http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r102:2:./temp/~r102Ceb2ih:e9559:
·
·
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Congressional Record > Search Results
Congressional Record
102nd Congress (1991-1992)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next
Hit Forward Next
Document New
CR Search
Prev
Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit
List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
EXPRESSING SENSE OF
CONGRESS THAT U.S. SHOULD DEVELOP NATIONAL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTING EARTH SUMMIT
AGREEMENTS (House of Representatives - October 02, 1992)
[Page: H10826]
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent
Resolution 353, expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States
should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at
the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro by developing a national strategy to
implement Agenda 21 and other Earth summit agreements through domestic policy and
foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate
further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and
participating in a high-level U.N. Sustainable Development Commission, as
amended.
The Brazil meeting of the U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development [UNCED], in June, marked global
concurrence on the need to better integrate environmental and developmental
activities, and presented a plan to achieve it. Some 175 countries gave their
approval to the comprehensive program of action known as Agenda 21 . The task now before nations is to
implement the precepts of that document, which will be a demanding, yet
necessary, endeavor if the world's development is to be viable and endure. Each
nation must do its part. The resolution now before the House, House Concurrent
Resolution 353, as amended, is an effort to get the U.S. process in gear.
At the outset I would like to commend my distinguished
colleague, the chief sponsor of the resolution, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi for
her leadership and interest in shaping this very significant measure. It has
been 4 months since the Rio summit, and it is very important that Congress show
its commitment to effective implementation of the UNCED
initiatives.
I also wish to commend the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, the Honorables Gus Yatron, and
Doug Bereuter for their support in expediting consideration of this
measure, and their continuing efforts on behalf of environment and development.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 353, as amended,
highlights congressional sentiments on behalf of achieving the UNCED objective of environmentally sustainable development.
It recognizes that the ultimate success of UNCED is
dependent on actions taken at all levels: international, national, state,
local, public, private, and individual. Specifically, it calls for the following:
A national strategy, based on countrywide consultations with a
broad diversity of interests, and with efforts to engage all sectors, and
levels in the process.
A Presidential plan for coordinating U.S. policy to implement agenda 21 ;
Formulation of domestic and foreign policies, including foreign
aid, to implement agenda 21 ;
Research on sustainable consumption and production patterns,
creation of an appropriate policy framework, and a strategy to cut subsidies
which promote degradation of the resource base;
A Congressional plan to reallocate defense savings to
environmentally sustainable development;
Active U.S. support at the U.N. General Assembly for the
Sustainable Development Commission, including provisions for meaningful
participation by other U.N. entities, international financial institutions, and
NGO's;
Presidential affirmation of a strong U.S. commitment to the
Commission by appointing a high-level American to that body, and by encouraging
the U.N. Secretary General to appoint an Under Secretary General for
Sustainable Development to coordinate and implement Agenda 21 ;
Submission of a national report, by the President, on U.S.
domestic and international activities, to implement agenda 21 , fulfill other
UNCED initiatives, and encourage other nations to
also submit national reports; and
An annual report to Congress on measures to implement agenda 21 , and the recommendations of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution
353, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor
of the resolution, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], to
explain the resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fascell,
Mr. Broomfield, Mr. Yatron, Mr. Bereuter,
and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, are to be commended for their
efforts to expedite consideration of this legislation.
The Earth Summit Environmental Leadership Act,
presents us with the opportunity to follow up on the important work of the
Earth summit to develop its blueprint--agenda
21 --for global environmental action.
House Concurrent Resolution 353 outlines a comprehensive
national strategy for sustainable development, in accordance with the
principles of agenda 21 , to be coordinated under the
leadership of a specific office and the direction of a high-level government
official.
The resolution also urges the United States to identify and
initiate further agreements to protect the global environment and to support
the creation of a high-level U.N. Sustainable Development Commission headed by
an Undersecretary General. The President is urged to report to Congress on the
progress of these steps.
House Concurrent Resolution 353 is supported by the
administration. I have been in contact with the appropriate offices of the
State Department and have incorporated their suggestions in the resolution. The
71 cosponsors of this measure include one-half the members of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and all of the House delegates to the Earth summit. It is also
supported by the major United States' nongovernmental organizations.
The Earth summit presented world leaders with an opportunity
that should not be lost. We must now embark on a new course that will sustain
our planet and its resources for the benefit of future generations. This
resolution calls on the United States to assert its leadership to achieve this
goal.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Thank you,
again, to Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for their recognition of
the importance and timeliness of this resolution.
We must make the promise of Rio a reality.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BROOMFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, which
expresses the sense of Congress with respect to implementing the decisions of
the recent U.N. Conference on Environment and Development.
I wish to commend the gentlelady from
California, Congresswoman Pelosi, for her sponsorship of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, despite all the criticism of administration policy
toward the Earth summit, the fact is that the U.S. Government made a very
constructive contribution in Rio and in the talks that led up to the meeting in
Rio.
Largely as a result, the conference adopted four major items:
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; the lengthy action plan
referred to as Agenda 21 ; the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change; and nonbinding but authoritative principles for the management
and conservation of forest resources.
In addition, the conference adopted the U.N. Biodiversity
Convention, which the administration decided not to join at this time. This was
due to concerns about intellectual property and also the decision making and
funding mechanism.
The administration has already made a good beginning in
implementing the results of the conference:
During the talks on climate, the administration pledged $75
million for related projects in developing countries including the development
of national plans;
The President announced that the United States would have our
own national plan on climate ready by the end of the year in order to start
international consultations in January 1993.
The President announced a forests for
the future initiative to double worldwide forestry assistance, beginning with a
$150 million additional U.S. contribution.
The administration is preparing for consideration by the U.N.
General Assembly of establishment of the Sustainable Development Commission
called for in Rio, and is working on an interagency basis to formulate further
plans to implement the other recommendations of the conference.
The good start made by the administration shows that the United
States is serious about international cooperation to address global environmental
problems. The resolution before us calls for similar measures to implement the
recommendations of the Rio conference.
The State Department supports the provisions of this resolution,
which are fully consistent with U.S. policy toward implementing the results of
the Earth summit. Ms. Pelosi should be further commended for her
cooperative attitude on the issues that were raised by the Department at an
earlier stage in the consideration of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I was appointed to the Earth summit observer
delegation. Although I did not actually attend the Conference, I followed the
proceedings in other ways.
Recently I had the opportunity to contribute an article on these
matters to a magazine called Michigan International Lawyer. I include this
summary of my views for inclusion in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
[Page: H10827]
`IT STARTED IN RIO':
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AFTER THE EARTH SUMMIT
BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAMS
S. BROOMFIELD
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or `Earth Summit,' which took place in Rio de
Janeiro during June, will undoubtedly be remembered as a milestone in
international environmental law and politics. Whether or not the agreements
reached in Rio mark the trail toward real solutions for global environmental
problems, the negotiations will serve as a benchmark for future international
relations on the subject of the environment.
As will be familiar to anyone who followed press reports of the
conference, the Earth Summit was characterized by a variety of disagreements
among the industrialized countries (the `North'), and between them and the
poorer countries (the `South'), concerning responsibility for global
environmental problems and how to address them. Despite traditional U.S.
leadership in the environmental area, the governments of many other
countries--not to mention environmental activists and the press--were highly
critical of U.S. policies and positions.
UNCED had an ambitious agenda , including several major documents discussed
below. Throughout these complex negotiations, however, a small group of issues
were at the core of discussion: whether the advanced industrial countries
should adopt specific `targets and timetables' for reducing pollution, especially
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that contribute to potential
global climate warming; whether developing countries should expect `new and
additional' financial resources from the North as the price of taking action
for the environment; and whether the South should obtain technology on
`preferential and noncommercial' terms.
Thus, the Earth Summit came to be at least as much about
development as environment. Apart from steps by the industrialized countries to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the primary
issues concerned demands by the South for money and technology. How is it that
these issues, which are related to earlier calls for a `New International
Economic Order,' came to the forefront at UNCED?
The pattern was actually set when concern over the discovery of
the hole in the stratospheric ozone over the Antarctic in the late 1970's
quickly led to a series of international actions. After it was discovered that
depletion of stratospheric ozone is primarily caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) and certain other industrial chemicals, the
international community reacted by adopting the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and then successive agreements, including the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which provide for
a phase-out of CFC's and other ozone-depleting
chemicals.
It soon became obvious to the poorer countries that they had new
leverage over the North as a result of emerging concerns about the global
environment. While production and use of CFC's and
other ozone-destroying chemicals overwhelmingly take place in Industrialized nations, a solution to this problem has to be
worldwide. Not only is it necessary to phase out CFC's
and similar chemicals everywhere, but economic growth in the developing
countries would otherwise actually lead to a proliferation of these chemicals.
The nations of the South realized that they could demand compensation as the
price of agreeing to cooperate in protecting the global environment. In the case
of the Montreal Protocol, they were successfully able to demand that the richer
countries make good the incremental costs of substituting for CFC's and similar substances as well as the refrigeration
and other equipment in which they are used.
Aside from the fact that 1992 is the twentieth anniversary year
of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, the idea of holding a new
world conference was given impetus by increasing world concern about several
other environmental problems of global significance. These included potential climate change (global
warming) as a result of increasing GHG levels;
the loss of biological diversity (`biodiversity') around the world, especially
as a result of deforestation and other threats to wildlife habitat; and a
general loss of productive potential, especially in the South, resulting from
the expansion of human settlements and overexploitation of renewable resources
such as forests and soils.
The outcome of the various negotiations which culminated in Rio
was not wholly satisfactory to any party of interest. While public failure was
averted, most participants went away at least partially disappointed.
Nevertheless, the renewed attention to international environmental concerns
that resulted from the conference and the acceptance of certain principals and
commitments there may contribute to the resolution of global environmental
issues in the future. To understand the results of the conference, however, it
is necessary to look at the five key items under discussion:
(1) CONFERENCE
DECLARATION
The parties agreed to a broad set of principles known as the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development. The North, including the United
States, had sought a more concise and inspirational document, or `Earth Charter',
that would help raise public consciousness about the importance of
environmental protection. But the South insisted on recognition of several
points, including national sovereignty over natural resources and a `right to
development.' Ultimately,
the North agreed, and even accepted an acknowledgment of responsibility for
current global environmental problems. Even so, the most the South would
agree to in terms of environmental protection is that all nations are `common
but differentiated responsibilities.'
(2) AGENDA 21
This several-hundred page document is supposed to serve as a
guide for action into the 21st century. In addition to numerous chapters on
specific issues, it also contains key language on financial commitments and new
institutions. Implementing the various actions contained in Agenda 21
would take $125 billion or
more in external support, but clearly many if not most of them cannot be
addressed without major private sector involvement. About half the necessary
funds would be made available if the richer countries met the target of 0.7% of
gross national product previously established by the U.N. General Assembly for
foreign aid; the rest would have to come from additional contributions. The
United States went along with these statements, but only after noting that it
had never agreed to the 0.7% level in the first place and that the new and
additional resources required for the remainder would have to include voluntary
government contributions as well as private efforts.
On institutions, the United States was largely successful in
preventing duplication of effort by obtaining agreement to assign oversight
responsibilities to a new committee of the existing U.N. Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC). One of the more interesting developments at UNCED, however, was the creation of a Sustainable
Development Commission, which will provide a forum for debate on related
issues, with input from non-governmental organizations (NGO's).
Due to concerns of the richer countries, financial administration of additional
environmental projects will be through an expanded Global Environment Facility
(GEF) in the World Bank, for which new management
arrangements will be worked out.
(3) CLIMATE CHANGE
Prior to the Rio meeting itself, the best-known item under
discussion was the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The U.S.
Administration was roundly criticized by other industrialized countries,
particularly in the European Community, as well as environmentalists, for its
refusal to agree to targets and timetables for the reduction of GHG emissions, particularly the proposed stabilization of
CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Administration was also
criticized by developing countries, as well as others, for its reluctance to
make commitments on providing new and additional financial resources or
transferring technology.
The Bush Administration was ultimately successful in preventing
inclusion of a specific pledge on CO2 emissions, although it did agree to the
goal of reducing overall GHG emissions to 1990
levels. The Administration succeeded in obtaining provisions requiring submission of national
plans describing measures to respond to potential global climate change. The
Administration also agreed to provide new financial resources, but on a
voluntary basis; at the last meeting of the International Negotiating
Committee, the Administration announced a $75 million package of assistance for
developing countries, including a $50 million contribution to the GEF and $25 million over two years to assist in the
development of national plans.
The Bush Administration was subjected to unrelenting criticism
by European officials, environmentalists, certain members of Congress and
others for its refusal to accept a CO2 stabilization requirement as part of the
Framework Convention. Aside
from the fact that greenhouse warming still has not been scientifically
detected, however, the Administration has other points in its favor:
First, the other nations urging adoption of such a requirement
had no concrete plans to meet it and were in fact relying on a variety of
schemes that were either questionable or self-interested. Japan was basing its
projections on an unsustainable expansion of nuclear power capacity; France had
similar plans and also hoped to increase electricity exports from its nuclear
plants; Germany would probably rely on the elimination of subsidies to coal
miners.
Second, U.S.
emissions of CO2 and other GHG's will probably
stabilize at or around 1990 levels in any event. This was documented
during the negotiations and is to be demonstrated in the U.S. national plan to
be submitted pursuant to the Convention. Adopting a binding commitment,
however, could have unforeseeable effects on the economy. If the Administration
had agreed to make CO2 stabilization a legal requirement, Congress was poised
to enact it into law without even specifying how to achieve it.
Third, it is important to recall the way the international
community responded to the threat to the ozone layer--a much more immediate,
well-documented, and specific environmental threat. Agreement was initially
reached on general principles through the Vienna Convention; only after these
were specific requirements adopted through the Montreal Protocol and other
agreements. Similarly, through adoption of the Framework Convention, the
nations of the world have not only accepted general obligations of climate for
the first time, but also have put in motion a process for responding to
emerging developments on climate.
[Page: H10828]
Free counters provided by Andale