.- Soviet
competition. The expanding global economy together with the population explosion have
globalized the consequences of these problems. Greenhouses released in a rapidly
growing Asia can change the world's, and nuclear accidents in Russia can affect the United
States as we saw with the Chernobyl disaster. Reported cases of CFC smuggling from Russia
into the U.S., chemical terrorism in japan and desertification in Northern Mexico are but a
few of the potential environmental threats around the world that we need to face now.
Most governmental efforts to protect the environment are directed at problems of
present conditions (e.g., emissions from industrial pollution) and legacies of past "solutions"
(e.g., abandoned waste sites). With the notable exception of some major environmental
treaties relatively little consideration is given to problems that may arise tomorrow. By
explicitly considering the future today, we can make decisions about today's known
environmental problems and avoid or manage tomorrow's unknown environmental
problems so as to minimize future negative impacts.
In some few instances, the international community has been effective in taking a
collective long-range view; The Montreal Protocol which limits the production and use of
chloroflurocarbons is an outstanding example. If similar technical foresight had been
exercised during the early development and use of other materials such as polychlorinated
biphenyls or PCBs, significant damage to human health and the environment and the
expenditure of vast resources on a clean-up, could have been avoided.
These problems point to the need for EPA to play a large role in implementing
U.S.Government foreign policy agenda.
The World Ahead
The Clinton Administration has already formally acknowledged the importance of
environmental and natural resource issues for U.S. national security. In the 1996
document "A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement," the
Administration noted that "Even when making the most generous allowance for advances in
science and technology, one cannot help but conclude that population growth and
environmental pressures will feed into immense social unrest and make the world
substantially more vulnerable to serious international frictions."
21
-------
In a speech at Stanford University on April 9, 1996, U.S. Secretary of State Warren
Christopher explicitly recognized the need to make environmental security a central
dimension of U.S. foreign policy. He said that the environment has a profound impact on
our national interests in two ways: first, environmental forces transcend borders and oceans
to threaten directly the health, prosperity and jobs of American citizens. Second:
addressing natural resource issues is frequently critical to achieving political and economic
stability, and to pursuing our strategic goals around the world.
As I mentioned earlier, Dr. William Perry, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, has put
forward the idea of preventive defense as a central precept of U.S. defense planning.
Preventive defense implies that the U.S. military should not only anticipate and respond to
threats to U.S. national security if and when they occur, but should play an active role in
preventing those threats from arising in the first place. Although implementation plans have
not been completed, the U.S. military has made a commitment to minimize any negative
environmental impacts of its own operations and to seek ways of improving environmental
conditions in the areas where it carries out military and nonmilitary missions.
EPA is building new partnerships within the U.S. Government. Recognizing that no
single agency can meet the challenges alone EPA has recently entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding on environmental security with the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy. This agreement will allow the special expertise in each of the three
organizations to be leveraged with support from the State Department and other agencies.
The three partners will initially focus on projects in the Baltic countries, Eastern Europe and
the countries of the former Soviet Union related to the environmental legacy of the Cold
War.
Even before the development of this Memorandum of Understanding, EPA at the
invitation of the Department of Defense began participating in the Arctic Military
Environmental Cooperation (AMEC) process. AMEC is an outgrowth of the trilateral military
discussions between the United States, Norway and Russia and is concerned with threats to
the Arctic environment related to military-industrial activities in the Arctic region.
Currently, EPA is developing a project under AMEC to design and build a transportable
storage container to solve the interim storage problem of damaged and spent nuclear fuel
from Russian submarines and icebreakers. The existing floating fuel storage situation is
viewed by the three countries as posing a serious health and safety risk for the Arctic region.
At the request of the Panama Canal Commission, we will also begin training of
Panamanians on hazardous waste management.
At the same time, EPA is now developing its own strategic plan for environmental
security. Our program will draw heavily on EPA's core functions including emergency
planning and response, environmental crimes investigation, environmental terrorism,
technical assistance and training, hazardous waste management, and monitoring and risk
assessment. It will have a new focus on "Futures Planning," including development of an
early warning system.
Conclusion
I believe in the decade ahead that environmental issues will comprise a large and
growing element of U.S. foreign policy. America will be faced with many more
environmental and natural resource-based security challenges in the future. As a result,
22
-------
global environmental quality issues represent one of the single most important strategic
issues that will face the U.S. at the dawn of a new century.
Currently the U.S.Government faces these new challenges with limited resources. In
recent years, the foreign affairs budget of the United States has been declining, just at a time
when significant international environmental issues are growing. One of the great issues
Congress and the Administration must resolve is just how much of our national resources
should be directed toward foreign engagement. I believe the U.S. has special
responsibilities commensurate with our leadership role in the world. Informed citizens like
yourself are an important part of the decision making process and I hope you will actively
participate in a debate that will shape the future sustainability of the world.
Thank You
23
-------
THE ARCTIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
DR. ALAN D. HECHT
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS
JUNEAU AND ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
APRIL 24-25,1997
Introduction
I want to thank you (Joe Sonneman - Juneau) (Barbara Probst - Anchorage) for the
kind invitation to speak as an invited guest of the World Affairs Council tonight (today). I
am especially pleased to report that this is the tenth of approximately 25 speeches senior
EPA officials will present before World Affairs Council audiences across the country this
year. These talks offer excellent opportunities for us at EPA to work with the Councils in
raising public awareness of international environmental issues - particularly as they affect
the quality of our domestic health and environment.
Tonight (today) I want to talk about EPA's involvement with the issue of
environmental security and about some of its connections with Alaska.
I recently returned from Norway where I attended meetings of the Barents Council
and reviewed the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP). On that
trip, along with the U.S. Ambassador to Norway, Tom Loftus, and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Europe, Marshall Adair, we drove from Kirkenes, Norway, to
Murmansk, Russia. The road from Norway to Murmansk crosses gently rolling tundra. But
shortly after crossing the Russian border, we visited the Russian town of Nikel, a small city
centered around a large nickel smelting plant. Upon entering Nikel, one is struck
immediately by the structural obsolescence of the nickel plant as the smelters belch
enormous plumes of poisonous smoke from three towering smokestacks. There appear to
be no modern health, environmental or safety systems surrounding the plant. Everywhere
one goes, one sees gray snow over the entire area. I was told that in the Summer, when the
snow recedes, the earth is barren. It is apparent that things lives with difficulty in the
shadow of the nickel plant. Sadly, the residents and workers of Nikel have a life
expectancy of only 45 years.
As Alaskans, I suspect you are probably familiar with the geography and history of
the European Arctic. Murmansk is the largest city north of the Arctic Circle. Its port was
constructed in 1915, during World War I, as a port of entry for Allied supplies after Russian
ports on the Black and Baltic seas were denied access. During World War II, Murmansk
24
-------
served as a port of entry for allied supply convoys supplying Leningrad during its 900 day
siege.
Following World War II, the Murmansk region became home to the modern Russian
navy, in particular the city of Severomorsk - home to the Russian Northern Fleet. Murmansk
and Severomorsk are also home to the largest commercial nuclear ice breaker fleet in the
world. Nearly two-thirds of the Russian Navy's resources are dedicated to the Murmansk
region.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the absence of funds to maintain and
support the region's fleets has led to their disrepair. Consequently, the region has suffered
from significant economic depression and unemployment. Because Moscow has no funds
and the region is still struggling with economic independence, nuclear submarines are
being decommissioned rather than constructed, electric power supplies are intermittent and
always disrupted, ships cannot leave port because they lack fuel, sailors are unpaid; and in
Murmansk ships lie in ruin, rusting away.
The combined presence of the Russian Northern Navy and icebreaker fleets gives
the Murmansk region the largest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world. In fact,
over 18 percent of the world's nuclear reactors are stored here. Spent and damaged nuclear
fuel from the nuclear submarines and icebreakers are stored in the hulls of ships docked at
the piers.
One docked ship that I visited in Murmansk, the Lepse, is the focus of an
international assistance project to transport and safely dispose damaged fuel rods stored on
the ship. It is agreed that in the absence of any international assistance - these same low-
level liquid radioactive waste, fuel rods and nuclear reactors themselves - would have been
dumped into the ocean.
Dumping of low-level liquid radioactive wastes and spent fuel rods from nuclear
reactors was often practiced during the era of the Soviet Union - especially between 1959
and 1992. Today, the Russians have voluntarily refrained from dumping these wastes as a
result of pressure from the U.S. and such other Arctic nations as Canada and Norway.
Although the present economic outlook in Murmansk is not cheerful, the region has
untapped oil and gas fields - particularly north of Murmansk in the Arctic Ocean, and some
of the world's most important precious metals. These natural resources are complimented
by abundant fish stocks, which represent a source of significant trade today between
Norway and Russia. All of these factors indicate an enormous potential for economic
viability in the region. We view this economic potential as a challenge to work with the
Russians to make it sustainable in order to prevent further degradation to the human health
and environmental quality in the region.
My trip to Murmansk highlights three main issues which affect all nations of the
Arctic Basin and affect the security of the United States. These are the issues I want to talk
about today.
Protecting the Arctic Environment
The Arctic Basin is a unique ecosystem which has been severely stressed by
unsustainable economic development. Under the Clinton Administration, U.S. policy
toward the Arctic has revolved around six main objectives:
25
-------
Protect the Arctic Environment and conserve its biological resources;
Assure that natural resource management and economic development in the region
are environmental sustainable;
Strengthen institutions for cooperation among the 8 Arctic nations;
Involve the Arctic's indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them;
Enhance scientific monitoring and research on local, regional, and global
environmental issues;
Meet national security and defense needs.
What I have said about the conditions at Nikel and Murmansk indicate significant
stress to the Arctic ecosystem. There can be no question that these cities reflect
environmental disaster.
The U.S. is not immune from pollution generated from these areas. It also is not
immune from pollution generated from northwestern Russia, Europe or China - this has
been well established. The Arctic basin is a unique atmospheric sink. Pollution generated
in the continental U.S., Europe, China or Russia finds its way to Alaska and Hudson Bay.
Heavy metal contaminants have already been detected in Arctic ecosystems and lead,
mercury, cadmium and other substances are already concentrating in fish and mammals.
EPA has had a long-term involvement with radioactive contamination in the Arctic.
We are still concerned, but also are listening to recent studies that have shown that the risk
of contamination via marine pathways from existing Russian ocean dumping sites is small.
At the same time, there is now growing concern about non-radioactive contamination,
including heavy metals and persistent organic
pollutants. According to a report published
Northwest Russia will be economically
developed and this region could be a powerful
economic engine for Russia as a whole.
However, unless this development follows a
sustainable course, the pollution consequences
will be disastrous
by the Office of Technology Assessment (one
of OTA's last reports before being abolished
by Congress):
". . .it is clear that industrial
discharges and toxic wastes have
entered the Arctic and could present
problems. Thus, we have concluded
that contaminants other that
radionuclides could have a significant
impact on the Arctic environment."
For this reason, we are greatly concerned about the future economic development
in this region, especially in northwest Russia. Unless this development proceeds in a
sustainable way, the Arctic basin may suffer additional economic crises; and the health of
Arctic people and ecological systems will suffer.
The link between environment and development is very crucial. Several years ago,
William Ruckelshaus, former EPA Administrator and past CEO of Browning-Ferris Industries,
gave a talk at West Point on the subject of "National Security and the Environment."
Ruckelshaus said:
26
-------
"The Soviet empire collapsed because its economy collapsed and because it tried to
operate a modern industrial system without any environmental controls at all, which
could have meant that even if it had been able through some more brutal tightening
of discipline to prop up its economy, environmental disasters might have overtaken
it eventually. The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl was only the tip of the iceberg."
The pollution legacy in Russia is staggering. As Ruckelshaus points out the Soviet
Union is the only nation in history to experience a decline in such basic health indicators
as infant mortality and longevity after achieving full industrialization. The smelter at Nikel
is operating profitably, but not without significant environmental or human health
consequences. Even so, when the Norwegian government offered Russia $30 million funds
to modernize the plant, Russia was unable to collaborate by providing matching funds.
It was clear that the Northwest Russia will be economically developed and this
region could be a powerful economic engine for Russia as a whole. However, unless this
development follows a sustainable course, the pollution consequences will be disastrous.
This is why it is crucial for the US to work with Russia on economic and environmental
policy development and to work with all Arctic nations to ensure sound economic
development and environmental stewardship of this region.
Link Between Environment and Security
The Russian navy has begun the accelerated decommissioning of their nuclear
submarines as required under the provisions of START II. This has resulted in a significant
increase in the generation of low-level radioactive waste. Russia has been unable to
increase their radioactive waste storage and processing capacity to meet the increasing
demand. As a result, Russia has now indicated that it will either have to significantly
reduce nuclear submarine decommissioning activities or resume dumping the waste into
the ocean. Aware of this, the Russians were unwilling to accept and sign the amendments
to the London Convention prohibiting the ocean dumping of radioactive waste.
As you can see, the interests of the Department of Defense, Department of State,
Department of Energy and EPA all converge on Murmansk. From our different perspectives,
we developed a common solution. Collectively, we are working with Norway to develop a
short term solution to the problem. We first proposed a project to expand and upgrade an
existing low-level liquid radioactive waste treatment facility in the region. This project is
now 20 percent complete. A team from Brookhaven National Laboratory and EPA is
currently visiting Murmansk to assess progress on this project.
When completed, the upgraded facility may give the Russians the needed treatment
capacity to continue submarine decommissioning as required under START II. This project
is only the beginning of a series of initiatives to address the broader problems of liquid and
solid radioactive waste in the region.
While the U.S. is working with Norway on the radioactive programs in the Arctic,
Japan is undertaking a similar effort to address radioactive waste dumping in the Far East.
When both projects are completed, we expect Russia will sign the existing international
agreements to ban dumping of low level radioactive waste in the oceans.
Addressing the problems posed in Murmansk is a perfect example of what we call
Environmental Security. That is, solutions to environmental problems with added benefits
to U.S. national security and foreign policy. The Murmansk Initiative was an important
starting point for the continued collaboration of DOD, DOE and EPA, leading directly to the
27
-------
three agencies signing a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Environmental
Security. One of the major foci for our collaboration is the situation in northwest Russia.
Together, we are examining the environment, military activities, and economic
development in the region, in order to develop more effective solutions to our common
problems. Following Murmansk, we have extended our cooperative efforts to the Baltics
region. Within our resources, we will continue expanding our view to other regions as our
joint interests are affected and our expertise is needed.
Broadly speaking environmental security encompasses unsustainable economic
development that has the potential to create national, regional or global instabilities that
threaten the U.S. interests. As I mentioned earlier, Bill Ruckleshaus attributed a lack of
sustainable development as one factor contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Currently, EPA is working to develop a program in this area. We have come to
recognize that our expertise is in great demand and that EPA can make a very significant
contribution to enhancing global security. We are working in the Middle East to help
Israelis and Palestinians deal with water issues. We are working with Central American and
Caribbean nations to improve basic environmental services and eliminate one of the
contributing factors to uncontrolled emigration to the United States. We are working
around the world to ensure compliance with international treaties, to eliminate illegal
shipping of chemical or biological agents, and to protect the U.S. against various
environmental threats. This is a part of EPA you might get to read about in your local
papers.
One of our current activities is the careful monitoring and assessment of
environmental trends, to anticipate future environmental problems and their resulting
impacts. Under the direction of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), EPA
is working with other U.S. Government agencies to design a National Environmental
Monitoring Initiative. This effort will allow us to better anticipate and manage future
environmental trends and problems. What the world will be like in the future is difficult to
predict. However, we know enough today to anticipate the increased competition for
scarce natural resources throughout many regions of the world.
You may not be aware that the word "rival" derives from a Latin term for "those who
share the same river." One way to lessen future rivalry is through practices of sustainable
development. This is one reason why EPA is so active in assisting many countries around
the world. We are clearly protecting our own air and water, as is the case in cooperation
with Mexico and Canada, but we are also protecting our future national security as is
reflected by our work in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and once again the Arctic and
Northwest Russia.
Need for International Cooperation in the Arctic.
I'd like to return to the Barents Council and AMAP meetings. The United States is
one of the eight Arctic nations. In 1989, these nations began discussions to develop an
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, which was formalized in 1991. One of the four
AEPS Implementing Working Groups is AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program).
AMAP has been tasked with determining the human health and ecological risks associated
with contamination in the Arctic.
The U.S. government, with representatives from DOS, DOE, DOD, NOAA and EPA,
will participate in the next AEPS Ministerial this June in Alta, Norway. This is an important
meeting. Organizationally, this meeting will transfer the work of the AEPS countries to the
28
-------
newly formed Arctic Council. Substantively, the Arctic Council is attempting to enhance
focus on the Arctic and to increase member country 's support for projects which address its
major concerns.
One of these concerns is trans-Arctic contamination. Data shows trans-Arctic
contamination that is most likely reaching Alaska. The situation will only become worse if
Russian industry expands to its full potential. Probably, the population at greatest risk from
this contamination are the indigenous populations in the Arctic, including those in Alaska.
As I stated before, concern for and involvement of indigenous people is one of the United
States' six principal policy objectives for the Arctic. With this impetus, we have proposed
two projects. The first project is to identify the point sources of Arctic contamination along
with their regional and trans-Arctic impact. The second will use the results of the first
project, to identify and further assess the most critical point sources in order to prioritize
possible response strategies.
U.S. agencies involved in preparing for this meeting in June have a lot of work to
do. EPA is beginning to reassess it role in Arctic research and I personally believe we can
do more. As an agency we would want to ensure that the next phase of AMAP is built upon
a risk-based strategy with a focus on human health risks as well as ecologic risks.
Administrator Carol Browner has made children's health a major priority for EPA.
The impact of lead on development in children has been known for many years. This
health effect was one of the strong reasons why the U.S. eliminated lead from gasoline as
early as we did. Many countries around the world are just now beginning to deal with the
issue. A wealth of new scientific data show that children are more susceptible than adults to
a variety of other contaminants. These results suggest that current pollution standards may
have to be adjusted to ensure fuller protection for children. This issue will be discussed in
more detail by Environmental Ministers from the G-7 countries and Russia at a meeting the
U.S. will host in Miami next month.
Returning to the Arctic, indigenous populations in this region, especially children
are being exposed to growing concentrations of lead, PCBs, cadmium and other elements.
It is essential that EPA, the State of Alaska and the indigenous peoples of Alaska cooperative
on assessing these risks. The solution to reducing the sources of contamination and human
exposure lie not in Alaska alone but with all nations of the Arctic region.
When I was in Norway for meetings of the Barents Council, I was impressed with
the degree of commitment of the Barents nations to address their common problems. The
U.S. is only an observer to the Barents Council but our presence is strongly encouraged.
While Norway and Sweden have significantly more resources available at present to
address Arctic issues, they want the U.S. to be a cooperative partner. These circumstances
allow our small resources to leverage a considerably greater amount. For me, the lesson of
this meetings was that the US presence in the discussions was more important than our
financial contributions.
This is my first trip to Alaska and as a successor to my trip to Murmansk, I am
beginning to feel somewhat Arctican. I am no Farley Mowat. I grew up in New York City.
But while in Norway and Murmansk, two thoughts kept going through my mind. One was
the beauty of region and how some parts of it had become so polluted. Future
development in this region will occur and we all have a responsibility to ensure that this
development is sustainable.
29
-------
The second feeling I had while in Murmansk was sense of history. Beside the
significance of this city to the survival of Soviet Union during the Second World War, and
the presence of the North Fleet, Murmansk was also the site of the famous Gorbechev
speech when he opened the Russian Arctic for international cooperation. This speech
began a new era for Russian cooperation. Since then, and more recently under the Core-
Chernomdryin Commission we have agreed to greater US-Russia cooperation in the Arctic
and to the exchange of important physical data from both civilian and secret archives. A
story in the February issue of National Geographic highlights the release of these new data
on the Arctic and shows how far we have come in joint collaboration.
There is a second opening of the Arctic coming. Now is the time to ensure that this
second coming is a welcome sustainable event.
30
-------
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF GRAND RAPIDS
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
ALAN D. HECHT
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEBRUARY 17,1997
"We can say with confidence that climate change is not influenced by the activities of man
except locally and transiently."
A climatology text book, 1942
"Most of the carbon dioxide released by fuel combustion since the beginning of the
industrial revolution must have been absorbed by the oceans."
Revelle and Seusss, 1957
"According to data . . . somewhat less than half of the carbon dioxide released by man
since the industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere."
National Academy of Science, 1977
"The balances of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global
climate."
IPCC Second Assessment, 1996
Introduction
Thank you Dixie (Anderson). I am pleased to be in Grand Rapids to participate in
your Great Decisions Program. This year, EPA and the World Affairs Council are
cooperating in a year-long series of seminars on a number of international topics. At EPA,
we are very proud of our work in the international arena, particularly our role in building
up the environmental capabilities of governments around the world and in implementing
the President's foreign policy agenda. We have a number of important bilateral and
multilateral initiatives underway, including:
Implementing a comprehensive 5-year program to meet the environmental and
public health challenges facing the border communities of the United States and
Mexico.
31
-------
Carrying out environmental protection programs with communities in Russia, South
Africa, the Ukraine, and Egypt under bilateral commissions led by Vice President
Gore.
Leading in the development of a clean production and clean technology initiative
for Asian Pacific countries.
Providing leadership for key international negotiations on chemical safety and
elimination of persistent pollutants.
Supporting environmental and public health protection programs that are part of the
Middle East peace process.
Negotiating bilateral agreements with Canada that improve the water quality of the
Great Lakes and the air quality along our shared border.
Sharing critically needed environmental technologies developed in this country,
which helps the world environment and provides tremendous opportunities for U.S.
environmental technology companies to expand their exports.
Finally, EPA is a vital federal agency involved in assessing climate change. This is
the topic I will discuss tonight.
Global Warming
Let me begin my discussion of global warming with two scientific facts and then
turn to areas of scientific uncertainty and policy issues.
First, there is no dispute among scientists around the world that greenhouse gases,
which include water vapor and carbon dioxide, have the property to trap incoming
radiation and consequently warm the surface of the earth. This greenhouse effect is well
documented and accounts for significant natural warming of the earth. The effect of water
vapor and carbon dioxide on the earth makes the earth's temperature on average about 60°
Fahrenheit. Without them, the average temperature would be about 5° Fahrenheit.
Thus, there is a natural greenhouse effectand the more carbon dioxide and water
vapor in the atmosphere, the warmer the atmosphere becomes. The debate on greenhouse
warming is a debate on the effect of a man-induced increase of greenhouse gases (GHG)
into the atmosphere.
Rise of Greenhouse Gases
A second uncontested fact is the increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. A global observing system has been in place since 1958, to collect pristine air
and measure its carbon dioxide content. The data from this system have shown that carbon
dioxide has risen from about 315 ppm in 1960 to about 350 ppm today. The main source
of this change is the burning of fossil fuels, mainly oil, gas and coal. There are other
sources as well, such as loss of forests which absorb and store carbon and cement
production. Other greenhouse gases include methane from energy production and
distribution, and agriculture, as well as nitrous oxides from agricultural soils and some
industrial processes. However, the major source of GHG is from energy related activities.
32
-------
Naturally, the contribution of GHGs to the atmosphere varies by country. Clearly
the major industrial countries like the U.S., Germany, and Japan have been major
contributors of GHGs. Developing countries like China (China is now the second largest
emitter and will eventually overtake the U.S.), India and Brazil are already among the top
emitters of GHGs and are growing more rapidly than most developed countries, even
though their emissions per capita and per GDP are a small fraction of those of the
industrialized world. In the next century, developing countries will become the major ,
contributors of GHGs. This fact, of course, has major political implications as I will share
with you in a moment.
Climate Modeling
In view of these two undeniable realities, namely the existence of a greenhouse
effect and the rising concentrations of CMC, the average temperature of the earth should
increase. Has this warming been observed and what are its effects?
World-wide measurements of land and sea temperatures have been recorded for
more than one hundred years. Trends in some of these data are ambiguous because they
often were located in urban environments or airports where temperatures were affected by
changing local conditions. Over time, extraneous factors in these data have been corrected
and there appears to be a steady increase in global surface air and sea temperatures at least
since 1960. Several recent years have been especially warm. The year 1995 recorded the
warmest surface temperature for both land and sea since 1861. Parts of Siberia averaged
more than 3° Celsius warmer than the average temperature for the period 1961-1990.
Scientists have done extensive analysis of world temperatures and it is clear that the
overall climate system is undergoing noticeable changes.
Calculating the overall effect of increasing GHGs on global climate is a major
scientific problem.
It is not hard to appreciate that the weather system constantly changes. In order to
predict tomorrow's weather requires a global observing system of thousands of stations
taking measurements at various levels of the atmosphere. These data are analyzed using
complex computer models that apply the laws of physics to predict changes of motion,
precipitation, and temperature. This system of predicting weather works efficiently for
approximately 5-8 days. A weather forecast can be given for a city, town and a community.
A climate forecast can only be given for much larger geographic area and over a larger
period of time.
The field of computer climate modeling has developed rapidly since the early
1960's when the first computer experiments were done. One of the earliest experiments
predicted the climate of the world with twice the amount carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The results showed a general warming of the earth, much larger in higher latitudes than in
the tropics, and significant drying in many regions. Over nearly 30 years, the scientific
community has undertaken countless modeling experiments, changing assumptions and
refining physical equations as new information became available. Today, about 5 major
research centers exists to conduct these experiments.
The consensus of the scientific community is that manmade GHGS will change the
distribution patterns of temperature and precipitation. The world of the future will be very
different from the world of the past. Let me note that there are a few scientists who believe
that the modeling results are still very unreliable and cannot be used to infer anything about
33
-------
the future. A natural trait of scientific discourse is the presence of diversity and
disagreement. However, the majority of the scientific community including approximately
2500 scientists who contributed to the 1995 assessment of the Inter-Governmental Panel on
Climate Change, accept the results of climate modeling.
At this point you may say, "what's the problem?" A little warming in Grand Rapids
in February is fine. Perhaps this is not such a bad idea.
Climate Impacts
Whether climate change is good or bad depends on the impacts of climate change.
Clearly not all regions will suffer-some will get warmer and some will get colder. The real
issue is climate changes' effect on global ecosystems, food supply, water availability and
human health.
Let me give you some examples:
There is significant concern about sea level rise due to melting of land glaciers and
polar ice. For example, Bangladesh is a densely populated country of about 120 million
people locate in the complex delta region of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna Rivers.
Approximately 7 percent of the country's habitable land, with a population of about 6
million people, is less than 1 meter above
sea level. Approximately 25 percent of
Bangladesh's land, or 30 million people,
subsists on a geographic area less than 3
meters above sea level. Estimates of sea level
rise in the next century are about between 15
and 95 meters by 2100. It is an
understatement to say that sea level rise in
The issue of global warming is an issue of
environmental risk. We may want to ask
ourselves 'How great is the risk and what are
appropriate actions?' EPA's Science Advisory
Board has ranked global warming in the highest
category of ecological risks. In response, the
Clinton Administration like the Bush Bangladesh will not be welcomed.
Administration has called for no regrets
actionsfirst steps to ensure timely and cost
effective actions to reduce possible impacts of
climate change
Additional concerns about the impact
of climate change relate to water availability
and agriculture. Recent climate modeling
results suggest that global warming could
result in significant stresses to water systems,
making this one of the most politically
sensitive consequences of climate change. Water shortages in the Middle East are already a
potential source of regional conflict. Future conditions may be worse. A recent report from
China warns that country could face serious water shortages in the 21st century. Today, in
640 of China's largest metropolitan centers, approximately 480 cities currently experience
water shortages. Any future climate trend that exacerbates this condition will seriously
threaten the pace of economic development in that country.
Climate change effects on land use, ecology and habitat distribution also have the
possible of creating major biological shifts, including changes in the spread of disease
vectors. Diseases now confined to the tropics many find new homes in higher latitudes.
Prolonged drought or high temperatures in urban centers may also stress large segments of
urban populations.
The U.S. itself will not be immune to major climate changes. Midwestern
agriculture could be significantly affected if predicted drying conditions actually occurred.
34
-------
Reflecting on all these possibilities suggests that the notion of equating warm
climate as good and a cold climate as bad is not justified. The earth's natural climate and its
biological systems are in a delicate balance. Man-induced changes may have results that
benefit no one.
The issue of global warming is an issue of environmental risk. We may want to ask
ourselves 'How great is the risk and what are appropriate actions?' EPA's Science Advisory
Board has ranked global warming in the highest category of ecological risks. In response,
the Clinton Administration, like the Bush Administration has called for "no regrets" actions-
-first steps to ensure timely and cost effective actions to reduce possible impacts of climate
change. Based on current scientific evidence, the Clinton Administration is now considering
more aggressive and specific actions to reduce CHCs. The kind and extent of such actions
is the key policy decision for the future.
Policy Debate
Governments around the world have been wrestling with the issue of climate
change for nearly 30 years. Between about 1960 and 1985, climate change was largely
viewed as a scientific question. Starting around 1985 and extending to the present, climate
change has become a significant international policy issue.
As I have already mentioned, resolving scientific uncertainty about climate change
is a prelude to any policy action. In 1989, a large group of concerned countries organized
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of two UN
agencies, and directed the group to prepare an international scientific assessment of climate
change.
The conclusions of the IPCC's first scientific assessment were serious enough to
convince governments around the world to start negotiating an international agreement to
deal with climate change. These initial negotiations, started in 1990 and concluded in
1992, produced the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has been signed by
over 110 governments. The agreement officially came into force in March 1994, when
ratified by 50 governments.
The goal of the Agreement is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases at levels that will prevent dangerous interference with the global climate. The aim of
emission obligations for industrialized countries is to return greenhouse gas emissions to
their 1990 levels by the year 2,000.
Since 1992, the IPCC, including over 2,000 experts from around the world, has
produced a second scientific assessment. The report has raised the sense of urgency of
climate change, including that there is a discernable human impact on global climate. The
rate of climate warming could probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years.
Global warming is one manifestation of climate change. There may be a more
serious problem, namely, the change in climate variability, resulting in more severe or
extreme events. Weather of the last few years has been anomalous. Extreme weather
events such as seen this past December in the Pacific Northwest would have serious
economic impacts on that region if these extremes became the norm for that region.
Since the original agreement in 1992, governments have met twice, once in Berlin
in 1995 and again in Geneva in 1996. The Berlin meeting of signers of the Framework
Convention recognized that the original Agreement needed to be strengthened and called
35
-------
for negotiating a new agreements to limit GHCs in the post-2000 period by 1997. The
Geneva meeting, one year later, called for specific, legally-binding targets and timetables
after the year 2000 for greenhouse gas reductions, but flexibility to countries in how each
will achieve its obligations.
Politics of Greenhouse Warming
There are two basic issues that affect decision-making related to global warming.
The first is the cost of any actions and whether the cost is justified against the potential
effects.
The U.S. is the largest emitter of GHGs. Its release of carbon dioxide per capita is
about 8 times the average of the developing countries. Heavy industries such as pulp and
paper, primary metals and petroleum account for about 60 percent of total industrial energy
consumption. Transportation alone accounts for about 28 percent of U.S. energy
consumption.
A good example of the political problem facing decision makers in the U.S. is
dealing with changes in the transportation sector. Automobile use in the U.S. is similar to
the problems facing other developed countries. U.S. auto ownership and travel is rising;
people are buying larger vehicles which emit more energy per mile. Trucking is gaining an
increasing share of freight transport. The price of gasoline in the U.S. is the lowest among
OECD countries. Gasoline prices ranges from about $4.00 per gallon in Germany and Italy,
to about $1.50 in the U.S. Prices provide little incentive for U.S. households to be efficient
in our transportation patterns and to emit less.
To change any of the above factors would require a strong political consensus.
Politicians must be convinced that actions taken to mitigate climate change would be in the
nation's interest and would not adversely affect the overall U.S. economy. Moreover, any
change from current patterns means that there will be winners and losers, and
representatives of each side are active in the debates.
EPA, the Department of Energy, the National Academy of Sciences, and the former
Office of Technology Assessment have all done studies to suggest that the U.S. could
achieve significant reductions in GHGs in many economic sectors without cost to the
overall U.S. economy. EPA alone has developed dozens of programs to demonstrate and
encourage energy conservation and GHGs reductions. Let me give you some examples:
Climate Wise: voluntary program with industry and cities to change industry
processes to reduce energy use. The Program targets the industrial sector which accounts
for about 30 percent of U.S. energy consumption. General Motors is a participating industry
and launched several energy savings programs at their Headquarters and also with
suppliers.
Energy Star Product Labeling: A joint program with the Department of Energy is a
consumer product label that identifies products that are energy efficient. The Energy Star
was first awarded to energy-efficient computer equipment in 1993. Since then, more than
500 manufacturers, offering 13,000 products are involved. More than 20 million energy
star computers are now in use. In the construction market, more than 70 home builders are
committed to building 10,000 energy star homes. 1996 benefits have been calculated to be
more than $500 million in energy savings.
36
-------
Motor Challenge:, is a voluntary partnership between the Department of Energy and
U.S. industry to increase use of energy efficient electrical motor systems. U.S. industry
spends more than $30 billion annual on energy for motor systems,. Electric motor and
motor driven equipment such as fans, pumps, blowers and compressors account for more
than 70 percent of all electricity consumed by industrial facilities. Motor Challenge can help
companies identify opportunities for motor-system improvements. Today more than 1,300
companies participate in this program.
I mention these examples to show that there are proven economical ways to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Many other program and technologies exist but have not
worked their way into the market place. For these programs to succeed, both industry and
the general public must support them and important market barriers must be overcome.
The President's 1998 Budget to Congress calls for an increase in funding for these programs.
It is clear than even with these partnership programs, stricter long-term measures
will be needed to reduce the level of GHCs in the United States. The impact of targeted
programs on the U.S. economy is being studied by several government agencies, and of
course by industry. Any future action must reflect a consensus among industry and
government that such actions will not have a negative affect on the overall U.S. economy or
trade relationships.
Today, many companies are beginning to consider corporate actions to reduce
greenhouse emissions. Monsato, for example, has begun measuring its own CO2
emissions. The issue is being taken seriously by senior managers of that company.
Northeast Utilities, the largest electric utility in New England participates in a voluntary
program to reduce emissions. The company reported that it had limited CO2 emissions to
11.1 million tons system wide in 1995-lower than the target it had set of 14.7 million tons.
Dow Chemical has established a goal of improving energy efficiency at a rate of 2
percent per year.
These examples indicate that selected industries are beginning to consider ways to
address greenhouse warming. The Insurance Industry, especially is getting increasingly
concerned about weather related loses.
Climate Change and International
Economic Development
The second basic policy issue related to global warming is the role of developing
countries in reducing GHCs. As I mentioned earlier, countries like China and India are
major greenhouse gas producers, and be increasingly important in the next century. What
is the perspective of developing countries on this issue?
It will come as no surprise to you that developing countries do not view climate
change as their most pressing problem. For them, basic economic growth, full employment
and improved standard of living and even local environmental problems are key issues.
During negotiations of the Framework Convention, developing countries made it
clear that any actions they took would be at the expense of developed countries. In fact, the
negotiation itself was held hostage to the question of whether industrialized countries
would provide financial resources to developing countries to help them understand and
respond to global warming.
37
-------
The Climate Convention balanced these differing views on commitments by
adopting the phrase "common but differentiated commitments." The U.S. also
acknowledged the need to provide financial resources to developing countries to permit
their full participation in the Convention. Initially, the U.S. committed $50 million to a
global environmental fund and $25 million for developing countries to inventory their
greenhouse gas emissions, to conduct impact assessment and to evaluate mitigation options.
More than 60 countries have received assistance for these.
The relationship between developed and developing countries is crucial to
addressing this global program. At the present, developing countries have no formal
commitments to reduce GHGs. However, I see four factors operating that in time will push
developing countries in this general direction.
1) First, developing countries are worried about the health and environmental effects
of energy use. Many developing countries now recognize the need for preventing - as
opposed to cleaning up- environmental pollution and for preserving valuable natural
resources. This view is being reenforced by new policies of multilateral lending
institutions.
As the largest producer of greenhouse gases in Asia, China is also taking actions to
address internal environmental problems. China has begun to crackdown on more than
70,000 industrial polluters. The enforcement is aimed at "township enterprises," mainly
small industries operated for profit by local authorities. These industries account for 42
percent of China's 1995 industrial output. Operations targeted for shutdown include small
paper mills, coking and chemical plants, oil refineries, lead and zinc mines and tanneries.
All these facilities were cited for "primitive manufacturing techniques." China has recently
requested to cooperate on a list of a dozen technologies critical to limiting their GHC
emissions.
As more and more developing countries begin to address their own pollution
problems, the levels of GHGs can be reduced.
While we are on the subject of China, let me note that China is about to reach a
crucial economic and environmental milestone. China is poised to become the next great
market for the family car. The number of passenger vehicles in China is projected to rise
from a current 1.8 million to 20 million in 2010. By the size of the potential market, car
production along will greatly increase GHG emissions unless China sets strict emissions and
fuel economy standards. The Big Three U.S. auto makers are ready and willing to work
with China.
2) Second, industries in developing countries are highly inefficient and in the process
of modernizing can significantly reduce energy use and greenhouse emissions,. Again,
using China as an example, its major industries consume some 30-90 percent more energy
than similar industries in developed countries. Improved efficiency of existing coal-fired
power plants and technology advances in new plants, could help to considerably reduce
greenhouse gas and other pollution. Today, there are approximately 400,000 small
industrial boilers in China consuming about 300 million tons of coal per year. Efficiency
improvements in these boilers alone could save about 90 million tons of coal per year. This
is good news for both the Chinese government, potential private sector investors and the
international community concerned with increasing levels of greenhouse gases and global
warming. Energy efficiency is the only way to reduce conventional air pollution, acid rain
causing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
38
-------
3) Third, private sector investment in developing countries is growing rapidly and now
exceeds official government assistance. In the past, infrastructure investment or new
technologies in developing countries were largely financed by bilateral government
assistance or loans from international lending institutions. Today, the private sector has
become the dominate source of capital for development, in 1996, private sector investment
in developing countries was estimated to be close to $225 billion, nearly five times more
than funds from the World Bank and other official sources. Many of the developing
countries around the world, especially China, are big emerging markets for new investment.
This investment means more than Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds; but rather large
infrastructure projects, roads, and new factories. A combination of factors are making these
new private sector investments energy efficient and cost effective. It is estimated that one
trillion dollars will be invested in Asia by 2010, largely for new roads, power plants and
modern factories. This investment over time will trend toward greater efficient and
consequently less emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. These trends themselves,
however, will not b sufficient to curb climate change.
4) Fourth, innovative international programs are being tested, such as joint
implementation and emission trading. The U.S. has pioneered a number of policies aimed
at bridging differences between the industrial and developing world. The concept of "Joint
Implementation" is one such program. The idea of joint implementation is that since
climate change is a global problem, it doesn't matter where the emissions occur or where
the reductions take place. The most cost effective approach to GHG reductions may be for
one government or one company to invest in an emissions reduction program in another
country. For example, U.S. companies have invested in cutting edge electricity generation
with wind turbines in Costa Rica, for which they may get credit in the new agreement for
avoiding emissions from fossil energy - generated electricity.
Consider another example. Sweden had serious acid rain problems from sulphur
dioxide emissions emanating out of Poland. No amount of Swedish investment in Sweden
could address the problem. However, investment in modernizing Polish industries could
have the benefit of acid rain reductions in Sweden.
When the U.S. first proposed this idea in the negotiations of the Framework
Agreement, developing countries were suspicious and not supportive. The Parties did adopt
a pilot program which allowed partnering of U.S. industry with host governments. The
agreed projects are based on the concept of "additionally," meaning that the project
demonstrated emission reductions above and beyond what otherwise would have
happened (admittedly, not an easy test to administer!).
Several Jl projects are underway between US utility companies, non-governmental
organizations, and host governments in Central America and Eastern Europe. The concept is
still not widely accepted, but Jl offers significant prospect for creating partnerships between
developed and developing countries. In the future, the U.S. envisions a growing number of
international investments in developing countries.
The World Ahead
While the above activities are positive in the sense that they promote energy
efficiency, clean production and GHC reductions, it is unlikely that these activities alone
will be sufficient to meet the objectives of the present Climate Convention. More specific
and stronger actions will be necessary.
39
-------
Despite the scientific complexity and uncertainty of the climate change issue, the
U.S. and most other nations are moving towards agreement on binding limits on GHC
emissions. I don't think I have to underscore for you that this is one of the most difficult
international policy issues we face today. There are simply no simple answers to the
question of global warming. The issue involves many stakeholders, both industries and
governments, all with different views of the seriousness of the problem and appropriate
actions.
Frankly, addressing this kind of problem takes real leadership and courage. I am
very proud that the U.S. has become a strong advocate of actions to address global
warming. I believe the U.S. has a special role to play in international activities. U.S.
leadership will be essential to dealing with this problem.
For the U.S. to lead in building international consensus on actions requires strong
public and private sector support. Each of you has an important voice in this debate.
Building international consensus also requires a level of trust and cooperation between
industrialized and developing countries. No developing country should feel that the U.S.
or any government wants to retard their economic development. U.S. foreign policy must
build partnerships between all governments and encourage economic development in a
sustainable way.
40
-------
RESOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT:
APPROACHES OF
THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
THE NORTH AMERICAN AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL
COOPERATION, AND
THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
REMARKS OF DANIEL MAGRAW
DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
FEBRUARY 18,1997
"Nature is the only superpower."
Timothy E. Wirth
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance
of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
United Nations Charter, article 33(1)
Introduction
Thank you very much, Fred (Pearson). I am pleased to be at Wayne State
University, to participate in this University's work on conflict resolution.
This year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Affairs
Council are cooperating in a series of seminars on a number of international environmental
topics. Because of your close proximity to Canada, you are perhaps more aware than most
audiences of the fact that environmental protection efforts often require international
cooperation and international solutions. Virtually every one of EPA's program offices-not
to mention the Office of International Activities-has an important and indispensable
international component. For example, the Air Office must concern itself with
transboundary fluxes of sulphur dioxide and climate change due to the emission of
greenhouse gasses; the Pesticides Office must regulate the import of food to ensure food
41
-------
safety; the Office of Solid Waste must regulate the export of waste if the United States is to
be able to implement the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Wastes; the Office of Emergency Response must work closely with Canada and Mexico to
deal with emergencies along our borders; the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance must work with foreign countries and INTERPOL, for example to stop smuggling
of ozone-depleting CFCs; the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation must analyze how
various policies, e.g., regarding trade and environment, affect EPA's rulemaking; the Office
of General Counsel (my office) must defend U.S. health and environmental laws from
challenges by other countries under international trade regimes; and the Office of Water
must deal with ocean dumping and, of course, pollution of international watercourses such
as the Great Lakes. Even though it is said that the United States is the only superpower, we
cannot resolve these issues alone.
Given the inextricable interconnectedness of EPA's domestic and international
activities, there is some merit to the proposition that the terms "domestic" and
"international" are anachronistic and somewhat confusing in the context of protecting
human health and the environment. That discussion should await another day. It is
important to emphasize here that EPA's international activities are founded on protecting
health and environment in the United States and cannot be considered in isolation from
EPA's domestic activities.
Many of EPA's activities are already governed by bilateral, regional or global
international agreements; and we are in the process of developing several new international
agreements or arrangements. But regardless of whether EPA's activities are subject to a
treaty regime, disputes regarding them can, and frequently do, arise between the United
States and other countries. How those disputes are resolved has extremely important
consequences for health and environment in the United States, and thus merits our close
attention.
When we begin to examine how international environmental disputes might be
resolved, we find a rather untidy and not altogether satisfactory situation. The Charter of the
United Nations obligates countries to settle disputes peacefully and contains a litany of
preferred approaches to doing so. These run the gamut from negotiation to inquiry,
mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement.
The good news is that there is an array of techniques for resolving environmental
disputes, and that these techniques are used. For example, the United States and Mexico
are now attempting to resolve by negotiations a concern about transboundary air pollution
from a power plant in Mexico called Carbon II. We are attempting to deal with possible
threats arising from chemicals known as endocrine disrupters, and thus to avoid future
disputes, through a form of global scientific inquiry. New Zealand's claim against France
for the bombing of Greenpeaces's ship, the Rainbow Warrior, was settled by arbitration.
The Slovak Republic and Hungary have submitted their dispute over damming the Danube
River to the relatively new environmental chamber of the International Court of Justice.
And environmental claims against Iraq arising from the Gulf War, including a claim for
$604,000 by EPA, are being heard in the United Nations Compensation Commission. Thus
there is good news.
But there is also bad news: with the exception of the very rare cases that threaten
international peace and security, where the UN Security Council has a role, there is no
international dispute settlement mechanism with mandatory jurisdiction over international
environmental disputes. For example, a contentious case may be heard by the International
Court of Justice only with the permission of the parties to the dispute; there have not been
42
-------
many such cases, though the number appears to be on the rise. Moreover, there are
hundreds of international environmental agreements, but very few of them provide for
binding dispute settlement. The result is that countries are often left to their own devices.
As in other areas of international law, those devises include-at least in theory-unilateral
actions such as ceasing to fulfill related reciprocal obligations, retorsion, and reprisal. But in
practice, unilateral approaches often are not very helpful when a global obligation or
dispute is involved, especially one governed by a multilateral treaty because the benefit of
the treaty runs to all countries.
I will speak today about environmental disputes involved in three different types of
situations: disputes arising under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United
States and Canada; disputes arising under the North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation (NAAEC), also referred to as the NAFTA environmental side agreement; and
trade disputes under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements. Each of these is
complicated, so I will necessarily speak at some level of generality, leaving greater detail for
the discussion following my formal remarks.
Canada-United States 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada is the
centerpiece of the most successful bilateral environmental relationship in the world. As its
name suggests, the 1909 Treaty deals with the many lakes and rivers along which the
Canada-United States border passes. Article IV of the Treaty provides: ". . . the waters
herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be
polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other." This is an
extremely wonderful, almost poetic (for a treaty) language containing important obligation,
but there is no binding dispute settlement process to enforce it.
The Treaty established the International Joint Commission (IJC), composed of three
members from each country. The IJC is a quasi-judicial body with mandatory jurisdiction
and binding authority to approve or disapprove the quantitative-but not the
qualitative-aspects of projects such a boundary-water diversions or obstructions. The two
countries may also jointly refer environmental matters-i.e., qualitative matters-to the IJC for
binding or nonbinding recommendation. No disputes have been referred to the IJC for
binding consideration. But more than 100 disputes have been referred to the IJC for
nonbinding consideration. Interestingly, although the IJC's considerations in these disputes
were nonbinding, almost all of these disputes were satisfactorily resolved, with two
noteworthy exceptions-acid rain and the Great Lakes-each of which was later dealt with by
a bilateral agreement.
Paradoxically, one reason for the IJC's success may be that recommendations are
nonbinding. It is quite possible that the two countries would not agree to having the IJC
consider a dispute if the only option were a binding decision. If that is the case, one might
ask why there are not more disputes that are settled via this route. I would suggest that this
reason for the IJC's success may not be highly transferable because it relies at least in part
on the unique relationship between Canada and the United States. That relationship is
extremely multi-faceted and, in general, positive; the two countries are at the same level of
economic development; there is some sharing of language and legal system; and each
country is both upstream and downstream from the other, so there is an added incentive to
cooperate and be reasonable. Nevertheless, it may be useful to keep in mind that countries
may be more willing to act responsibly if they agree to do that rather than are forced to.
43
-------
Another, more transferable reason for the IJC's success is its use of scientific
expertise. The IJC typically proceeds by first appointing a joint board of experts to report on
the factual aspects of the dispute and often to make a recommendation. The scientific
board usually is composed of equal numbers of scientific experts from each country and
typically holds public hearings. Transparency and public participation have several benefits
in this regard: providing relevant information to the decision makers; educating the public
about different review points; paving the way for a cooperative implementation of the IJC's
ultimate recommendation; and generally ensuring that the process in politically
accountable.
Interestingly, the reports of the scientific boards often have been unanimous. This
frequently has resulted in eliminating much of the controversy, e.g., by resolving factual
disagreements or misunderstandings. The IJC's recommendations normally have been
followed, at least in spirit.
One take-home lesson here is that environmental disputes characteristically have a
central factual component about which there is often is disagreement. Resolving or
lessening the scope of such a disagreement, through the use of scientific experts and public
participation, can do much to resolve the dispute as a whole.
Another lesson has to do with scale and the importance of what I call "inter-local
cooperation," that is cooperation between governments and civil society at the local level. I
believe this will be increasingly important, and that the IJC process, although initially at the
federal level, tends to bring the consideration of an issue to a more-local level. Examples of
inter-local cooperation includes the joint Canada-United States management of the High
Ross Dam area and the El Paso-Juarez Air Quality Management Basis.
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)
The NAAEC was negotiated after the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) had been negotiated in order to better ensure that the NAFTA, which itself
contained environmental provisions and which was accompanied by a so-called "parallel
track" of cooperative activities designed to deal with existing environmental problems, did
not result in harm to health and the environment. It was a difficult set of negotiations.
The NAAEC contains unique substantive and institutional elements, such as
obligations to maintain high environmental standards, to enforce environmental law, and to
allow public participation, and a tripartite Commission for Environmental Cooperation with
an unusually independent Secretariat. The NAAEC contains several approaches and
mechanisms relevant to dispute settlement.
An important starting point is that the fundamental thrust of the NAAEC is to
promote trilateral (or bilateral) cooperation as the best means of dealing with international
environmental issues and avoiding disputes in the first place. The role of dispute avoidance
should not be under-emphasized, here or more generally.
The Agreement provides many provisions encouraging this type of cooperation. For
example, it encourages joint work to resolve environmental problems such as threats from
heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants; the three countries are now engaged in such
an effort on several chemicals. Similarly, the agreement encourages developing a regime
for transboundary impact assessment; the three countries and the Secretariat are engaged in
discussion about that. In addition, the Secretariat is authorized to prepare reports on
environmental issues, either at the direction of the tripartite Council or on its own volition
44
-------
unless the Council objects. These reports may lead to identifying problems at an early stage
and thereby avoiding disputes from developing.
As noted above, the NAAEC obligates countries to effectively enforce their
environmental laws. It contains a unique procedure through which a resident of any of the
three countries may complain to the Secretariat that any of the three countries is "failing to
effectively enforce its environmental law". The Secretariat, depending on the situation, may
ask for a response from the country and, in some circumstances, may prepare a factual
record regarding the situation. This is not state-to-state dispute settlement, but it is designed
to encourage countries to comply with this obligation through the use of factual inquiry and
a public spotlight. It may also have the effect of heading off a state-to-state dispute and
some of the tensions inherent in such disputes.
In addition, any country may institute binding dispute settlement procedures by
alleging that another country is engaging in a "persistent pattern of failure to effectively
enforce its environmental law". This dispute settlement process in the NAAEC is based on
the dispute settlement process in the NAFTA; and it is elaborate and is designed to
encourage settlement through consultations. It not only is binding, but it is subject to
enforcement either by trade sanctions against Mexico or the United States or in the courts of
Canada. The reports of the dispute settlement panels are to be made public.
Finally, some of obligations in the NAAEC are not subject to either of the
proceedings described above. An example is the obligation to maintain high environmental
standards in article 3. For such obligations, there is a general provision, the tone of which is
more typical of environmental agreements:
"The Parties shall at all times endeavor to agree on the interpretation and
application of this Agreement, and shall make every attempt through cooperation
and consultations to resolve any matter that might affect its operation."
The NAAEC is in its fourth year of operation. Disagreements about interpreting the
Agreement have been resolved through consultations. We have yet to decide on model
rules of procedure for the binding dispute settlement process, and there have been no
disputes brought. There have been several submissions by residents alleging failure to
effectively enforce environmental law, three of which -one concerning each country -are
now under consideration. It will be very interesting to see how the NAACE's experiment in
dispute avoidance and settlement plays out in the future.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements
Several disputes involving environmental issues arose under the 1947 General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, probably the most famous being the two Tuna/Dolphin
cases and the case concerning the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
Several disputes are now pending under the new WTO agreements, were finalized in 1994.
In contrast to the cases under the 1947 GATT, the new cases are binding unless there is a
consensus to block a panel report. The United States has lost one case, the Reformulated
Gasoline case, in the WTO. Several other environment-related cases are pending, and
several more are expected to be brought in the near future.
I will not discuss the merits of these cases, other than to note the obvious point that
the obligations-known as "disciplines" -in the WTO agreements have extremely important
implications for our ability to protect health, safety and the environment in the United
States. Rather, I will focus on three concerns about the process.
45
-------
The first concern is the absence of transparency and public participation. In spite of
United States efforts, these procedures occur in large part out of the view of the public as a
whole.
A second is that the decisions in WTO disputes are made by panels composed of
trade experts. These persons do not share expertise, nomenclature, values, paradigms, or
often even a common world view with those engaging in protecting health and the
environment. The WTO, like the NAFTA, provides for the ability to include scientific
expertise with respect to cases raising certain types of issues. In fact, such a process was
used in the beef hormone case, but it does not appear to be have produced useful
information. Moreover, even the availability of such procedures does not alter the fact that
the ultimate decisionmakers are principally persons with a trade perspective. There is a real
question whether health, safety and environmental regulations will get fair treatment in this
forum.
The third issue is the relationship of WTO dispute resolution procedures to disputes
that arise in other agreements that have an environmental component. For example, the
Annex to the Law of the Sea Convention provides that disputes about trade in products from
the deep seabed shall be decided in the WTO, ever though there is a formal dispute
settlement body, the Law of the Sea Tribunnal, for that Convention. What should be the
rule with respect to disputes arising under future international environmental agreements
such as those under consideration for Prior Informed Consent regarding very dangerous
chemicals and Climate Change: should they be decided by dispute settlement bodies
specific to those agreements or by WTO bodies specific to those agreements or by WTO
dispute settlement bodies? There is a risk of engaging in a process of "trade uber alles"-one
that raises serious questions about our ability to protect health, safety and the environment.
At issue, in some senses, is the the effectiveness of international environmental agreements.
Conclusion
The avoidance and resolution of international environmental disputes is essential to
protecting health and the environment within the United States. Most such disputes are not
subject to binding dispute settlement mechanisms; but there are techniques that can be of
assistance in resolving such disputes, including nonbinding approaches, public
involvement, and the use of scientific experts. Even when a dispute is subject to a binding
mechanism, appropriate public participation and the inclusion of appropriate scientific and
other expertise are also often very helpful. Settling disputes at the interface between
environment and trade presents special challenges-challenges that we must meet without
sacrificing essential interests in either area.
An informed and involved public is necessary if the United States is to be effective
in avoiding and settling environmental disputes. Each of you has an important voice in
setting United States policy in this regard, as you have with respect to helping the United
States carry out its international obligations. Thank you again for this opportunity to speak
with you about these important issues.
46
-------
PACIFIC AND ASIAN AFFAIRS COUNCIL,
HONOLULU, HAWAII
ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION WITH ASIA: CLIMATE
CHANGE AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
PRESENTATION BY
DANIEL MAGRAW
SEPTEMBER 11,1997
Mahalo. (Thank you.) It is a pleasure to be with you today. I would like to thank
the Asia and Pacific Affairs Council and the East-West Center for arranging this presentation.
I will speak today on Environmental Cooperation with Asia, using climate change
and the loss of biological diversity as examples. I will briefly discuss those two issues
before turning to the topic of environmental cooperation with Asia.
At the outset, allow me to say a few words about EPA's interest. I am occasionally
asked why EPA engages in international activities, since our mission is to protect health and
environment in the United States. The answer is quite clear, actually: health and
environmental problems do not respect international boundaries. For example, polluted air
and water move from country to country, as does hazardous waste and food contaminated
with pesticides. Emergency response and enforcement efforts also require cooperation
among countries in many instances. EPA thus has no choice but to consider international
threats to health and environment in the United States and to participate in efforts to prevent
or counter those threats. EPA is proud of its efforts in this regard.
The term "climate change" refers to the human-caused (anthropogenic) emission of
so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, with the result that the heat-absorbing
capacity of the atmosphere grows and global average temperature correspondingly
increases. Other effects are also expected to occur, including: a shift in climate zones
away from the Equator; melting of polar ice capes; rising sea-level; increased intensity and
frequency of storms; changes in amount (probably an overall increase) and timing of
precipitation (rainfall, snowfall, etc.); changes in ocean currents; large numbers of
climate-change refugees; and increased range (in terms of both latitude and altitude) for
tropical diseases such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever. Effects on agriculture may be
positive (e.g., the atmosphere will be more conducive to supporting photosynthesis because
it contains more carbon dioxide and there will be longer growing seasons in northern
latitudes), as well as negative (e.g., more desertification in some areas and increased
flooding in others). Although the details of these changes-e.g., how much will occur, how
soon changes will occur, and how conditions will be affected in specific localities-are not
known precisely, it seems clear that these effects will occur to a significant extent and at a
47
-------
rate that is unusually rapid by historical standards. [For a more detailed discussion of
climate change, see Grand Rapids speech by Alan Hecht.]
The world community is now attempting to strengthen the international regime for
preventing climate change, which currently consists of the 1992 Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC) and associated cooperative activities. In 1995, the first Conference
of the Parties of the FCCC agreed in the "Berlin Mandate" to strengthen the commitment of
the world's industrialized countries to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses. Ideally, this
is to culminate in an agreement at the third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto in December
1997. At the present time, countries are sharply divided about many aspects of such an
agreement-e.g., what the binding targets and timetables should be, whether to allow
emission allowance trading, and how to involve developing countries.
Turning briefly to biological diversity, we are witnessing an unprecedented rate of
decline in biological diversity-i.e., the variety of living organisms and the ecological
communities of which they are a part. This is caused by, among other things, pressure
from growing human population, human activities such as destruction of the rain forest, and
industrial and agricultural pollution. The rate is unknown precisely, but it is not uncommon
to hear references to 100 species lost per day.
This loss of biological diversity has serious implications for the well-being of
humans. For example, many valuable medicines have their genesis in native plants,
industrial processes are sometimes based on esoteric species (e.g., polymerase reactions are
based on an organism found in a hot spring in Yellowstone National park) and agriculture
depends on biologically diverse seed stocks and insects for pollination. Moreover, humans
are part of the web of life-a web that survives in part because of its diversity.
The effects of climate change outlined above-considered either separately or
jointly-could cause serious stresses to biological diversity. This is especially true of rapid
changes in temperature and precipitation, as living conditions change and become
incompatible with the species that had evolved to live in the preceding environment.
These impacts will be especially felt on oceanic islands, such as those that comprise
Hawaii. In a 1990 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
examined the impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems, i.e., land areas and
associated flora and fauna which are not intensively managed. The IPCC concluded that:
Those species which . . . are the most at risk . . . are . . . geographically localized
species (e.g., those found on islands. . .) [because they] may not be able to survive
or adapt to climatic changes because of the limited number of options available to
them. Island ecosystems, because of the barrier provided by surrounding water
and with their higher ratio of endemism, are at risk of disruption. . . . Smal oceanic
islands are particularly at risk . . . .'
This conclusion reflects more general historical experience: of the 94 species of
birds known to have become extinct worldwide since contact with European only 9 were
continental.2
Hawaii, of course, is composed of small oceanic islands. Moreover, Hawaii already
faces a serious situation with respect to biological diversity. It contains one-third of all the
species of birds officially listed as threatened or endangered in the United States, and more
than one-quarter of all species listed as threatened or endangered in the United States.
Taking effective action on international problems such as climate change and the loss of
48
-------
biological diversity thus is essential to the future of Hawaii -and humankind more broadly
-whether viewed in health-and-environment, economic, or social terms.
Turning now to cooperation, the United States interacts with Asia on environmental
issues, such as climate change and biological diversity, on several levels. At a global level,
the United States and most or all Asian countries participate in global negotiations on issues
like climate change and biological diversity and in the governance and deliberation of
international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the
World Bank. At a regional level, we cooperate through the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) process as well as other regional organizations. On a bilateral level,
the United States participates in many cooperative efforts with most, possibly even all, Asian
countries. For example, we are engaged in programs with China on coal-bed methane and
with Indonesia and Japan on biological diversity. There are many such projects.
Cooperation-and progress more generally-on each of these levels has been
adversely affected in recent years by cuts in federal funding and by failure by the U.S.
Senate to approve ratification of critical international agreements such as the Law of the Sea
Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Hopefully, this situation will
improve.
In closing, I would like to return to one aspect of why we care about these problems
and what they imply for our children and future. Consider biological diversity: I
mentioned several serious causes of concern earlier. I would now like to play part of a
program jointly produced by National Public Radio and the National Geographic Society,
titled Radio Expeditions: Life on the Brink. I am using it with permission.
[This piece addresses the facts that species have appeared and disappeared since
the beginning of life on this planet, and that life, has nevertheless continued in some form.
The piece analogizes life to music for this purpose, and demonstrates what would happen if
various instruments-woodwinds, percussion instruments, violins, brass instruments, and
cellos-became extinct. The music could continue, but less richly and very different.]
This program reminds us of the magic of biological diversity. It is hard to imagine
any place with more magic than Hawaii-all the more reason to be concerned about
threats-from climate change and otherwise-to biological diversity. Thank you.
49
-------
VALDAS V. ADAMKUS,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
REGION 5 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF CENTRAL ILLINOIS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
MARCH 27,1997
When the rusty Iron Curtain began to flake and crumble some eight years ago, all of
Eastern Europe became the darling of the media. But today, especially as far as the
environment is concerned, that whole area seems to be relegated to the back burner. And
that is a shame, because environmental problems of Eastern Europe are the environmental
problems of all of Europe. And if those problems are left unchecked, they can quickly
become our problems because today all of us are part of the global environment. Pollution
crosses all national borders and all oceans and affects all continents.
I shall confine my remarks mostly to the three Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania and to the Baltic Sea they all share. The three Baltic Republics reflect on a
smaller scale exactly what is happening environmentally in the much larger countries of
Eastern Europe: such as Poland, the former East Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the
Ukraine, and even Russia itself. All of Eastern Europe, and especially the hard-hit
Baltic Republics, share some 50 years of Soviet domination and the environmental mess in
Eastern Europe is a direct consequence of monumental neglect on the part of the former
Soviet Union.
Ever since the days of Stalin, industrial production in the Soviet Union was god.
Every industry and every factory had to meet its production plan or quota which always
took precedence over environmental concerns. For decades on end, the word
"environment" was not even mentioned. By the 1970's, when Soviets finally began paying
attention to ecological concerns, the damage was already done; most rivers were fouled,
most lakes were poisoned, most forests were stripped, and every major city was choking
under a thick blanket of polluted air. The head of the Soviet environmental protection
agency said in 1989, "We have started too late. Our air is not up to the proper mark,
our soil is polluted, and our forests are affected." That, ladies and gentlemen, was a gigantic
understatement.
The Soviets failed to protect their environment primarily for three reasons:
they were saddled with an inflexible, centralized economic system; they had
an almost paranoid obsession with secrecy, and they totally ignored
environmental ethics.
50
-------
I represented the EPA in 1972, when President Nixon stopped in Moscow to
sign the first environmental agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. It
called for an exchange of scientific and research data, among other things. But the secret
society, for which the Soviet Union was so famous, closed its doors to American scientists.
Of course, we would meet regularly and discuss environmental issues, but the real
environmental problems remained unsolved - because they were intended to remain that
way.
Until 1988, one monolithic agency dealt with environmental issues in the Soviet
Union. That agency also controlled environmental matters in all 15 Soviet republics, which
then included the Soviet-occupied former independent States of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania. That agency also had a lot to say about such things as budgets and appointments
of key officials. And all major decisions were to be made in Moscow.
But that was the ideal picture.- in theory only. In reality, environmental
responsibilities were scattered among a dozen different ministries. And formulation of
environmental policy and the interpretation of environmental regulations were left to the
discretion of individual ministers and other VIPs whose self-interests were paramount.
The same chaotic system was imposed upon the Baltic States - even more so. In
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the State Committee for Protection of Nature was officially
responsible for the environment. But in practice, these agencies were primarily concerned
with forestry, fishing and hunting licenses, and other administrative duties - duties that, in
the US would normally be assumed by a natural resources department or a similar agency
at the state level. The environment, once again, had to take a back seat.
Universities and various science academies in the Baltic Republics began
monitoring the environment on their own. Water pollution, especially, caused the earliest
and most serious concern. In rivers, fish began to appear with hideous tumors. In some
smaller lakes fish had disappeared altogether. These Baltic scientists raised alarm. Their
warnings went unheeded by the government but served to raise public awareness.
In all three Baltic Republics water pollution is widespread. Lithuania, for
example, has approximately 10,000 lakes. Almost 90 percent of them are heavily polluted.
And the country's two major rivers are awash in what amounts to raw sewage. The
pollution stems from two major sources: untreated wastewater from municipal plants and
from industrial dischargers such as paper mills and chemical manufacturers. One big
problem is that most major cities have no secondary, or biochemical, wastewater treatment
facilities. In the entire region, a vast majority of the wastewater goes only through primary
treatment in settling tanks. This primitive process simply cannot do the job. It cannot
remove the truly dangerous pollutants. And at the handful of plants that are supposed to
have secondary treatment, things are not going well either. Often these plants are down
because of antiquated equipment or because they just do not have the necessary chemicals
for secondary treatment.
The first order of business in all three Baltic Republics is the urgent need to build
modern municipal sewage treatment plants. This will not solve all water pollution
problems, but it will solve most of them. A good example can be seen right here at home,
where in the Great Lakes region alone we invested more than $12 billion to build or
upgrade over 1,000 sewage treatment plants. The result: Lake Erie was saved from an
impending ecological disaster, and the other four Great Lakes are much cleaner, too.
51
-------
In all three Baltic Republics there is also an urgent need to neutralize toxic wastes
which threaten ground w ater supplies in many areas. The situation is especially acute in
and around former Soviet military bases, where contamination ranges from spilled rocket
fuel to old, unwanted pesticides. Several options for the disposal of pesticides are being
looked into. This includes the use of cement kilns for incineration, modeled after U.S.
incineration and compliance monitoring standards.
In some areas, toxic contamination by radioactive materials has been documented.
In Estonia, numerous water samples from Lake Maardu, for instance, have shown that
radioactive materials such as thorium, uranium, and radium have been slowly increasing
over the years. Here, too, the potential risk to human health by way of contaminated water
is clearly present.
In all three Baltic Republics, air pollution is a serious problem. Increased auto
emissions have accelerated the formation of ground-level ozone and the incidence of
related health problems. This ground-level ozone, or smog, is especially apparent on hot
summer days in large cities where breathing often becomes labored even for a healthy
person. The prevalence of leaded gasoline, the lack of catalytic converters, the absence of
mandatory auto inspections, and poor auto maintenance are mainly responsible for this
surge in air pollution.
Eastern European countries have become dumping grounds for old, polluting cars
from Germany. Some of these cars find their way as far east as the Ukraine and Russia. But
the vast majority wind up in the Baltic States, increasing air pollution that much more.
People try to fix up these cars the best they can, but the vital job here - installing a catalytic
converter - is beyond their capability, even if catalytic converters were available. In this
situation, only drastic government measures against old cars will allow people to literally
breathe easier.
Ironically, manufacturing plants - the big, bad polluters of years past - are only
secondary contributors to air pollution today. And it's not because they have the latest
electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers or other emissions-control technology. It's because
some 50 percent of them are so badly outdated that they have been shut down.
All three Baltic Republics suffer similar environmental problems. One problem they
all share, however, is the severe contamination of the Baltic Sea. No environmental
assessment of Eastern Europe - or all of Europe, for that matter - is complete without a
sober look at the Baltic.
In addition to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania six other countries border the Baltic
Sea: Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Poland, and Germany. They, too, contribute to its
pollution - some more than others. But all nine countries must share the responsibility of
cleaning up the Baltic and restoring it to ecological health. Ten major rivers from all these
countries empty into the Baltic Sea, dumping millions of tons of pollutants every year.
They consist of everything from raw sewage and pesticides to toxic chemicals and
radioactive wastes. There are also heavy metals such as mercury and lead as well as
petroleum products and just plain shipboard garbage being dumped overboard. It all adds
up to a very nasty toxic brew affecting some areas more than others. The Gulf of Finland,
for example, was saturated with raw sewage dumped directly into the sea by the City of
Leningrad, now St. Petersburg. Only three years ago did this indefensible practice stop.
52
-------
The Bay of Gdansk in Poland is even worse. There, the Vistula River dumps almost
67 percent of 131,000 metric tons of nitrogen into the Baltic each year. The Vistula also
deposits 5,000 tons of phosphorus and 3 tons of highly toxic phenol and lead, not to
mention undocumented amounts of cadmium and other toxic pollutants. These figures,
released by the Polish Government, suggest that the Vistula river is the largest polluter in
the Baltic Basin.
Coliform and other bacteria found in untreated or raw sewage pose a specific threat
to human health and the tourist industry. A few years ago, I happened to be at a famous
Lithuanian resort on the Baltic Sea. It was July, the height of the tourist season. The
temperature was in the high 80's. Thousands of vacationers were in the water; thousands
were on the beaches -all ostensibly enjoying themselves. But the water was so polluted
that you could see with your naked eye the slowly decaying algae, the oil slicks, and
other organic matter bobbing about. I had a long talk with the mayor of the resort and with
local health officials. The next day the beaches were closed.
At another resort on the Baltic, on the shores of the Couriand Lagoon, (also in
Lithuania) the situation was even worse. There, the widespread decay of organic matter in
the sea had already produced a suffocating stench - strong enough to drive away even the
most determined vacationer. Regrettably, the same situation existed at a first-class resort
near Riga, Latvia.
The Baltic Sea is highly vulnerable to all forms of pollution for several unique
reasons. First, it's the fourth smallest sea in the world. Only the Yellow Sea, the Persian
Gulf, and the Gulf of California are smaller. The Baltic's 160,000 square miles can absorb
only so much pollution.
Second, the Baltic Sea, like the Great Lakes, is basically a closed ecosystem. Only
four percent of the water from the Baltic flows out into the North Sea every year, as
compared with less than one percent outflow for the Great Lakes. Once pollutants get into
the Baltic, they tend to stay there a very long time. Even if all pollution to the Baltic were
stopped today it would still take about 25 years for the sea to clean itself. And this
pertains to the more conventional pollutants like organic matter. Toxic pollutants such as
PCBs, last virtually forever.
Third, the Baltic is a relatively shallow sea, with an average depth of only 180 ft.
Given the same amount of pollutants, oxygen loss is much faster in a shallow body of water
than in a deep sea or a huge ocean.
Fourth, the Baltic Sea has a relatively low salt content; only five to 15 parts per
thousand. The sea water is kept diluted by fresh water from the 10 major rivers emptying
into the Baltic. This, in turn, has a direct bearing on the retention of contaminants.
Normally, fresh-water bacteria die after a few minutes in salt water. But because the salinity
in the Baltic is low, salmonella bacteria, for example, take about 40 days to die. For
dysentery bacteria, it's roughly 15 days. And coliform bacteria in raw sewage, which can
cause severe intestinal problems, have been found 100 miles from shore. Which means
that they, too, must have survived for days on end.
And fifth, the interaction of wind, waves, tides, precipitation, ice melt, and
evaporation in the Baltic tends to concentrate pollutants in certain areas. Prevailing winds,
for instance, favor the Swedish coast, where pollutants are dispersed and driven far out to
53
-------
sea. On the other hand, raw sewage dumped by the Oder and the Vistula Rivers on the
south shore of the Baltic tends to drift along to the northeast, making already serious
pollution on the coastlines of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia that much worse.
All in all, the environmental situation in Eastern Europe is pretty grim. The people
of the Baltic Republics and the former Eastern Bloc countries have just recently emerged
from a 50-year Soviet nightmare. During that time, they were deprived not only of all
political and human rights but also deprived of the basic, everyday necessities that the
Western world has been taking for granted. In a race between improving the standard of
living and cleaning up the environment, I'm afraid the environment will come in second
best. There's a strong psychological tug-of-war going on there. It's not that people don't
appreciate clean beaches and clean air and a green countryside, it's just that bread-and-
butter issues come first.
While we have a long way to go in Eastern Europe - environmentally speaking-
something is being done. The international community is rallying, if ever so slowly, to
protect and resurrect the Baltic ecosystem that 300 million people depend on for
commerce, transportation, fishing, and recreation. As soon as the three Baltic Republics
regained their independence in the early 1990's, Finland, Norway and Denmark were first
to lend a helping hand. They signed environmental agreements with the newly
independent republics that dealt with environmental education, clean energy supplies,
protection of underground water sources and other problems. There was also a little seed
money for modest, specific environmental projects.
The EPA was not far behind. At the very outset, tons and tons of technical
manuals were delivered to the three information-starved Baltic Republics. These were not
some outdated discards, but the latest information available. Next came advanced computer
technology, including high speed modems which allowed the three Baltic Republics to
quickly assess and exchange environmental data and to develop efficient environmental
management systems.
Then came environmental education and technical training. Right at the start, the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago made a generous offer to train
sanitary engineers from less-developed countries in the latest wastewater treatment
methods. The first two graduates in 1992 were two young engineers from Lithuania. Since
then, the pace has picked up considerably. Workshops were set up in all three Baltic
Republics to train teachers and to help them develop their own environmental programs,
from kindergarten through college. Specific technical courses were also made available;
everything from air pollution monitoring and groundwater sampling to pesticides disposal
and environmental risk assessment for bankers. For courses not available locally, key
environmental personnel were brought to the United States for training. Numerous
demonstration projects in the field were undertaken as well. They included hydrogeologic
assessment of certain lakes in Estonia, a harbor environmental study in Latvia, and a
hazardous materials emergency exercise in Lithuania. We have set up a number of centers
for environmental literature and computer software consisting of technical information
packages and complete courses on a variety of environmental topics. Above and beyond
these specific projects, we have thoroughly evaluated their organizational structures,
examined their environmental monitoring capabilities, and assessed their needs in order of
priority.
Interestingly enough, most of our recommendations have not only been accepted
but also carried out. One result of such implementation will be the new Latvian
54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, now in the process of being formed and scheduled to
make its debut next year.
EPA is the lead coordinating agency in these efforts but we would never even have
gotten off the ground if it weren't for the help of many unselfish partners. Help has been
coming from all quarters. Our most important American partner, in terms of funding, is the
U.S. Agency for International Development. Other Federal agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey and the U.S. Air Force helped us too. State agencies, such as Illinois EPA
and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have also lent a helping hand. Academic
institutions including the Universities of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Montana, and Purdue
University have been extremely helpful as well. In addition, private sector corporations
such as LaSalle National Bank and Science Application International pitched in without
reservations.
In Europe, our partners include the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Holland.
The European Environmental Agency and the Baltic Forum have also joined us to help
restore the ravaged environment in Eastern Europe -especially in the Baltic region.
Despite the best efforts on everybody's part, we
may not see tangible results in Eastern Europe,
including the Baltic region, for years to come.
Nobody can undo long standing gross
environmental damage overnight. My best guess
is that we shall not see any visible signs of
environmental improvement in Eastern Europe
until about the year 2010 - provided they start
now.
Each EPA partner here in the
United States and abroad contributed
whatever it could to the three Baltic
Republics in funds, in equipment, or in
training and sometimes in all three. The
trouble is that neither the European
Union nor the individual national
governments have made environmental
protection a priority. Economic
prosperity remains their number one
goal. But this is a shortsighted view that
will only worsen the environmental situation in Eastern Europe. As President Clinton has
said: "You can't have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. Gaylord Nelson,
former U.S. senator and governor of Wisconsin and founder of Earth Day, echoed the same
sentiments when he said that a healthy environment and a prosperous economy are
inextricably tied to one another." This is what Eastern Europe must firmly understand and
act upon. They must make environmental protection a top priority and they must make
prevention a keystone of environmental policy everywhere. Dr. Barry Commoner,
university professor, environmentalist and author, has been telling us for years:
"Environmental pollution is an incurable disease. The only thing you can do is to prevent
it."
And so, pollution prevention means, above all, not to create pollutants to begin
with; instead eliminate them at their source. This may mean substituting raw materials,
replacing old equipment, or perhaps modifying the manufacturing process. It also means
recycling and developing a corporate as well as a national environmental ethic. Again, as
the far-sighted Dr. Commoner put it: "Problems originate in the decisions - what people
produce and how they produce it - not in the environment." This, too, Eastern Europe
must firmly understand and act upon.
Despite the best efforts on everybody's part, we may not see tangible results in
Eastern Europe, including the Baltic region, for years to come. Nobody an undo long
standing gross environmental damage overnight. My best guess is that we shall not see any
visible signs of environmental improvement in Eastern Europe until about the year 2010 -
provided they start now.
55
-------
Ultimately, whether in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, what happens to the
environment in the 21st century depends on some fundamental choices that the global
society will have to make in the next decade or so. Will we pursue economic growth and
selfish sociopolitical gains at all costs? Or will we factor sustained economic development
and environmental protection into our formula for survival? A lot is at stake. I hope we
shall make the right choices.
56
-------
LEE PASAREW
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
OCTOBER 6,1997
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
"ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN EASTERN EUROPE AND
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY"
I want to thank Tom Sanders and the UNCA Seminar on Environmental Studies for the kind
invitation to speak as an invited guest of the World Affairs Council today. I am especially pleased
to report that this is one of approximately 20 speeches senior EPA officials will present before
World Affairs Council audiences across the country this year. These talks offer excellent
opportunities for us at EPA to work with the Councils in raising public awareness of international
environmental issues -particularly as they affect the quality of our domestic health and
environment.
I had originally planned to center this talk on the Middle East and the role of environment in
the Peace Process. The lack of any progress in the region has been accompanied by a virtual halt in
the environmental activities. I will describe the way environment might play a positive role in the
peace process later in my talk, but I think that the experience in Central and Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union is much more interesting and illuminating. It also offers the advantage of
being near completion. So, this afternoon, I want to talk about EPA's involvement with the
environmental problems of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union and the role of environment in the major political changes that took place.
In January 1990, I flew to Krakow, Poland, to represent EPA on one of the first U.S.
Government missions to address that region's environmental problems. The day I arrived, the
Communist Party in Poland took the historic step of voting itself out of existence. Although
Poland's struggle to be free from communist rule goes back to the 1980's, that day would be seen
as an important step in the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
By the end of 1992, Germany had already been united for two years and Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania were long free from Soviet hegemony. Moreover,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, and Azerbaijan all became independent
countries. All had moved away from communism, embraced democracy, and with varying levels
of commitment free market principles.
As the reality of life in these former communist countries came into focus, the most shocking
and tragic discovery was the self-inflicted environmental damage on their air, water and land
resources.
57
-------
The Black Triangle region in southern Germany, southwest Poland and northwest Czech
Republic was considered by many as the most polluted area in the Central and Eastern Europe. The
air quality was so poor that children were sent away to other parts of the country because the rate
of respiratory and other illnesses was five times the rest of the Czech Republic which was itself
much higher than other western countries.
Lead levels in the soil were 50 times the acceptable levels. This was due primarily to leaded
gas, and untuned cars. One study I came across revealed that children in an areas found to have
high lead concentration, had an average drop in IQ of 13 points. In Hungary, the average man
died ten years earlier than in Japan. Today, Russian male life expectancy is 60 years old and still
dropping.
In the Russian town of Nikel, a small city centered around a large nickel smelting plant, the
residents and workers have a life expectancy of 45 years. Anybody entering the town is struck
immediately by the structural obsolescence of the nickel plant as the smelters belch enormous
plumes of poisonous smoke from three towering smokestacks. There appears to be no modern
health, environmental or safety systems surrounding the plant. Grey snow covers the entire area.
In the summer, when the snow recedes, the earth is barren. It is apparent that things live with
difficulty in the shadows of the nickel plant.
Unfortunately, I could go on with examples of environmental horror stories for hours. Let me
return to Krakow.
Krakow had been the Capital of Poland in 1038 and the King's castle still is an important
historical site. Krakow has been and still is Poland's religious center. It is the city where Pope
John Paul presided as Bishop. The country's oldest university -the Jagellonian -is located in
Krakow. Although still a city of great architectural beauty and historical significance, Krakow was
literally being dissolved by the pollution from the enormous Nowa Huta steel mill that had been
located almost in the center of town. It was not uncommon for all of Krakow to be annually
covered with soot. Natually, the incidents of respiratory disease among children was very high.
Buildings that had withstood Tarter attacks and Nazi occupations were rapidly being destroyed by
the air pollution.
. Krakow is located on the banks of the Vistula River, Poland's equivalent of our Mississippi.
Eighty percent of the water in the Vistula was so polluted that it was rated as unfit even for
industrial use. Needless to say, it had long ceased to be a source of safe drinking water. The main
cause of the Vistula pollution was the runoff from coal and other mines in Southern Poland. Sixty
thousand cubic-meters of saline water containing 7,000 metric tons of salt were being pumped in
the Vistula every day.
Why had the Poles let this happen? For that matter, why had all of the countries in Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union let this kind of tragedy happen to their environment?
The Krakow story was replicated in virtually every city and town in the region.
To understand why the situation had grown so bad, we need to see why the environment was
spoiled in the first place.
Poland, the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union relied
too much on heavy industry as their engine of economic and military development. The
centralized and political nature of almost all decisions led to repeated environmental messes.
58
-------
The Nowa Hut steel mill was located in the center of Krakow despite the fact that Krakow was
not near iron ore, coal, or industries that used steel. It was placed just up wind from the historic
parts of the city to punish and overwhelm the academic and anticommunist residents who has
resisted the communist takeover.
Production was planned in a manner that rewarded waste and inefficiency. Under the
centrally planned economy factory managers were given an allotment of raw materials and
production quotas. Managers were rewarded for meeting output. The more you produced, the
more you were recognized and rewarded. It did not matter if you did it efficiently or not. This lead
to terribly inefficient use of raw materials and energy -which was usually provided cheaply.
The political nature of laws, regulations and standards were unrealistic and unenforceable.
Communist governments often passed tough but unenforced laws and regulations. Permit
standards which told polluters the amount of each pollutant they could discharge into the
environment were set unrealistically high and then ignored. We were told that Russia issued
individual factory discharge permits that regulated over 2,000 pollutants. This was done even
though the covered pollutants might not be present in the factory, might be impossible to detect at
the concentrations set forth in the permits and, even if present and detectable, might not be
controllable with current. Notwithstanding the ineffectual ness of their system, these governments
could boast at international meetings that they had better environmental standards than the west.
They could not or would not enforce environmental laws and regulations because the
polluters were the government. It is hard to sue yourself. What if you refused to clean up?
Nothing had a real cost and therefore nothing had a true value. Most things were subsidized
by the government so that important inputs like energy and water were used in great quantities.
There were no incentives to be efficient, to reuse, or to look for less valuable substitutes.
Their education system did not produce environmental professionals. Environmental
scientists, engineers, economist, and managers require multi-disciplined training and this was
absent in Eastern Europe. Higher education in communist countries was very focused and
compartmentalized.
Lack of democracy might have been the most important reason for the environmental disaster
that occurred in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Although they could see
the foul air and knew that the rivers were unusable, they did not have access to the kind of
information necessary to know the nature and extent of the environmental problem they faced.
And even if they did, they had no way to influence their governments to change. Or did they?
Two significant events took place in the late eighties that dramatically demonstrated the
importance of environment to the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union and to the political changes that changed the region. The proposal to build a dam on the
Danube and the explosion and fire at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl.
In the late 1980s, the governments of Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia agreed to build
a series of impoundments on the Danube River at Nagymoros/Gaboikova -a site on their border
between Budapest and Bratislava. These dams were to produce hydroelectric power which would
be sold to the west for hard currency. The project would result in the flooding of large areas of
wetlands. The resulting destruction of these wetlands would ruin a major stop on the path of
migratory water fowl in Europe. It would also would eliminate the invaluable water filtering role
these wetlands play, thereby seriously putting at risk the water quality of the Danube River and
other fresh water resources on the area.
59
-------
As knowledge of the negative impacts of the project became known a small group of scientists
and citizens, mainly in Hungary, started to meet and discuss the project. These discussions led to
the formation of the Danube Circle - an organization developed to oppose the dams. Why this
organization was allowed to exist and openly oppose the dams is not clear. Maybe it was because
the government of Hungary was preoccupied with other problems or maybe it was because they
did not take an environmental protest seriously and felt that it diverted the attention of any
meaningful apposition away from the more serious problem of life under the communists. In any
case, the organization grew strong enough to stop the construction of the Hungarian portion of the
project. More importantly, in its work to combat the dam the Danube Circle developed a network
of people who were in place to take advantage of the growing weakness of the Communist
government at the end of the 1980's. Many of the leaders of the Danube Circle became the leaders
in the transition from communism and democracy. Some of these heroes are still fighting to
improve the environment in Hungary but many have gone on to take leadership roles in other
sectors of their new democracy. Although environmental discontent among the people of Hungary
was not the reason for the downfall of communism, it is interesting to note that an environmental
issue did act as the catalyst for the formation of an organization that was important to the political
change in the country.
My second example, Chernobyl, is well known to everybody. Located north of Kiev in what
was then part of the Soviet Union, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl experienced a
catastrophic explosion and fire in April 1986, that resulted in the loss of life and the contamination
of large areas of Ukraine and neighboring Soviet Union. For weeks after the accident, Soviet
officials in what we now recognize as standard operating procedure, attempted to hide the
magnitude of the tragedy from their people. The importance of the failure of this clumsy official
attempt to "cover up" an event that was being reported by every newspaper and radio in the free
world was greater than the tragedy itself. As the facts of the disaster came out the people of
Ukraine and the other Soviet territories were confronted with the inescapable evidence that the
Soviet government was incapable of even the most basic protection of public health and safety.
Many Russian and Ukrainian observers feel that for large numbers of people in the former Soviet
Union, the Chernobyl accident provided the final push towards their acceptance of the fact that
their membership in the Soviet Union had to end.
Both of these examples illustrate the importance environment played in the politics and
change of regimes. After the transition to democracy, polling data showed that environment
remained a high priority for most people. Unfortunately and understandably, as the economies of
the region collapsed, jobs, pensions, health care and inflation overtook environment as the
overriding concern of most people and therefore environment slipped down on the government's
priority list.
Returning to the regional subject of my talk, I am sorry to say that in the fall of 1997, progress
in the Middle East Peace Process is stalled. It is interesting to remember, however, that before the
current lull, environmental issues were an important feature of the process. Two multilateral
working groups were established to address environment and water concerns. There were at least
two strong reasons for including environment in what were fundamentally security negotiations.
.First, there were environmental issues that had to be addressed sooner or later and starting
now would signify that the process was meaningful and comprehensive. Second and, I think,
more importantly, was the use of environment to begin to bring together technical representatives
from the four main parties -Israel, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority to address issues they
had in common rather than issues that divided them. Desalinization, oil spills, water reuse,
environmental training, safe use of pesticides, environmental inventories, biodiversity, and
protection of endangered species were just some of the mutual concerns that were discussed by
engineers and scientists and for which progress was made before the most current halt in the main
60 . .
-------
peace talks. It is important to note that for some environmental issues sufficient progress had been
made so that technical work continues even though the political talks have stopped. The
contribution that environment has begun to make in the region is to bring together people from the
different sides to get to know each other through the positive process of tackling problems of
common concern.
These and many other examples can be sited to argue quite effectively that environment
represents a potentially valuable tool for use in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. and its technical
agencies including EPA are still perceived around the world as the experts in environment
protection. Our technologies and knowhow are sought after in every developing country. The
State Department has begun to recognize the value of "environmental diplomacy." The recent
establishment of "Environmental Hubs" in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and
Europe, show a real commitment to the idea that environment is a basic ingredient in our
relationships with other nations and that respecting this issue will achieve a better global
environment as well as more successful diplomacy.
61
-------
JANESAGINAW
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
REGION 6, DALLAS, TX
SPEECH FOR THE WORLD AFFAIRS (BORDER) TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING
PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
APRILS, 1997
SAN ANTONIO, TX
Thank you, Jerry Leach. It is a very special privilege to be here today. I am especially proud to
have this meeting held in EPA Region 6. We share a 1,200 mile border with Mexico, the longest
common border of any of the EPA's local offices. Today's meeting is a good example of our efforts
to exchange information about important environmental issues facing this Nation and Mexico.
Only a few weeks ago, Peter Emerson and I attended the De Lange Woodlands Conference at
Rice University on Sustainable Development. We listened to some of the best minds available, like
Nobel Laureate and Harvard economics professor Dr. Robert Solow, talk about the economics of
the future. Dr. Solow asserted this: "Sustainable development is an equity issue between current
society and future societies." And, he is right. Sustainable development means providing for the
day-to-day needs of our communities, yet not forfeiting the ability of future communities to thrive.
Moreover, sustainable development means long term economic prosperity.
Sustainable development requires us to achieve a variety of interdependent goals. The
U.S./Mexico border is a significant cultural and economic resource to us all. A tremendous number
of people cross the border each day to visit and work. In 1994, the average was about 850,000
people a day. As we all know, over the past three decades, the entire border region has seen a
tremendous surge in population. From 1990 to 1995, the border region's population increased by
approximately 2.2 million. This makes the total population more than 10.5 million: 6.2 million in
the U.S. and 4.3 million in Mexico.
A healthy bilateral relationship with Mexico is essential to Texas' prosperity. Since early 1992,
Texas has been a key player in building this relationship by working to negotiate trade agreements
leading to NAFTA. In 1993 before NAFTA, U.S./Mexico trade
62
-------
The Border XXI Program is an unprecedented
binational effort to address the environmental
and public health challenges facing communities
on both sides of the border. The program will
help to ensure a commitment to sustainable
development along the border, so that economic
growth and environmental protection will go
hand-in-hand
continues to experience tremendous export growth, showing
the third quarter of 1996.
was about $40 billion. In 1996,
U.S./Mexico trade rose to $140
billion: a 60 percent increase. And,
more than 200,000 U.S. jobs were
related to trading with Mexico.
Mexico is the third largest trading
partner of the U.S. accordingly.
Furthermore, between 18 to 20
percent of all goods originating or
traveling through the Dallas/Fort
Worth metroplex are traded with
Mexico. As a border state, Texas
an increase of nearly 23 percent in
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Jim R.
Jones, at the Dallas Council of World Affairs luncheon. Ambassador Jones underscored that one of
our major objectives with Mexico is environmental clean up and preservation. He emphasized, that
in many ways, Mexico is experiencing the United States' environmental movement of the 1970's
which led to the creation of the EPA. Mexico is demonstrating both the political will and public
awareness needed to protect the environment. He estimated that 90 percent, if not more, of letters
from Mexico's children and students call for environmental clean up and preservation. Mexico is
now experiencing real economic recovery and resources are being targeted to address its
environmental problems. The ambassador remains very optimistic.
As a Nation, the U.S. has made significant progress over the past 25 years of protecting human
health and the environment.
We are a world leader in environmental stewardship. We must work with others to help them
in meeting and understanding their current and future environmental challenges. That is what
leadership is all about: cooperation and mutual respect; and looking at the broad view of history 10
to 20 years from now. That is the premise upon which our Nation's environmental cooperation
with Mexico is based. Today, I would like to tell you about EPA's programs and some of our
accomplishments.
The Border XXI Program is an unprecedented binational effort to address the environmental
and public health challenges facing communities on both sides of the border. The program will
help to ensure a commitment to sustainable development along the border, so that economic
growth and environmental protection will go hand-in-hand. Border XXI is a cooperative effort
between the U.S. and Mexico, and represents an important milestone in the long history of
cooperation among numerous environmental, health, and natural resource agencies in the U.S. and
Mexico. Yet, it is flexible enough to allow different approaches for different communities. Border
XXI demonstrates our Nation's's long term commitment to environmental stewardship in Mexico.
The broad goals are to achieve a clean environment, protect the public health and natural
resources, and encourage sustainable development in the border area. However, the document also
is very specific regarding the goals for each region of the border.
And, we are making progress. In 1994 when I first came to this job, I visited the border area for
the first time and saw the environmental challenges facing communities such as Laredo and
Nueveo Lardeo first hand. While Laredo had drinking water standards, Nuevo Lardeo did not.
Pollution knows no boundaries so raw sewage was dumped into a river that both communities
shared. Nevertheless two years later, I went back to Nuevo Laredo for the dedication ceremony of a
new wastewater treatment plant for the community. That same year, I participated with New
63
-------
Mexico governor Gary Johnson in a ground breaking ceremony of a $2.6 million waste water
treatment and collection system for the 850 people who live in Mesquite, New Mexico.
We are building the long needed intrastructure to address the environment long term. I want to
highlight five significant accomplishments along the border that I think further exemplify the type of
progress we are making and set the stage for future activities: colonias; the Joint Advisory
Committee for Air Quality Improvement; Sister City Contingency plans; Supplemental
Environmental Projects; and HazTraks.
We are working with more than 200 colonias, over 130,000 people, to provide waste water
treatment and collection systems. Much of the work done at colonias is conducted in partnership
with our States. Both the States of Texas and New Mexico, under the leadership of Commissioner
Marquez and Secretary Weidler, have demonstrated outstanding leadership in preserving our
environmental resources along the border. Our border program staff estimates EPA's budget to date
has included about $225 million to address waste water treatment needs of colonias along the
border.
Our commitment continues. Last year, the U.S. and Mexico formed the Nation's first Joint
Advisory Committee for Air Quality Improvement. This committee is working to improve air quality
along the border in the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez air shed in a more holistic way, studying the impacts
that communities have on one another and working together with them to develop plans to solve
their air pollution problems. The committee includes 20 people (10 from the U.S. and 10 from
Mexico) from city, county and State governments, and interested citizens, community leaders and
environmental groups from Ciudad Juarez (Chihuahua, Mexico), El Paso (TX), and Dona Ana
County (NM).
I would like to take a minute to thank Pete Emerson for his contributions and leadership over
the past several years. Pete has been tireless in his efforts to improve air quality along the border.
Early on, Pete was instrumental in urging the Texas' Air Control Board Paso del Norte Air Quality
Task force to focus on air pollution problems facing border communities. Without his dedication,
the U.S./Mexico agreement forming the Air Quality Management Basin would not have been
possible.
Today, we are even looking at experimental steps in international air emissions trading due to
this effort. We are preparing for another first called Sister City Contingency plans. Knowing that
chemical spills, fires and other accidents do not recognize international borders; local, county, and
State governments, businesses and community leaders worked with us to develop integrated
emergency response plans. These emergency response plans will help communities on both sides
of the border to be better prepared in responding to chemical spills or accidents, resulting in better
protection of public health. Today, Sister City plans are being developed for Brownsville and
Matamoros, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, and Del Rio and Ciudad Acuna.
We are working to use innovative and common sense approaches to improve environmental
conditions along the border. In our enforcement efforts, we have proposed the first-of-its-kind
international Supplemental Environmental Projects. In addition to collecting fines for violations of
our health-based environmental standards, we are putting dollars back into the community and
finding real solutions to environmental pollution. U.S. companies violating our standards are
working with us to develop projects which, when completed, will bring about real benefits to the
community and the environment on both sides of the border. No longer will just paying fines be
enough: we encourage violators to take action by solving their problems, working to help the
community, and bringing about a better environment.
64
-------
Groundwork has started for a bilateral hazardous waste tracking system called HazTraks.
HazTraks allow both Nations to track the amounts and types of chemicals shipped between the
U.S. and Mexico. The system helps us to ensure that transboundary shipments of chemicals meet
the laws of both countries.
In closing, I will remind you that the U.S. must continue to provide world leadership as an
environmental steward. At home, we are continuing to take part to protect human health and the
environment. EPA just released a strategic plan titled "Environmental Goals for America and
Milestones for the Year 2005" which lays out our plan. Likewise, we are far from done along the
U.S./Mexico border. Here, Border XXI outlines our strategic plan to improve, and protect the
environment along the U.S./Mexico border. At EPA, we are committed to the success of Border XXI
and to the protection of our most valuable resources: our people and our environment. The U.S.
and Mexico are working to promote free trade, legal system reform, democracy, and a cleaner
environment. Economic improvement is allowing Mexico to begin resource building which,
coupled with its political will and public support, I believe will benefit the environment and our
two countries. We are inextricably linked! I know you will join me in building a sustainable
U.S./Mexico border to seek economic prosperity and environmental protection for our two
countries. Thank you.
65
-------
U.S.-MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION
REMARKS BY
DR. ALAN D. HECHT
To WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBERS, 1996
Thank you, Lowell Blankfort, and ladies and gentleman. This year EPA and the World Affair
Council (WAC) are cooperating on a series of seminar and public meetings on international
activities.
The kick-off event for this year-long series was given by EPA Deputy Administrator, Fred
Hansen, at the annual meeting of the WAC in Washington, DC on November 15. Fred talked
about EPA's emerging work in the area of environmental security. Today's topic is U.S.-Mexico
environmental cooperation, and I am happy to share the program with rny colleague from
SEMARNAP, Jose Luis Samaniego. Later this week in San Francisco, EPA Assistant Administrator
William Nitze will speak about U.S.-Asia relations, with a special focus on China. This winter and
next spring, EPA officials will discuss a number of other international issues at WAC chapters
throughout the United States.
In the days ahead, the U.S. and Mexico will issue a new 5 year border program-Border XXI.
Border XXI is a joint effort of the EPA and the Departments of Interior and Health and Human
Services in the United States and our counterpart agencies in Mexico. The Border Program builds
on a long history of bilateral cooperation beginning with the 1983 La Paz Agreement.
The mission of Border XXI is to achieve a clean environment, protect public health and natural
resources and encourage sustainable development in the border area. These are not easy goals to
achieve, But I believe we are in a better position today to achieve them, than an any time in the
post.
Over the past 5 years I have witnessed the significant changes in the environmental policies
and programs in Mexico, especially related to the U.S.-Mexico Border. My perspective has been as
both a U.S. negotiator for bilateral agreements and an EPA official involved with protecting the
environment and health of U.S. citizens'living on the border. I think the past 5 years has been an
historic period for many reasons, some of which I will mention in my discussion. More
importantly, I think this 5 year period has resulted in tangible benefits to the people living on both
sides of the border. Between 1991 and 1995, EPA has spent more than 50 million on border
projects. I believe our new Program, with federal and state cooperation and support will address
many of the serious environmental problems that plague this region.
As background to the new border program, let me touch briefly on four significant events over
the past 5 years: first, the original U.S. Mexico Border Plan, second, the negotiations of the NAFTA
66
-------
side agreements on environment, BECC and NADBank, and finally the publication of the new
border program, called Border XXI. .
The Integrated Border Environmental Plan was launched by President Bush and Salinas at their
1990 Summit meeting in Monterrey. The joint communique said:
"Both Presidents instruct the authorities responsible for environmental affairs of their countries
to prepare a comprehensive plan designed to periodically examine ways and means to reenforce
border cooperation...."
IBEP, published in 1992, was important in a number of ways: The Plan for the first time
focused serious Congressional attention on Border needs. Despite enormous health and
environmental problems along the U.S.-Mexico Border, this region had not been given high level
attention in Washington.
IBEP was the first fedeal attempt to develop a comprehensive environmental action plan for
the border region. The Plan attempted to outline in a systematic way infrastructure and
environment needs and joint responsibilities between the U.S.a nd Mexico along the 2000 mile
border.
The U.S.-Mexico border is a significant geopolitical, cultural and economic boundarya
boundary between a developed and developing country. Yet the border is porous to culture and
families, and of course , to pollution., Every year, 3000 million people cross the border in both
directions. The Border is a major industrial center and region for rapid economic development.
Negotiating the Border Plan was not easy. I am sure Mexico felt pressured by the U.S. on many
issues. One hundred years of U.S.-Mexico history was being tested by this new negotiations.
Although painful in getting final agreement, the end product was a good start in addressing border
needs. The Plan did result in the training of many more Mexican inspectors, the strengthening of
the enforcement of environmental laws, and the closing of many highly-polluting Mexican
industrial facilities. IBEP began the groundwork for a hazardous waste tracking system and for
additional water infrastructure projects along the border.
The development of IBEP was intimately tied to negotiations of the NATFA which served to
focus more public attention on border environmental issues and on Mexican environmental laws.
EPA did an analysis of Mexican environmental laws and concluded that their environmental laws,
regulations and standards were in many respects similar to those in the U.S. There were some
aspects of the U.S. regulatory system which were not included in Mexican laws, such as Superfund
and the regulations of underground storage tanks. And, in the Mexican system, public participation
in the development of environmental laws was minimum. In the U.S. view, the weakness of the
Mexican regime was in enforcement of the existing environmental laws.
Reflecting these concerns for enforcement, President Clinton, as a candidate, announced
conditional support for the NAFTA, dependent on negotiations of satisfactory side agreements on
both environment and labor.
I was EPA's Chief negotiator for the environmental side agreement. As you know from historic
accounts, 1993 was a very difficult year negotiations were very intense and confrontational. The
strongest point of contention was the introduction of "sanctions" in the environmental agreement, a
penalty for persistent non-enforcement of environmental laws, which was strongly resisted by
Mexico and Canada .
67
-------
Trade Ministers began the negotiations of the Side Agreements on labor and environment in
February, 1993. In May, many headlines read that negotiations were deadlocked on the issue of
sanctions.
Many NGOs rallied against the NAFTA, although 6 of the larger NGOs did support it. The
Mexican stock market went up and down with each bit of good and bad news. I fact, I was
plotting the Mexican stock market daily and I could almost reach a point of predicting when it
would go up or down.
In fairness to Mexico, let me tell you that the U.S. had difficulties on many issues with Canada
as well. By August, 1993, the trade negotiations wanted final agreement and they themselves
resolved the question of how sanctions would be defined in the side agreements. The final
negotiation session lasted for 13 straight day at the Madison Hotel in Washington in August, 1993.
My Mexican counterpart in the negotiations was Santiago Onate, who later served as Chairman
of the PRE party. I have the highest regard to Onate, who represented Mexico with great skill and
great humor. Onate, a distinguished international lawyer, believed that the environmental side
agreement was one of the best international agreements he had seen. The key success of the
agreement was a balanced program of cooperation on environmental issues and-mechanism for
enforcement of environmental laws, with sanctions in case of proven violations. We created a
mechanism for the public to petition to each government in cases where citizens believed there
was a "persistent pattern of non-enforcement of environmental laws." In the Agreement, we
created a new Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) with a secretariat with
considerable independent authority to monitor and implement the Agreement.
The Environmental Side Agreement strongly reenforced the principles of public participation,
transparent of government and strong enforcement of environmental laws.
The NAFTA was passed by the U.S. Congress in November 1993.
In addition to the negotiations of the environmental side agreement, negotiations also were
undertaken for the creation of the BECC and NADBank. These institutions were designed to
complement the IBWC and to play a critical role in meeting infrastructure needs along the border.
As you know, the BECC is responsible for certifying water infrastructure projects and the NADBank
for facilitating their financing.
While all of these negotiations were complete by the end of 1993, it took another year to
negotiate the legal framework, operating guidelines and staffing of the CEC, BECC, NADBank. This
second round of NAFTA negotiations proved especially difficult. We spent months and months
constructing the rules and oeprating procdures for the CEC, BECC and NadBank. We were close to
agreement in March 1994 when the trilateral environmental ministers were meeting in Vancouver-
Carol Browner for EPA, Minister Rojas and Shelia Kopps. Also present was Julia Carabias, a member
of the SEDESOL staff, a woman with a strong background in ecology and social activism. -It-was
during this meeting, that we heard of the assassination of Colosio in Mexico.
Donaldo Colosio had been the head of SEDESOL, before running for President of Mexico.
Santiago Onate had become one of his chief advisors. There were now new Mexican negotiations
and we were conducting business during a backdrop of serious and political and social changes in
Mexico. This was a tragic day and I remember comforting Julia Carabias as she urgently prepared
to return to Mexico. Months later, Julia would become the new President of the national Institute of
Ecology and then later the Environment Minister for Mexico.
68
-------
By the end of 1994, the CEC, BECC and NAD.Bank were all established. EPA has also set up
Border Offices in El Paso and San Diego to enhance communications and public outreach on
border issues at local levels.
1. Mexican elections in late 1994 changed the political landscape. On the environment side, a
new Ministry was created, SEMARNAP, and Julia Carabias was appointed the environmental
Minister. Carabias launched a new set of environmental goals. These goals reflected many
principles of the first IBEP, the NAFTA side agreement and the existing general ecological laws
of Mexico. Her new goals include decentralization of federal authority, more openness and
transparency in government decisions making, strengthening, the legal framework and
compliance with laws, standards and programs, and emphasis on sustainable development.
All of these events are background to Border XXI. In 1995, with the new
in Mexico, we began negotiations of a new border program. .
team in place
Naturally, despite the hard work of the past 18 months several difficult issues remain. But we
have worked hard in all areas to respond to public comments on major issues and to find some
reasonable way to make progress in addressing border needs, including health and natural resource
management. Border XXI will for the first time coordinate the work of EPA, HHS and DOI and
corresponding Mexican agencies to systematically address enviornment, health and natural
resources issues. .
The Plan also integrates the work
of the BECC and NADBANK in
dealing with border infrastructure. I
am pleased by the progress of the
BECC. BECC has developed an
adopted a set of criteria for project
selection and today has certified 12
projects, 6 in each country, for a total of
about $92 million. The NADBank also
has approved funding for two of these
projects.
the success of developing Border XXI is a direct
result of the positive cooperation that has
characterized U.S.-Mexico environmental work.
Over the past five years, there has been
significant movement in Mexico toward more
transparency and public involvement and greater
compliance with environmental laws
EPA is working very closely with both BECC and NADBank. We have given the BECC $10
Million to establish a technical assistance fund to help communities prepare proposals.
For the San-Diego Tijuana area, I look to the Plan to address some of the major air, water and
health problems in the San Diego and Tijuana area. I expect the International Water Treatment
Plant in San Ysidro to start operations in March 1997. The Plant operating in union with the plant
in Tijuana will process 42 million gallons of water/day.
This is an area of rapid populations and economic growth. Population growth in Tijuana
region is estimated at 7percent/year. Just last month the San Diego -Tijuana Economic Review
reported a strong economic outlook for this region in 1997 with positive growth in retail,
employment and exports. This report sees a 14% increase in permits for construction of new
housing units in San Diego/Tijuana region All future growth her in San Diego and anywhere along
the border must be in the context of sustainable development. The natural resources of the border
region are already stressed. Better long range planning is essential to maintain strong economic
base.
I believe the success of developing Border XXI is a direct result of the positive cooperation that
has characterized U.S.-Mexico environmental work. Over the past five years, there has been
69
-------
significant movement in Mexico toward more transparency and public involvement and greater
compliance with environmental laws.
Border XXI begins a new era of cooperation with Mexico. Our border region represents some
of the poorest communities in the United States. From the viewpoint of environmental justice and
equality, our communities deserve greater attention. At the Federal level, we will do what we can,
but we are looking to closer Federal-State cooperation to address health, environment and natural
resource issues. Next year, we will devote considerable attention to getting industry at the plant
level to endorse the goals of Border XXI and make voluntary commitments to reduce border
pollution through pollution prevention practices. I am looking at every Maquiladora facility along
the border to operationalize pollution prevention practices at the plant level.
I've shared with you four of my experiences in working with Mexico over a five year period.
My experiences are also shared by Carlos Fuente in his new book A New Time For Mexico. He has
a wonderful chapter in which he writes about US-Mexico relations. Much of our history is captured
by the old adage attributed for President Porfirio Diaz. The original 1910 adage is:
"Poor Mexico! - so far from God and so close to the U.S.
During the debate on the NAFTA, many would have modified this expression to read:
"Poor Mexico - Poor U.S. - so far from God and so close to each other.
Fuentes has a better vision for the future, which I share:
"Mexico and the U.S. - so close to each other and so close to God"
Thank you.
70
-------
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND FISHERIES.
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
PRESENTATION ON BORDER 21
FOR THE
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
JOSE Luis SAMANIEGO LEYVA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBERS, 1996
Good morning to all of you assembled at this event.
I would like to start by thanking the World Affairs Council (WAC) for their kind invitation to
attend this forum, Dr. Alan Hecht, my counterpart as national co-president of the working groups of
Border 21, and all of you participating for your attention. Alan, Dr. Hecht, has already given you
the background of how Border 21 came to be.
Let me say a few words on the structure of the program and how it will work.
Border 21 is built on the working groups that originated in the La Paz agreement of 1983,
which established six groups to address the issues of air quality, water infrastructure, law
enforcement cooperation, emergency responses, hazardous waste, and pollution prevention.
Due to the new institutional framework and lessons learned in the implementation of the IBEP,
three additional groups were created: human health, to introduce quality life objectives; natural
resources, to deal with wildlife and natural protected areas; and environmental information, to
systematize and make available the information generated by the working groups and other
institutions operating at the border. The principles governing Border 21 are: public participation,
descentralization and the strengthening of state and local environmental management, and
coordination among all agencies participating, in an increasingly complex institutional setting.
Since March 1995, environmental authorities of both the United States and Mexico, initiated
negotiations to start a new phase of colaboration for environmental improvement at the border.
Border 21 is the result of an extensive consultation process which started in June last year, with
more than 10 public meetings, both national and binational, in which local and state authorities,
academics, NGOs and representatives of private business participated to discuss the contents of the
program.
In regard to the participating institutions, at the level of federal environmental authorities,
coordination between Semarnap and the EPA was the basis for the construction of the Program;
moreover, the border projects from the Development Ministry and the Health Ministry in Mexico,
71
-------
together with their American counterparts, the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Human Health, have been brought on board to work towards sustainable development.
This program also takes into account the new institutional framework that stemmed from
NAFTA in 1993, which implies close coordination among the sister institutions of the Border
Environmental Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank and the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation based in Montreal.
To enhance public participation in designing the program, both countries sought the support of
the Good Neighbour Environmental Board in the U.S. and the Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development, Region 1, on the Mexican side which led to a more open relationship between the
government and society by establishing clear participation channels in the design of the program
and in its followup.
Planning and Supervision
Once public consultation was over in September I 996, both countries drafted a version that
was offered for comment, and after a 45-day period, the final version was finally completed, just a
few weeks ago. As Dr. Hecht pointed out, the printed version of Border 21 will be made available
in the coming days, and in Mexico, President Zedillo will make its presentation in Nogales, Sonora
on December 19, 1996, with the presence of American guests, emphasizing the importance that
both countries place on improved environmental conditions at the border.
Public participation, and its impact on the planning process has two components: on one
hand, the government initiatives that make information
accesible to society; and on the other, the way society organizes itself and takes advantage of such
information to help guide the implementation process.
I. In relation to the information resources that have been built into the program, a key element
is a biannual report and a biannual public meeting that will also be reported. These two
elements, combined, will allow for a more accurate followup and for the redefinition of goals,
if neccessary, as environmental conditions change.
2. In order to reinforce contacts between the public and the authorities, a directory of
co-chairs, key persons within the work groups, as well as of the regional or state offices of the
participating institutions, has been included in the published version of the program.
3. The nine workgroups have been opened to the formation of mixed subgroups to address
specific issues, such as the Dona Ana-El Paso Ciudad Juarez binational advisory group on air
quality within the binational air group. Both countries will carefully follow the results of this
initiative to assess whether this can be a useful model to address transboundary issues in a
coordinated manner, such as those related to natural protected areas.
4. At least once a year the Good Neighbour Board and the Advisory Council Region 1 will
meet to evaluate progress of Border 21.
5. In response to the demand from the public to gain access to border information, which is
one of the most recurring needs throughout the consultation process, SEMARNAP will
establish a number of public workstations along the border equipped with computers that have
access to the Internet. EPA will similarly connect its servers to other environment servers and to
Internet, as well, keeping an 800 line for its border offices with Border 21 information. These
72
-------
initiatives will be supported by a directory with environmental information sources generated
by the Program's working groups.
6. As part of a strategic planning process, both governments agreed to elaborate indicators and
quantitative goals that will allow for a more precise and meaningful evaluation of the Program
' s performance and then report on those results to the public. The objective of such indicators
and goals is to measure the impact of government action on the environment and on quality of
life at the border; not in terms of administrative goals, but in terms of real achievements. To
design their respective sets of instruments, both governments will have to put together high
level groups that can take the responsibility for the political content of such decisions. We
have agreed to review the progress achieved in this field by February 1997, and it is our hope
that this evaluation capacity also will help maintain the needed federal funding levels for each
year.
We are convinced that Border 21 will open new
opportunities for private investment flows to this
region. In the first place, the development of
more efficient coordination mechanisms among
the various agencies that define objectives and
standards, and thus provide access to the funds,
is essential to facilitate private investment
associated with a variety of infrastructure and
equipment
medium-term planning scope required for the achievement
Operating Plans of each of the working groups will also be
Promotion
Implementation
Every year, depending on
available funding, the nine working
groups will develop an Annual
Operating Plan, with a precise record
of monetary resources, including the
description of the projects and
objectives to be attained. These
operating plans will allow the groups
to keep a tight link between the
budgetary short-term reality and the
of Border 21 goals. The annual
available to the public.
Let me make reference to the promotional aspect of Border 21. The program has to do mainly
with government responsibilities, but it will only be partially successful if it does not count on a
distinct and strong participation from the private sector. As Dr. Hecht has already mentioned, a
commitment to voluntary pollution prevention goals from the border industry is absolutely
necessary, as well as broader action from a wide span of social actors, in order to tackle air quality
issues.
We are convinced that Border 21 will open new opportunities for private investment flows to
this region. In the first place, the development of more efficient coordination mechanisms among
the various agencies that define objectives and standards, and thus provide access to the funds, is
essential to facilitate private investment associated with a variety of infrastructure and equipment.
One example is the infrastructure for water, where we expect the concentration of major funding.
This will also make priorities clearer, and therefore will translate into a more straightforward
message to investors.
A second promotional aspect is the development of new instruments. In the case of hazardous
wastes, the working group has strengthened its capacity to track the flows of hazardous waste
across the border through the haztrack system. It also pinpoints losses in the system which indicate
the need for remedial action. More importantly, the goal of creating what is called the vulnerability
atlas for the border will accurately map the places with a potential to house infrastructure for the
recycling, treatment and final disposal of hazardous wastes.
73
-------
Such an instrument will signify a 180 degree turn in the Mexican government's relation with
private sector investors. For the first time, it will be possible beforehand, to know where investment
can be applied without this gravitating on the investors costs, measured in time or money. With the
atlas
serving as a guiding instrument, the investment decision will be free of the heavy burden of lengthy
prospecting, potentially subject to rejections by the government.
An approach of national policy in territorial planning, the atlas for the central part of Mexico
has recently been completed. In a similar manner, a strong effort toward the territorial planning of
the border can promote other economic activities such as acuaculture or forest plantations.
In the case of biodiversity, it is worth mentioning that for the first time, and recently reviewed
in the legal reform previously referred to, there will be productive units with private investment in
Mexico for wildlife species in general. With particular emphasis on species that have a hunting
value, the land owners will be able to profit legally from those numbers raised over a censused
baseline population. This means that a completely new economic sector would develop in places
where only illegal poaching existed.
We are also aiming at developing binational cooperation in the management of natural
protected areas along the border. Mexico now has decreed four areas, and is soon to decree
another. These are comprised of the Alto Colfo de California, where the Colorado River meets the
Sea of Cortes; El Pinacate, which borders with the Organ Pipe National Monument; Canon de Santa
Elena and Maderas del Carmen, both continuing into the Big Bend and Laguna Madre, which
belongs to the same system as the Atascosa Lagoon on the side of the Gulf of Mexico. Along with
their conservation purpose, these areas have a great potential for ecotourism.
One of the objectives for the information working group involves keeping record of the
development of these events so that the opportunities can be tracked by the rest of the groups, both
governments and the general public.
So, to round up, and reaffirming Dr. Hecht's message, we hope that the private sector,
including maquiladoras and other firms, will help us reach the Program's objectives by means of
voluntary goals for pollution reduction and control. Furthermore, we hope it will participate as an
investing partner in the opportunities opened by Border 21, fulfilling a concept of cooperation
brilliantly posed by writer Carlos Fuentes. "It is a unique situation:
the border of encounter between the developed world and the developing world, between the
United States and ... Mexico. And between two cultures susceptible to permeability, to useful
exchanges, to inevitable integrations, but with the condition that they be ruled by a relation of
mutual respect and a shared effort (of) northamericans toward Mexico and mexicans toward the
United States, ...of mutual consent."'
iCarlos Fuentes, Nuevo Tienlpo Mexicano, (Mexico: Aguilar, Altea, Taurus, Alfaguara, S.A. de C.V., 199, page 200-201.
74
-------
SPEECH BY
WILLIAM A. NITZE
TO THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
OF SAN FRANCISCO
DECEMBERS, 1996
Thank you Vic (Grey) I am very pleased to be in San Francisco to speak to this distinguished
group. This year, EPA and the World Affairs Council are collaborating on a series of seminars on
international activities. Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen launched this program in November
when he addressed the annual meeting of the WAC in Washington. This winter and spring, EPA
staff will be speaking to WACs thoughout the United States.
Your leadership in issues of international concern is very important. The United States
cannot be a world leader without international engagement. The American public needs to
understand the importance and value of this international engagement. I am reminded of the
recent heading in the Financial Times that said, "It's the World, Stupid."
EPA's international activities are vital to our national interests. In addition to our work
advancing bilateral and regional cooperation on environmental issues of global concern, EPA plays
a strong supporting role in implementing U.S. foreign policy and free trade objectives. Some of our
important initiatives currently underway include:
4 Implementing the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
* Putting in place a 5-year program to address environmental and public health challenges
facing communities on the US-Mexican border.
In fact, today, Mexico and the United States jointly released our new border plan- Border
XXI. This morning, President Zedillo participated in a ceremony in Juarez, Mexico, announcing
this program.
4 Addressing critical air and water pollution problems jointly with Canada.
* Providing technical and policy leadership in international negotiations on chemical safety
and elimination of persistent organic pollutants.
4 Working with other nations to find economically and socially viable strategies to address
global warming, sharing the burden of solving this critical problem.
4 Leading the development of a cleaner production strategy under the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation group.
I will be happy to discuss these and other initiatives further during the discussion period or
break, but I would like to focus my remarks today on the environmental issues facing Asia, and
what the U.S. is doing about them.
75
-------
The Pacific Rim, as you from the West Coast know first-hand, has been the most
economically and socially dynamic region of the world during the post-war era. The achievements
of Japan, China and other Asian nations in economic development and poverty reduction are
unparalleled in human history. This dynamism will continue throughout the region, accompanied
by the spread of democracy and the strengthening of regional cooperation. Asia is the region to
watch leading up to the 21st century.
The environmental challenges posed by this growth are, likewise, unparalleled. Dealing
with the local, regional, and global dimensions of Asia's environmental problems is a tremendous
challenge - and if done in the right way, a tremendous opportunity for US leadership,
diplomatically, economically, and environmentally.
We fieec/ to help Asia fashion a workable brand
of sustainable development which takes
advantage of new investment, requiring all new
investment to meet tough, enforced
environmental standards and even to go beyond
that, avoiding the mistakes that we have made in
the US and leapfrogging to highly resource
efficient, clean technologies and processes
The President's trip to the APEC
Summit in Manila, his meeting with
Chinese leaders and their agreement to
exchange visits in the spring indicate
growing political interest in Asia and
especially China. I fully expect to see
an expanded U.S.-China environment
bilateral program by this spring.
Asian governments could
continue on a path of rapid development without regard to environmental sustainability - but they
have chosen not to take that path. Asian governments are among the most aggressive in attempting
to implement pledges made at the Earth Summit back in 1992; witness China's Agenda 21, the first
national document of its kind, and President Jiang Zemin's address to a national environmental
protection conference earlier this year.
The Asian countries have come to realize that their economic dreams will not come to pass
if their resource bases and their citizens' health are mortgaged. Asian leaders are reinforcing this
message time and time again in recent APEC meetings. Obviously, national pledges are often at
variance with what goes on at the local level, and financing, implementing and enforcing
environmental protection measures remains a tremendous challenge. That is where the
international community, including the U.S., fits in.
We need to help Asia fashion a workable brand of sustainable development which
takes advantage of new investment, requiring all new investment to meet tough, enforced
environmental standards and even to go beyond that, avoiding the mistakes that we have made in
the US and leapfrogging to highly resource efficient, clean technologies and processes. Achieving
sustainable development in Asia requires a different strategy and a different set of tools than we
have used in the past.
What are the characteristics of Asia that play into this?
Asia's population may increase from 2.8 billion to 4.3 billion by 2025
Urban populations in Asia tripled since 1960 and are expected to triple again by 2025
China alone will be the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by that time
Asian economies are expected to grow an average of 7% per year throughout this century.
76
-------
Quite a challenge. Now, how can we turn this challenge to opportunity? What is in it for
the U.S.?
More than 40% of U.S. trade is with Asia
More than 1/3 of our exports are destined for Asia
U.S. exports to APEC economies increased 266 percent in the last decade
APEC investment in the US has increased 40 percent since 1989
The Asian market for environmental technologies and services is estimated at
$14.3 billion. (1994 data from Environmental Business International, Inc.)
Let's use China as an example. Ambient air and water quality readings far exceed WHO
standards in most cities. According to the Chinese government's own reports, lung cancer mortality
rates for Beijing have increased 200 percent over the last 20 years, primarily due to air pollution,
and in Shenyang birth defects are twice as frequent where irrigation water is severely polluted.
The death rate from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is five times higher than in the
U.S. Reliance on coal for over 70 percent of its power needs creates not only respiratory illnesses
and lung cancer, but also severe acid rain damage to crops and infrastructure. In large cities, air
pollution from coal burning is quickly being surpassed by that from vehicle usage. The number of
passenger vehicles in China is projected to rise from a current 1.8 million to 20 million by 2010.
Water shortages are severe and worsened by extremely high loads of industrial and municipal
waste into water sources used for industrial processes, crop irrigation, and drinking.
While China has made impressive achievements in reducing energy intensity per unit GDP,
Chinese industry remains highly inefficient. Its major industries consume some 30-90 percent more
energy than similar industries in developed countries. 400,000 small industrial boilers consume
about 300 million tons of coal per year, which could be reduced by about 90 million tons per year
using current, efficient technology. The town and village enterprises which have fueled much of
the recent economic growth use inexpensively-acquired, outmoded technologies which are by
definition inefficient in terms of both energy and resource inputs.
China has made a commitment to cleaning up a highly polluted river, the Huai River, by
the year 2000. The Huai River provides drinking, irrigation, industrial process water to a
population of 110 million. Last year, when we visited the river in the dry season, it was a brown
trickle, with BOD levels equivalent to that of sewage. In the past year, Chinese authorities have
closed down 20,000 small plants, primarily pulp and paper plants, along the river and required that
all plants producing less than 5000 tons per year of pulp be closed by September 30 of this year,
leaving only large, efficient plants which will be required to employ clean technology. This
draconian method is not without social costs, but it exemplifies China's determination. It took the
U.S. 20 years to clean up the Delaware River.
Increasing the environmental sustainability of new private and public investment in Asia is
the best step we can take to alleviate these conditions. Clean up, remediation will be required in
some cases to improve public health and ecosystem vitality. But if we can find the formula to
ensure that all new investment in Asia meets the test of environmental sustainability, we will be far
along the path of achieving sustainable development in Asia.
77
-------
The U.S. must heed the call. We will not remain competitive unless we step up to the plate
and offer innovative solutions to Asia's sustainable development challenges. Companies in Japan
are beginning to put into practice zero emissions, closed-loop industrial processes. They are doing
this not because some authority told them to - they are doing it to be one giant step ahead of the
inevitably growing demand for such innovations. We must, as a nation, continue to invest in
research and development for sustainable development solutions. US companies succeed with
flying colors when given the tools, the regulatory flexibility, and the incentive to provide solutions.
We must lay down the markers for the US private sector to stay in the lead in providing innovative
solutions for Asia.
What is the U.S. government's role in this picture? Worldwide, governmental aid flows are
being dwarfed by private investment flows. That is glaringly so in the US, where per capita ODA is
about at the bottom of the ranks of industrialized countries, and we have zero ODA going to China.
So, we need to focus on "greasing the skids" with Asian governments to create the entrees for U.S.
private sector involvement in sustainable industrial development.
At EPA we have a very active Asia program, run on a shoestring. We have been working
cooperatively with China since 1980, continuously through periods of diplomatic strife. In other
parts of Asia we are active through the USAID-funded US-Asia Environmental Partnership program.
Asian governments (and increasingly industries) are asking EPA for far more advice and
involvement than we can provide.
We also place a strong emphasis on partnerships with the private sector. In 1995 we were
able to fund about $3.5 million worth of technology diffusion projects in China under the
President's Environmental Technology Initiative. These projects leveraged about $10 million and
have already begun to pay off handsomely in terms of increasing U.S. private sector involvement
there. Unfortunately that program did not survive the 1996 Congress. We are about to launch a
small technology seed fund program for China through the National Association of State
Development Agencies, taking the model of their highly successful Asia tech fund managed
through the US-Asia Environmental Partnership. The first round of proposals will be evaluated in
January and we should then get seven to ten small- to medium-sized US companies engaged.
In addition, we have introduced a proposal for a Cleaner Production Initiative which was
endorsed by Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) ministers in Manila this past July, and we
are working hard now to develop an implementation strategy in concert with other APEC members.
Through our efforts, EPA is trying to:
Build capacity within Asian governments to develop, implement, and enforce sound and
transparent environmental regulations, thus creating predictable, viable markets for
environmental/clean production technologies.
Demonstrate that technologies available on the US market can work under Asian country
conditions, providing cost and benefit data so that Asian policy makers will drop their
reluctance to sink limited capital into these technologies. (We need to do this without
recommending particular technologies or companies, so it is difficult.) (We are beginning
to work more closely with the MDBs to achieve this.)
With the Department of Commerce, provide information to the US private sector about
market opportunities for environmental technologies in Asia.
78
-------
But we need to do more. We simply do not have the resources to get a place at the table
compared with our competitors, or to achieve the vision of sustainable development. The Clinton
Administration, including the President's Council on Sustainable Development, is taking action at
high levels to promote sustainable development with China, and that is a very important step. Here
is what
I believe needs to be done:
1. We need to rationalize our trade policy with China. Sanctions imposed after Tiananmen Square
are not effective at achieving our human rights objectives and are simply tying the hands of U.S.
businesses.
2. We need to achieve a minimal increase in bilateral assistance in order to effectively leverage
and influence multilateral and private sector investment flows. TDA, OPIC, and AID should once
again be allowed to operate in China so that we can promote the kinds of public-private
partnerships and sustainable investments I have discussed. International roles of the technical
agencies (EPA, DOE, etc.) should be recognized and mandated.
3. We need to work with Asian countries on a regional vision for sustainable development. We
need to see APEC economies really take up the challenge, on the ground, of the Cleaner
Production Initiative in addition to initiatives on sustainable cities and clean oceans, and we need
to see APEC in the forefront of achieving free trade goals with environmental responsibility. We in
the U.S. need to back up our ideas with resources.
Let me now very briefly present another way to characterize US interests in Asia's
environment, and that is from the standpoint of "environmental security." Environmental security is
a relatively new term and is not yet fully defined, but for the moment we can define it as the
minimization of environmental conditions or trends involving other countries that could over time
have significant negative impacts on important national interests. The Clinton Administration has
formally acknowledged the importance of transboundary impacts for US national security and has
pledged to take a leadership role in protecting the global environment.
Environmental security challenges in Asia are numerous. First, local and regional pollution
problems increasingly threaten the health and livelihood of citizens of densely populated areas.
Insufficient drinking water, lost fishery resources, and degraded agricultural land could conceivably
create local unrest, instability and increased uncontrolled migration. Second, changing
consumption patterns combined with Asia's growing population will result in sharply rising
consumption of scarce resources - including grain, fishstocks, and oil - which could cause
significant impacts on global markets before technological advances ease the strain. (China alone
must feed 14 million additional mouths per year from extremely low, and shrinking, levels of arable
land.) Finally, Asia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is of clear concern to the health of
the global environment, and it is unquestionably in our national interest to ensure that all nations
take steps to curb this threat - and to show them ways to do so.
To see that local environmental issues are addressed before they become national or
international security problems, the best approach is to give citizens a voice in managing their
resources and protecting their children's health.
In the U.S., we have a vibrant network of non-governmental environmental organizations
which advocate on behalf of citizens. We also have transparent laws and regulations, regularized
enforcement, and strong public information and education programs. In Asia, we are seeing grass-
79
-------
roots environmental movements taking hold, sometimes with governmental blessing, sometimes in
an opposition role.
These fledgling organizations are in the front lines of democracy building. Environmental
issues are often the first concerns which impel citizens to work together to make their voices heard.
It was a massive citizens' outcry which impelled the Chinese authorities to start cleaning up the
Huai River. That is the kind of democracy building that our nation should support.
Thank you
80
-------
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
EVERYTHING I LEARNED ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY
I LEARNED IN HARRIS COUNTY, GEORGIA
ALAN D. HECHT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
WASHINGTON DC 20460
SEPTEMBER 18,1997
Introduction
I always welcome an opportunity to return to Georgia. I spent six very happy years here
from 1970 to 1976, as a professor of geology at West Georgia College (now University). While at
West Georgia, a young history professor and I organized West Georgia's first program on
environmental studies.
My history colleague was quite interested in the "future" and was an avid read of Alvin
Tofler. I was interested in issues affecting the environment. Our interests crossed in a discussion
with the educational director of Callaway Gardens about future urban development in Harris
County.
At that time, the Lower Chattahoochee Area Planning and Development Commission also
was studying land use issues. We had the idea of conducting a land use study for Harris County
that applied new 'systematic' methodologies of land use analysis. Like all good professors, I offered
my class as the work force to conduct this study. The Callaway Foundation agreed to support it and
the study was completed in 1973.
In 1973, we foresaw the need for long-term planning in which current decisions did not
comprise future resources. Back then, we expressed it differently than we would today. At the
conclusion of the 1973 Harris County report, we wrote:
"The most urgent recommendation in this report is that public officials take specific action
to plan for the future. All of the warning signs are up: they indicate that a failure to engage
in active planning for Harris Country will result in a the gradual extension of urban sprawl
first from Columbus and later from Atlanta. If this is permitted to happen, in a few years we
will look back with nostalgia and sadness on the opportunity we missed for creating the
highest quality of life the Harris County citizens."
81
-------
The report said its recommendations were not a stand against development, but rather a
proposal for land utilization that is compatible with its resources.
The report placed considerable emphasis on public participation in planning the future of
Harris County. The report also talked about a "guidance system" wherein government officials "can
act and enforce regulations, incentive systems, codes, standards and permits systems that guide or
direct development in a way consistent with the philosophy that has been adopted."
Now, almost 25 years later, I appreciate some of the remarkable insights of this report. In
simple terms, the report said: think about the future, seek public input on future land use strategies,
recognize resource limitations and best uses, establish a 'systematic' philosophical management
approach (today we might call this sustainable development), and develop a combination of
incentives, standards and regulations to achieve these objectives.
Not bad for 1973. Kudos to West Georgia College and the Callaway Foundation.
In 1976, I went to Washington, and a few years later that young professor followed. Today
you know him as the speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. One of us has done
exceptionally well in Washington; but, I think there is still time for Newt to prove himself.
Sustainable Development
Today, we have a deeper understanding of sustainable development. The experience of the
Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the preparation of Agenda 21, and countless meetings since then have
all served to redefine, reshape, and add greater nuance to its meaning.
I think of sustainable development as a 'systemic' process aimed at achieving a balance
between current and future societal needs. In simple terms, this means it makes no sense to overfish
a lake and thus destroy its productivity for the future. Similarly, it makes no sense to destroy entire
forests or large ecosystems, thus denying their productivity in the future.
Achieving balance between the needs of current and future generation also recognizes the
need for strong public policy support for social investment, such as in education and training. It
also recognizes the need of sound economic policies policies that account for the full cost of
natural resource consumption as well as for developing and using efficient and clean industrial
processes. In today's world, it makes no sense to manufacture any product in an inefficient and
costly manner, especially when more efficient and approaches may be available.
Sustainable development is a process, achievable only in stages and requiring a number of
essential building blocks. These include:
Public concern, awareness and education about environmental issues;
Public participation in government decision-making;
Market economic policies, combined with sound environmental policies and
regulations which assure that development activities do not destroy the natural capital necessary to
support continued life and economic activity;
Corporate responsibility, and Political consensus and leadership;
82
-------
These building blocks are essential for both industrial and developing countries. Even the
most industrialized countries, like the United States, have a difficult time with the concept of
sustainable development and with its implementation. Implementation of this concept in
developing countries is far more difficult, especially in the absence of the'building blocks
mentioned above.
U.S. Achievements
Overall, quite candidly, the U.S. scores well in establishing these building blocks and in
moving toward overall sustainable management philosophy. The U.S. public is probably one of the
best informed in the world on environmental issues. For example, the U.S. Toxic Release
Inventory, pioneered by EPA, is an important source of information on the releases of pollutants
from industrial facilities in the United States. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is a data base of
emissions of toxic substances from over 22, 000 facilities in the United States that will this year
include reports on 600 chemicals. The TRI has become a tool widely used in the United States by
industry, governments, and environmental groups to monitor progress in reducing toxic emissions.
Industrial countries have begun to duplicate this concept through the Pollution Release Toxic
Inventory.
The U.S. is also the most advanced country in the world in terms of including public
participation in decision making. Through public hearings and community level involvement,
environmental decision-making involves stakeholders and communities at all levels. Two
important and successful EPA-led programs that rely heavily upon stakeholder and community
involvement are its Brownfields and Community Based Environmental Protection Programs (CBEP).
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial properties
where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. In the
past, such places were ignored by developers who wished to stay clear of the stigma and legal
barriers to redevelopment of these sites. As a result most "development" in the United States -
fueled by enormous government subsidies for roads, highways, sewerage extensions and other
infrastructure - was taking place in "greenfields." These sprawl development patterns have been
stealing the life from U.S. urban centers.
EPA's Brownfields program is an effort to promote partnerships between the federal
government, states, communities and other stakeholders to remove the environmental and
economic barriers confronting sustainable brownfields redevelopment. With leadership of an
interdepartmental group of approximately 1 7 federal agencies, and $20,000,000 in pilot grants to
over 115 U.S. communities (since 1995) including one to Atlanta, brownfields represents one of
EPA's largest place-based opportunities to demonstrate this country's commitment to Agenda 21
and the principles of sustainable development.
Under its Community Based Environmental Protection Programs, EPA works with citizens,
businesses and local authorities to actively support efforts by local communities to address local
environmental problems. EPA supports the local efforts through actions such as: flexible grants;
environmental information, tools and monitoring systems; science and economics, and technical
assistance and training.
In the area of economic policy and regulations, the U.S. is also a world leader in developing
market incentives and pollution prevention practices. It is the national policy of the United States
that whenever feasible, pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source Pollution which
cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner.
83
-------
And the U.S. has also been innovative in developing new approach in working with
industry to achieve full compliance with existing laws at minimum cost.
EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) is a program created to find "cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter" approaches to environmental protection through a collaborative decision-making process.
The CSI brings together representatives of industry, Federal, state and local governments,
environmental groups, environmental justice and community groups, and labor to create holistic,
industry-by-industry solutions to environmental problems. CSI does this by focusing on six
industries
- automobile manufacturing;
- computers and electronics;
- iron and steel;
- metal finishing;
- petroleum refining;
- printing.
CSI reflects the EPA's commitment to setting strong environmental standards while
encouraging common sense, innovative, and flexibility in how they are met.
EPA's Project XL is a program promoting flexibility in how environmental results are
achieved. The XL program supports initiatives by responsible companies, state and local
governments, communities, federal agencies and other regulated parties to demonstrate excellence
and Leadership by reducing costs of environmental protection and management and achieving
better results than required by existing regulations. Under XL, parties that can demonstrate that
environmental strategies different from those initially required by regulations will achieve better
results.
Progress in all of these areas is slow, but noticeable. This Administration is pushing hard to
set examples for sustainable development both domestically and internationally and is trying to
foster a political consensus to make major policy changes.
For example, through a number of executive orders, the President is promoting series of
activities aimed at the "greening of government." One of these activities calls for the Federal
government to reduce the release of toxic chemicals into the environment from Federal facilities by
50% by the year 2000. Sixteen Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, have
prepared pollution prevention strategies.
Another example are the 'environmentally preferable' guidelines and policies regulating
purchases and acquisitions of the U.S. Government.
But despite these positive steps, we have a long way to go to achieve sustainable policies in
all areas of our lives:
- transportation;
- land use;
- and especially energy consumption.
Major policy shifts toward influencing sustainable development require more than
government regulation and executive orders. In this context, EPA is seeking an $1.3 billion in
support of non-polluting transportation activities under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
84
-------
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) negotiations. This money provides grants for, among other things, traffic
related projects such as car pools.
Corporate Responsibility
I would like to return to one element I referred to earlier as a critical building block for
sustainable development - corporate responsibility. Corporate responsibility is important for two
reasons.
First, most innovation in industrial processes is generated within the industries themselves.
Many in the private sector have taken the lead in developing eco-efficiency and pollution
prevention practices as integral parts of industrial management. The term "industrial ecology" has
become very popular as an approach toward achieving zero industrial waste. Many U.S. and
multinational companies, largely driven by costs are looking for ways to produce their products
with minimum or zero waste. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Department of Energy, EPA
and other agencies have all supported industry in these activities. A recent report of the National
Academy says:
" Phrases such as 'sustainable development' will remain little more than slogans unless
disciplines such as industrial ecology can provide operational concepts that improve the economy
and the environment."
The second reason why corporate responsibility is essential for sustainable development is
that the private sector is becoming the dominate source of capital for development in emerging
markets and developing countries. For example, in 1996, private sector investment in developing
countries was estimated to be close to $225 billion - nearly five times more than the cumulative
financial support of public multilateral lending institutions such as the World Bank. In order to
encourage investment that is sustainable, bilateral and multilateral foreign assistance programs are
incorporating sustainable development into their funding policies and guidelines.
For the U.S., sustainable development is not a
threat to our economic development - in fact
quite the contrary. The same holds true for the
developing world, where development or
environmental protection should not be seen as
mutually exclusive.
Emerging market countries, like
China and India have an opportunity to
promote environmentally friendly
investment through their own
sustainable development policies. Such
policies, when combined with a free
market system and sound legal
framework can go a long way toward improving economic return on investment and ensuring
environmental protection.
In the United States as well as around the world, sustainable development depends on
political support at all levels. This includes the local, regional, national and international. Local
communities are doing a great deal to deal with matters within their jurisdiction, but must learn to
overcome the destructive consequences of inter-governmental and inter-regional competition.
National policies must have bipartisan congressional support and acceptance of local/regional
governing bodies. Far too often this bipartisan support is difficult to achieve. No change is easy.
But this Administration has a commitment to pursue this new agenda.
Climate change is a good example where the Administration is committed to positive
actions. This summer, at the United Nations Special Session on Rio +5, held in New York City,
President Clinton said:
85
-------
"In the U.S., in order to do our part, we have to first convince the American people and the
Congress that the climate change problem is real and imminent."
The President pledged to undertake this educational effort and asserted that "We will work
with our people and we will bring to the Kyoto Conference a strong American commitment to
realistic and binding limits that will significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases."
The Developing World
If you accept the premise that sustainable development is the end result of a long social and
political process, based in part on the building blocks I have identified, you can see why it has
been so difficult to achieve, especially in the developing world.
In many countries of the developing world, the essential building blocks are absent or not
well developed. In particular, achieving public access to information, public participation in
decision making, public release of information, and having a sound legal and enforcement regime
are all crucial steps.
For the U.S., sustainable development is not a threat to our economic development - in fact
quite the contrary. The same holds true for the developing world, where development or
environmental protection should not be seen as mutually exclusive.
Sustainable development means sound and intelligent resource management; it is
management-based on real public input to decision making; it is management with an historic
perspective and a future vision; and it is management where social and human resources are as
important as capital flow.
There is no question in my mind that technical assistance and financial aid from the U.S.
and other developed countries to developing countries is necessary to help support these
fundamental building blocks. Technical and financial assistance, properly spent to foster free
society, education, democratic processes and capacity building, will help developing countries
move more rapidly into a sustainable 21st century.
The Challenge
Today, we have two challenges. The first is to take occasions like this to foster thinking and
action on promoting sound economic and environmental policies for our local communities.
Atlanta is one of the great cities of the world. Will it be that way five or ten years from now. Will
the economy be strong and the air clean to breathe and water safe to drink and the land wisely
managed? Officials at local, city and state governments will decide. But they must also recognize
that short-term competition between governments at the local and national level is one of the great
barriers toward a more sustainable societies. It will only be through more emphasis on regional
cooperation that the complex challenges of economic growth, habitat protection, wise land use,
energy consumption, or transportation policy can be sustainably addressed.
Agenda 21 recognizes the important role of local governments:
"Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental
infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations,
and...as the level of government closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating,
mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development."
86
-------
The second challenge is global. The world really is interconnected in ways difficult to
imagine just a generation ago. We now appreciate that what occurs in northwest Russia will
invariably affect life in Alaska. Pollution from China is already detected in the Arctic circle and the
fuel we are burning today, here in Atlanta, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, or anywhere else
contributes to the overall warming of the global atmosphere.
The National Security Strategy of the United States (1966) makes clear the extent of the
future challenge.
"The environmental consequences of ill-designed economic growth are clear.
Environmental damage will ultimately block economic growth. Rapid urbanization is outstripping
the ability of nations to provide jobs, education and other services to new citizens. The continuing
poverty of a quarter of the world's people leads to hunger, malnutrition, economic migration and
political unrest. Widespread illiteracy and lack of technical skills hinder employment opportunities
and rive entire populations to support themselves on increasingly fragile and damaged resources
bases. New diseases, such as AIDS, and other epidemics which can be spread through
environmental degradation, threaten to overwhelm the health facilities of developing countries,
disrupt societies and stop economy growth. Developing countries must address these realities with
national sustainable development policies that offer viable alternatives. U.S. leadership is of the
essence to facilitate this process. If such alternatives are not developed, the consequences for the
planet's future will be grave indeed."
In this regard, I take the view that the U.S. has a special obligation as the largest economy
in the world and as a world leader to provide far more assistance that it currently does. I recognize
that this view is not shared by the U.S. Congress. But I believe that U.S. assistance is crucial to
foster a sustainable world.
87
-------
U.S. LEADERSHIP IN THE 21si CENTURY:
A VIEW FROM THE EPA
WILLIAM A NITZE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF BOSTON
OCTOBER 21,1997
Welcome
Thank you Joyce Shems. It's a pleasure and honor to be here as the last EPA speaker
wrapping-up a year-long speaking series launched last November between EPA the World Affairs
Council.
I want to congratulate the World Affairs Council for taking the initiative to raise the level of
public awareness of the seriousness of international environmental issues. Now, more than ever,
the public needs to be well informed and engaged if the United States is to deal effectively with the
very complex global environmental challenges that confront us all.
Introduction
Today, several major environmental issues dominate our newspapers and television and
radio broadcast. Global warming and climate change are hotly debated issues. An international
agreement to reduce greenhouse gases will be negotiated in Kyoto, Japan this December. Extensive
fires in southeast Asia due to agricultural burning have resulted in unprecedented smog and air
quality alerts throughout the region. U.S. assistance to Indonesia and Malaysia is underway. In
Washington, the Congress and the President are debating the form of additional international trade
agreements and how they should address environment and labor concerns. This is the so-called fast
track debate. Finally, last June, the UN General Assembly reviewed progress since the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992 on achieving sustainable development. Most observers of the UN special session
agreed that progress since 1992 on sustainable development has been minimal.
All of these situations present important environmental issues with significant potential
impacts on all Americans. EPA is directly involved in all of them.
Several other issues are also center stage, but their environmental aspects may not be so
apparent.
The President of China will visit Washington at the end of October for the first State visit
since Tiennanmen Square. This is an extremely important meeting. Our relations with China are
stressed because of human rights, nuclear proliferation and economic issues. President Jiang
Zemin's visit is a major event for the environment as well. In the next decades China will become
-------
the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. Since China relies on coal for 75 percent of their
energy, it is important to move Chinese energy policy toward clean coal production, more use of
natural gas and alternate energy sources and greater efficiency in the production and use of all
forms of energy. Meeting China's current and future energy needs is also a major investment
opportunity for U.S. industries.
Another important development with environmental implications is the increasing
importance of private capital flows relative to foreign direct assistance. Over the past five years,
there has been an unprecedented flow in private capital into emerging overseas markets. Foreign
investment in developing countries and countries with economies in transition is growing in nearly
all economic sectors, including energy and environmental services and technologies. China alone
receives nearly $30 billion per year in foreign investment compared with approximately $3 billion
in government-to-government assistance. Providing incentives for private investors tend to deploy
environmentally friendly technologies has therefore become more important than foreign aid per
se.
To most of you, EPA is a domestic regulatory agency. It may come as a surprise that we
have a large international role as well. Internationally, the EPA has three key responsibilities:
Protecting Health and Safety of U.S. Citizens
First, we are charged with protecting the health and safety of U.S. citizens from trans-
boundary and global environmental threats^ To achieve this goal, EPA has the lead on
U.S.-Mexico Border issues and has primary responsibility for implementing the environmental side
agreement to the NAFTA. Along the U.S./Mexico Border, EPA has been working with its federal,
state and local partners on both sides of the border to develop a five-year program called Border
XXI to address environmental and public health challenges facing communities in the border region
and to improve water-related infrastructure.
We are proud of the progress we have made in improving environmental conditions along
with the U.S./Mexico Border and in implementing the NAFTA Side Agreement. The Border
Environment Cooperation Commission has already certified 17 water infrastructure projects on both
sides of the border, a number of which have approved financing and several of which are under
construction. Border XXI has already led to better enforcement coordination, sharing of information
about hazardous materials crossing the border and measurement of public health impacts.
The North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, established under the
side agreement, has implemented a broad range of environmental cooperation projects,
successfully carried out its responsibility to respond to citizen complaints about failure to enforce
environmental laws, and made an initial round of grants to support sustainable development at the
community level.
At the same time, EPA is actively involved in global issues such as climate change,
protection of stratospheric zone and protection of world's oceans which have long-term impacts on
the U.S. Since the climate issue was first debated, EPA has been one of the key agencies in
undertaking technical studies, negotiating elements of the existing framework agreement and in
cooperating with developing countries in seeking ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA
was also the lead agency in identifying problem of stratospheric ozone depletion and working with
industries and governments to find substitutes to ozone-depleting chemicals.
89
-------
While EPA is predominately a domestic agency, nearly all of our statutory authorities
provide for international engagement, especially where such engagement is necessary to protect
health and safety of U.S. citizens.
Providing Technical Assistance to and
Cooperating with Foreign Countries
Our second international role is providing assistance to and cooperating with foreign
countries on domestic, trans-boundary and global issues.
EPA provides technical assistance to many countries in different parts of the world. We are
helping countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union develop regulatory systems that
create a demand for investment in environmental goods and services. EPA legal and technical
experts also are assisting developing countries to formulate appropriate environmental laws and
regulations and are demonstrating clean technologies and pollution prevention methods. These
activities create new opportunities for exports of U.S. environmental technologies. Over the past
year, the important role of EPA in enhancing the export of U.S. technologies has been recognized
by the Congress.
The EPA Regional Office in Boston has been one of our strongest allies in promoting the
export of U.S. services and technologies. We also have worked closely with the Environmental
Business Council of New England.
In Krakow, Poland, under the Krakow Air Monitoring Project, EPA cooperated with local
Polish environmental experts in the identification and quantification of the major nearby sources of
industrial, low-level residential and mobile emissions. An air monitoring network, containing
continuous air monitoring and meteorological instruments, was purchased and installed through
funding from the 1989 SEED Act. The network provides real-time assessments of the air quality and
its impact on population health in Krakow. As a result of this enhanced monitoring, several major
industries in the area were required to redesign their processes, install controls, or shut down.
Moreover, the current Krakow air monitoring network is a design and implementation prototype for
other cities in Poland and CEE. More recently, the focus of the air project in Krakow has expanded
from the initial large, stationary sources of pollution to the more elusive non-point and mobile
sources.
Another example of how EPA's technical assistance can promote U.S. exports is our work in
Thailand under the U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership. Residents of the Thai city Mae Moh
suffered from serious respiratory ailments after a coal-fired power plant was brought on line. The
Thai government asked for our assistance in dealing with this problem. Working with our Thai
counterparts over a period of nine months, EPA officials identified the major structural and
environmental health problems affecting the region. EPA's assessment identified short and long-
term as well as high and low-tech options for addressing these problems. Thailand was able to take
immediate steps to prevent the acute exposures occurring during the winter inversions as well as
steps to address chronic long-term exposures. As part of their response to EPA's Assessment, Thai
authorities subsequently purchased nearly $200 million in monitoring and pollution control
equipment from the United States.
EPA also seeks to benefit from the experience of other countries in developing new
approaches to environmental protection here in the U.S. A leading example of this reverse flow of
environmental expertise is the work related to the restoration of abandoned urban sites called
Brownfields.
90
-------
EPA's brownfields program is an effort to environmentally and economically revitalize the
nation's 500,000 contaminated urban properties. EPA is working to form partnerships between
'model' foreign brownfields practitioners - exclusively OECD member countries such as Canada,
the Netherlands, Germany and UK - and 'model' U.S. brownfields communities that are
confronting similar challenges. The intent is for the U.S. brownfields communities to share, and
ideally integrate, some of the 'systematic' and 'holistic' approaches commonly followed in their
foreign counterparts. These approaches could include long-term regional land use planning,
mixed-use urban zoning, transit-oriented design, urban growth zones, long-term investment in labor
re-training, eco-system protection, and interconnected greenspaces.
The choice of countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and the United
Kingdom is easy to understand. These countries possess dense populations, confined geographic
areas, and industrial and environmental legacies which have forced them to come up with
approaches that are just now being tested in the U.S.
But it also is the combination of their unique environmental and social systems, such as
Germany's technical training program for teenagers (which has already been implemented in the
state of Wisconsin), or Dutch landuse and urban planning (already studied by brownfields
practitioners in New York) that we want brownfields practitioners to study and absorb.
It never ceases to amaze me that in these very densely populated countries, there are very
seldom signs of sprawl and even fewer signs of urban blight so characteristic in cities within our
country. This is a result of good planning and the merger of environmental policies with spatial
development policies.
In November, with support from EPA, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the German Marshall Fund, approximately 20 brownfields practitioners from
New York will travel to Germany to study the International Building Exhibition Project 'Emscher
Park.'
Founded in 1989 within the framework of an international building exhibition, Emscher
Park is a 20-year regional plan created by the state government of North-Rhine Westphalia to
environmentally and economically revitalize the Ruhr industrial region. Seventeen cities of the
region (such as Duisburg, Essen, Bochum, Gladbeck, Gelsenkjrchen) are working together within
the framework of a regional planning body to harmonize regional environmental, landuse,
transportation, and economic development. Under five principal themes, over 100 projects have
been undertaken to environmentally and economically redevelop the Ruhr:
1) The Emscher Landscape Park - formed to protect and expand 200 square kilometers of
interconnected greenspace;
2) The Ecological Regeneration of the Emscher River System - developed to promote
construction and management of new sewage and wastewater plants as well as remove
concrete channels to permit the natural flow of surface waterbodies;
3) Working in the Park - a Trust Fund established to cleanup former industrial sites through
the promotion of joint ventures between public and private investors;
4) Housing Construction and Integrated Urban Development - 26 housing projects to reuse
vacant sites and create mixed-use urban areas accessible by foot or bike next to the high-
tech parks.
91
-------
5) New Uses for Industrial Buildings - the reconversion of 'industrial monuments' to
preserve the social and cultural history of the region.
Implementing U.S. Foreign Policy
Third, EPA has an important role in implementing U.S. foreign policy. This role is easiest to
understand in cases where pollution from other countries reached the U.S. or vice versa. The U.S.
has an active environmental diplomacy with our neighbors Mexico and Canada. The acid rain
issue, for example, remained a contentious issue in U.S.-Canada relations until the substantial
reductions in S02 emissions mandated by the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act brought U.S.
policy in line with Canada's.
Another example of direct diplomacy to deal with transboundary impacts is our cooperation
with other countries to limit the imports into the U.S. of CFCs banned under the Montreal Protocol.
A second type of environmental diplomacy involves harmonization of chemical testing,
registration, labeling and control regulations. EPA is almost continuously involved in discussions
on these topics within UNEP, the OECD and other international fora and in bilateral contacts with
our major trading partners.
These discussions are critical to minimizing potential trade barriers and protecting public
health and safety.
The third type of environmental diplomacy is assisting other countries on environmental
projects that may not directly effect the environmental or health conditions in the U.S., but serve
broader U.S. foreign policy interests ranging from supporting nuclear disarmament to strengthening
democratic institutions. It is this type of environmental diplomacy that is hardest to justify to the
public and the Congress.
Cooperation on the environment is often a means of bilateral exchange which in other areas
is stalled or impeded. For many years in the waning days of the Soviet Union, the only productive
U.S.-Russia bilateral exchange was on the environment. U.S. and China have had a bilateral
cooperation on environmental issues since the mid 1970's. In many parts of the world and at
many times, the State Department has looked to EPA for assistance. You may not know that under
the Middle East Peace Accord, there is even an environmental working group and EPA is involved.
Beyond strengthening bilateral relationships, our international work contributes to our
national security by directly reducing military related environmental threats. Working in
cooperation with the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and other agencies, we
have developed an environmental security initiative that is initially focussed on addressing the
environmental legacy of the cold war. The cornerstone of this initiative is our work in Northwest
Russia.
The former Soviet Union developed an extensive military industrial complex in the Russian
Northwest centered in the Murmansk Oblast. This complex relied on nuclear energy for generation
of electrical power (the Kola power plant), and the operation of nuclear powered icebreakers and
the nuclear fleet of the North Navy, both of which are stationed in the Murmansk region.
Unfortunately, the Soviet Union never developed the necessary radioactive waste management
infrastructure to support these operations. They relied instead on ocean dumping of low and high
level waste and or on otherwise unsafe ground land disposal in the North, thus creating a threat to
the Arctic environment.
92
-------
With the end of the Cold War and the START II Treaty, the Russian Federation inherited the
additional burden of handling the radioactive waste management problems associated with the
decommissioning and dismantlement of large numbers of the North Navy nuclear submarines. The
Russian Federation stopped dumping high level waste sea (which the Soviet Union had done in
violation of the London Convention to which it was a signatory), but continued to dump the low-
level liquid radioactive waste produced in the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. Although
the dumping of low level waste has since been banned under the London Convention, Russia
refused formally to adhere to the ban until it had alternate means for disposing of this waste.
EPA technical experts, working closely with Norway, found a way out of this dilemma. EPA
proposed that the only known existing plant in Russia capable of processing low-level liquid
radioactive waste be upgraded and expanded to handle the large volumes of liquid waste produced
in the submarine decommissioning process. Much to everyone's surprise, Russia liked the idea and
a cooperative project was developed involving the U.S., Russia and Norway. This project has now
become referred to as the Murmansk Project. It was the subject of a Summit statement by
President's Clinton and Yeltsin. Vice-President Core and Russian Minister Chernomyrdin regularly
receive reports on the status of the project within the framework of the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission. The Murmansk project, now nearing completion, has led to a parallel project
financed by the Japanese, to build a barge-mounted processing facility in the Russian Far East.
Our trilateral cooperation on managing radioactive waste in Northwest Russia has been
extended through the Arctic Military Cooperation Initiative (AMEC), which is led by the U.S.,
Norwegian and Russian defense ministers. An EPA designed project to develop a transportable
interim storage cask for military fuel became the first trilateral project approved by AMEC. These
casks, which will be manufactured in Russia, may also be used to store spent fuel from civilian
reactors. We are hopeful that this project will become the first foundation of a broader trilateral
initiative to improve radioactive waste management in Northwest Russia.
A Vision of the 21st Century
I am pleased by the contribution EPA has made in addressing international problems and
achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives. Like many other technical agencies, EPA quietly works in
the vineyard, crushing the grapes and preparing the wine from which diplomats drink. I have
personally played both roles-as a diplomat negotiating international environmental agreements
and as an EPA official responsible for turning agreements into real improvements on the ground.
Nevertheless, I am worried about the future. Achieving sustainable growth in the decades
ahead, and dealing with the environmental and social consequences of rapid industrialization in
developing countries, will require expanded international cooperation. Yet neither the public nor
the Congress appears willing to provide the resources necessary to make this cooperation a reality.
It is our hope that by continuing our dialogue with concerned citizens such as yourselves,
we can build support for the level of commitment required. One of the most exciting aspects of
being on American in the post-Cold War era is the unparalleled opportunity the U.S. has to change
the world for the better. This opportunity will not last forever and it would be a pity if we let is slip
between our fingers.
93
-------
-------
-------
------- |