World Student Community for Sustainable Development

A Cursory Review of the Philippines’ Multilateral Participation and Environmental Performance

by Kristoffer Berse

This article attempts to paint a general picture of the Philippinesâ€^TM environmental performance in relation to its involvement in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). It concludes that while the country has done considerable efforts in building institutional and legislative mechanisms to fulfill its commitments, it has been hampered by “institutional disconnections†in translating the principles of sustainable development into concrete actions as reflected in its continuing environmental degradation. For multilateralism to be more effective, a new paradigm is needed especially in re-framing the issue of poverty in the current discourse on sustainability.

Introduction

One of the biggest threats of the 21st century is that of environmental degradation . The past 150 years or so of rapid industrial development have left humanity with a degraded ecosystem where the threat to life is no longer confined to a particular set of species in a specific region over a certain period of time. Today, we bear witness to pervasive and accelerating climatic changes at a global scale which has resulted in various forms of suffering and tragedies across all living organisms.

The severity of our environmental misery has already attracted the attention of governments worldwide in as early as the first half of the 20th century. To date, over 400 intergovernmental treaties directly and indirectly related to the environment have been signed in the hope of mitigating the possible harmful impacts of environmental destruction on mankind. These multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) paved the way for the adoption of both binding and non-binding agreements among countries, as well the establishment of several international organizations involved in development issues .

Initially, most of these multilateral treaties tried to address various environmental issues sectorally. It was only in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), held in Stockholm in 1972, when the issue of the environment was linked to the issue of poverty. Since then, the United Nations General Assembly has made it a practice to convene a high-level intergovernmental meeting every ten years to take stock of what has been achieved in international cooperation on the twin fields of environment and economic development (Pallemaerts, 2003). And so we had the Stockholm+10 Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in 1982; the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and just recently the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2002. In between these periods, several preparatory meetings, consultations, workshops and conferences were conducted at the regional and subregional levels where certain agreements were reached upon, albeit not without serious opposition from some countries.

At any rate, the big question now is: Does multilateralism really work in addressing our environmental woes? In particular, how does it address the issue of sustainability? Has it been effective in halting or at least slowing down the destructive processes in the poor and vulnerable parts of the world? Does participation in multilateral treaties correspond to policy performance and political actions?

This paper will attempt to answer the above questions through a cursory review of the Philippinesâ€^TMs multilateral participation and environmental performance. To do this, we will first outline the countryâ€^TMs record in multilateral intergovernmental conventions. Then we will try to assess the countryâ€^TMs performance in terms of the institutional mechanisms, laws and policies that has developed as result of these multilateral agreements on one hand, and the current state of its natural environment on the other. Where appropriate and necessary, we will compare the Philippinesâ€^TM experience with that of other low and middle income countries.

The Philippinesâ€^TM Track Record

The Philippines has always been active in international discussion of important environmental issues, from the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago) in 1944 to the Convention on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Washington) in 1968, all the way to the biggest summit ever organized by the UN, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. The present 1987 Constitution mandates, as a policy of the State, the protection and advancement of the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecosystem in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Not surprisingly, the country is a party to 69 multilateral treaties related to the environment and a signatory to 21 others to date. That amounts to almost 20 percent (90 out of 462) of all the agreements entered into by governments worldwide since 1900. So far it has only denounced two treaties, namely, the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling held in 1946 and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea in 1960.

A cursory review of these treaties reveals that most deal with energy use and hazardous wastes (30 percent). These treaties tackle the problem of waste in general, hazardous substances, radiation, noise and renewable and non-renewable energy usage and conservation. There are also a substantial number of treaties pertinent to the usage, conservation and management of the earthâ€^TMs bodies of water (18 percent) and biodiversity (14 percent). The legal and institutional treaties (11 percent) refer to those agreements which laid down the foundation of international organizations that directly or indirectly address environmental issues. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1. Classification of MEAs Signed and/or Ratified by the Philippines [1]

Two of the most recent and highly-debated treaties ratified by the Philippine Government are the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) and the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (1997). Other major multilateral agreements entered into by the Philippines for the last few decades are the International Convention to Combat Desertification (1994), the Convention on Biodiversity (1992), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) and the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). (See Table 1)

Table 1. Major and Recent MEAs Ratified by the Philippines [2]
Title of Treaty Place Year
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Cartagena, Colombia 2000
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto, Japan 1997
Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon – Free Zone Bangkok, Thailand 1995
International Convention to Combat Desertification Paris, France 1994
Convention on Biological Diversity Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal Basel, Switzerland 1989
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Montreal, Canada 1987
ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1985
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Vienna, Austria 1985
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Montego Bay, Jamaica 1982
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Paris, France 1972

The Philippinesâ€^TM Environmental Performance

In the light of the foregoing, what has the Philippines done to fulfill its commitments to these plethora of agreements? We will answer this question in terms of the following: (1) institutional support, (2) legislative outputs and policy pronouncements and (3) current environmental conditions.

Institutional Support

At the institutional level, the Philippines is among the first to have acted on its commitments to the UNCED. On September 15, 1992, barely three months after the Earth Summit in Rio (or UNCED), then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 15 establishing the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) “to ensure that the commitments made at Rio de Janeiro, and the implications of the Earth Summit to the Philippines are implemented, periodically monitored and coordinated, at the global level….” (Ramos 2002). The PCSD is supposed “to provide the mechanism for attaining the principles of sustainable development and assure its integration in Philippine national policies, plans and programs.†Among its core functions are (1) to monitor and facilitate the implementation of Earth Summit commitments in the country, (2) operationalize sustainable development principles, and (3) coordinate with the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) and mobilize international assistance and cooperation for sustainable development (PCSD 1997).

The PCSD is unique in the sense that unlike its counterparts in other countries, its Council membership is dominated by representatives from the non-government, labor and business sectors. As a coordinating body, it involves other government agencies such as the National Economic Development Agency, the countryâ€^TMs national planning unit, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Agrarian Reform and Department of Transportation and Communication (PCSD n.d.).

One of the major accomplishments of the PCSD was the formulation of the Philippine Agenda 21 in 1996 which formalized the integration of sustainable development principles in the national planning process. Indeed, the current Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) for 2001-2004 puts it explicitly that the country “will honor its international commitments made at the Rio Summit on Sustainable Development….†(NEDA 2001). The PCSD has also conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment of the MTPDP for 1999-2004 and developed a list of sustainable development indicators for the Philippines (PCSD n.d.).

Another key accomplishment of the PCSD is the strengthening and localization of the multistakeholder process through the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 47 in January 1999 which directed local government units (LGUs) to formulate and implement their Sustainable Integrated Area Development (SIAD) Plan or Local Agenda 21, and mandated the PCSD, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other concerned government units to assist LGUs in formulating these plans. To date, there are 22 Local Councils for Sustainable Development (LCSD) throughout the country, 12 of which are at the regional level, seven at the provincial level and three at the city level. These LCSDs are the ones responsible for the formulation of their respective Local Agenda 21 (PCSD n.d.).

Nevertheless, while the PCSD might have made some good strides in localizing the concept of sustainable development, it somehow failed to concretize many of the relevant issues that have preoccupied environment-oriented groups in recent years. For one, it has been criticized for not having a strong and unified stance on vital issues, hence its presence in the policymaking arena has been perceived to be virtually irrelevant (Isberto 1998).

Legislative Outputs and Policy Pronouncements

In assessing the commitment of the government, it is also important to look at its legislative output with regards to environmental issues. Here, we evaluate it in terms of the type of national legislations passed by Congress and of policy pronouncements made at the executive level. A cursory look into this area may indicate the priorities of the countryâ€^TMs policy-making institutions and reflect the level of understanding of policymakers concerning environmental problems.

One of the first national laws on the environment promulgated in the Philippines was a decree passed by the Philippine Commission in 1929 prohibiting the cutting of certain trees. Since then, over 40 legislations have been ratified ranging from the conservation and protection of national parks and certain species to the prophylactics of pollution control and other ecological mitigation measures (See Table 2).

Table 2 shows that most of the laws passed by Congress from 1929 to 2002 have something to do with the problem of biodiversity. At the onset, this is a good sign especially since the country is experiencing an accelerated extinction of its flora and fauna, but on the other hand, it also shows the relative narrowness of vision of our national legislators. This certain bias for biodiversity issues in the legislative debate may lead to the oversight of equally important issues like global warming and hazardous wastes. It must be noted however that in recent years, the debate on air pollution and waste disposal in relation to the passage of the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 and Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000 respectively, have attracted considerable attention from the media and civil society and subsequently generated serious discussions among various sectors.

Table 2. Environmental Legislation in the Philippines [3]
General Description Year Area of Concern
Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act 2002 Biodiversity
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act 2001 Biodiversity
National Caves and Cave Resources Management and Protection Act 2001 Biodiversity
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act 2000 Waste
Philippine Clean Air Act 1999 Air
Animal Welfare Act 1998 Biodiversity
Philippine Fisheries Code 1998 Water/Biodiversity
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997 Biodiversity
Agriculture & Fisheries Modernization Act 1997 Land / Water
The Water Crisis Act 1995 Water
High-Value Crops Development Act 1995 Biodiversity
Philippine Mining Act 1995 Land
Guidelines on Biological & Genetic Resources 1995 Biodiversity
Coconut Preservation Act 1995 Biodiversity
Seed Industry Development Act 1992 Biodiversity
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act 1992 Biodiversity
Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act 1992 Environment — General
Subic Watershed Forest Reserve Law 1992 Biodiversity
People’s Small-Scale Mining Act 1991 Land
Toxic Substances & Hazardous & Nuclear Wastes Control Act 1990 Waste
Withdrawal of Lead in Gasoline 1985 Air
Small-Scale Mining Law 1984 Land
Environmental Impact Statement System – Areas/Types of Projects 1981 Environment — General
An Act Prohibiting the Catching, Selling, Offering to Sell, Purchasing any of the Fish Species Called “Gobiidae” or “Ipon” 1980 Biodiversity
Task Force Pawikan 1979 Biodiversity
Environmental Impact Statement System 1978 Environment — General
Plant Quarantine Law 1978 Biodiversity
Philippine Environment Code 1977 Environment — General
Philippine Environmental Policy 1977 Environment — General
The Coral Resources Development & Conservation Decree 1977 Biodiversity
The Water Code of the Philippines 1976 Water
Marine Pollution Decree 1976 Water
Philippine Fisheries Code 1975 Water/Biodiversity
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines 1975 Land/Biodiversity
Penalty for Improper Garbage Disposal 1975 Waste
Code on Sanitation of the Philippines 1975 Waste
Revised Coast Guard Law 1974 Water
Regulations for the Conservation of Marine Turtles 1974 Biodiversity
Lanao del Sur National Parks 1965 Biodiversity/Land
National Water & Air Pollution Control Commission Act 1964 Water
Prohibition Against Cutting of Trees in Public Roads, Plazas, etc. 1963 Biodiversity
Quezon National Park 1934 Biodiversity/Land
An Act to Reserve to the Philippine Legislature the Disposition of the Waters of the Public Domain for the Utilization and Development of Hydraulic Power. 1933 Water
The Fisheries Act 1932 Water/Biodiversity
An Act to Protect Wild Flowers and Plants in the Philippine Islands and to Prescribe Conditions Under Which They May be Collected, Kept, Sold, Exported, and for Other Purposes. 1932 Biodiversity
Prohibition Against Cutting of Tindalo, Akli & Molave Trees 1929 Biodiversity

Meanwhile, aside from the mentioned issuances of the Office of the President concerning the PCSD, another noteworthy achievement of the executive branch was the adoption of the Philippine Economic, Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting (PEENRA) system through Executive Order No. 406. The Environmental Impact Statement (IES) system was also strengthened with the promulgation of Executive Order No. 291 which integrated the EIS into the project development cycle (Isberto 1998).

The State of the Environment Indubitably, the most important indicator for environmental performance is the actual state of the environment. It is the logical outcome of the governmentâ€^TMs efforts and commitments to the various MEAs that it has ratified through the years. In a sense, it is a reflection of how all its institutional mechanisms and legislative measures have been translated into concrete political actions.

A quick look at the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Philippines after UNCED reveals the same increasing scenario as during the pre-UNCED period. Table 3 below shows that the amount of total CO2 emissions has in fact increased by about 50 per cent for the period, 1992-1998. The amount of CO2 emissions per capita, which is also sometimes referred to as the carbon lifestyle efficiency, has also increased by 25 per cent in a span of five years. The same is true for the CO2 emission per million $GDP, also called as carbon economic efficiency, with an increase of 22 percent from 759.3 thousand metric tons in 1990 to 925.4 in 1995. (See Table 3)

Table 3. CO2 Emissions in the PhilippinesIn thousand metric tons [4]
CO2 (total) - CO2 per capita - CO2 per million $GDP -
1992 1998 1990 1995 1990 1995
50,433.9 75,987.7 0.8 1.0 759.3 925.4

Moreover, the emissions of other GHGs have likewise increased for the period, 1990-1995. Carbon monoxide increased by 1.5 percent; sulfur dioxide, 2.3 percent; nitrogen oxide, 19 percent; and non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOC), 5 percent. Non-methane VOCs, which usually come from housekeeping and maintenance products, cars, and building and furnishing materials, such as solvents, paints, and glues, are known to be precursors to ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems (See Table 4).

Table 4. Other GHG Emissions in the PhilippinesIn thousand metric tons [5]
Carbon monoxide - Sulfur dioxide - Nitrogen oxide - Non-methane VOC -
1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995 1990 1995
7,619.5 7,731.8 619.0 633.5 392.0 466.3 965.2 1,013.6

Meanwhile, the Philippines continues to lose its forests, with an average annual change of -1.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. As of 2003, the percentage of its protected areas over the total land area only stands at 7.8 (FAO 2001).

Institutional Disconnections and Sustainability The Philippinesâ€^TM current environmental outlook does not speak well of its commitment to a plethora of multilateral agreements on the environment. While it has done considerable efforts in building institutional mechanisms for the implementation of its national and local Agenda 21, there seems to be an “institutional disconnection†in substantiating and actually translating the principles of sustainable development into concrete actions.

Certainly, the Philippines is not lacking in legislation to at least slow down the process of its environmental degradation. The problem however lies in the implementation of these laws to the letter. The PCSD, the main agency tasked to monitor the countryâ€^TMs progress after Rio, attributes its inadequacies to its limited resources and capabilities, financial and otherwise (PCSD n.d.).

But more importantly, the inability of the PCSD to act and make its presence felt in the discussion on vital policy issues has been blamed on its own organizational setup which relies heavily on multi-stakeholder consultation and consensus-building. Its emphasis on process over results has reportedly been the source of frustration on the part of NGOs and peoplesâ€^TM organizations (Isberto, 1998).

The same is true at the high-level intergovernmental discussions on the environment where key decisions and breakthroughs are usually hard-earned, if at all. For instance, the road to the Kyoto Protocol has been severely hampered by the actions, or more appropriately non-action, of what one author called as the “coalition of the unwilling†in reference to the United States and Australia. Pallemaerts (2003) noted that these “unwilling†parties have effectively prevented the development of meaningful multilateral agreements with concrete time-bound political commitments to make the provisions of Agenda 21 a reality.

Is multilateralism a failure then? At any rate, multilateral treaties and intergovernmental conventions have arguably been very effective in elevating local and regional environmental issues into a global debate. At the very least, international conventions increase the awareness of top level government officials on critical issues and provide the proper venue for forging significant cooperative alliances and partnerships.

However, if we are to measure its effectiveness according to the worldâ€^TMs present environmental conditions, then that would be a sad story. It was generally agreed during the WSSD in Johannseburg that while Agenda 21 served as a reliable and sound blueprint for implementing sustainable development, “its practical implementation fell far short of what was needed and agreed in Rio ten years ago†(Hens and Nath, 2003). Our over thirty years of negotiating and planning for and on behalf of the environment since UNCHE have not really stopped us from our destructive ways of living. On the contrary, most indicators show that the worldâ€^TMs environmental quality and sustainability have deteriorated even further (Glasby, 2002; Hens and Nath, 2003).

A cursory look at the relation between multilateral participation and environmental performance of selected low and middle income countries reveals that there is no relevant correlation between the two. Surprisingly, countries with higher participation in MEAs like the Philippines and Mexico score lower in the Sustainable Development Index (SDI) developed by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network of Columbia University. The Philippines in particular is ranked 116th with an SDI of 41.6, in spite of its high level of participation in international, intergovernmental agreements pertinent to the environment.

Table 5. Multilateral Participation, Sustainability and Economic Growth
Country Total MEAs SDI (2002) SDI (2001) GDP (2002) Real growth rate
Philippines 90 116 (41.6) 112 4.6
Malaysia 75 68 (49.5) 52 4.2
Thailand 65 54 (51.6) 74 5.2
Indonesia 77 100 (45.1) 86 3.5
Mexico 114 92 (45.9) 73 1.0
Turkey 101 62 (50.8) 70 7.80
Brazil 113 20 (59.6) 28 1.0
Kenya 77 89 (46.3) 82 0.80
Bangladesh 58 86 (46.9) 99 4.4
South Africa 98 77 (48.7) 45 3.0

Table 5 also shows no significant relationship between economic growth and sustainability. On the contrary, in the case of Brazil, it even ranked higher in SDI (rank 20) despite its unimpressive GDP growth rate of 1.0 percent. Moreover, it can be seen that most countries actually slid down to lower rankings from 2001 to 2002. For instance, the Philippines dropped 4 notches down from 112th to 116th; Malaysia, 52nd to 68th; Indonesia, 86th to 100th; Mexico, 73rd to 92nd; Kenya, 82nd to 89th; and South Africa, 45th to 77th. (See Table 5)

The dismal record of implementation of MEAs could be due to the fact that most of these treaties are non-binding in nature. Because of the non-binding clause in most multilateral treaties on the environment, there is no strong pressure for governments to really live up to its commitments and meet the targets stipulated in the agreements. Rioâ€^TMs Agenda 21, for instance, also comes with the highly-controversial “Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all Types of Forests.†Apparently, unlike in multilateral agreements pertinent to the global economy such as the ones administered under the World Trade Organization, it seems that to reach a global consensus for environmental issues is to make that agreement non-legally binding. This is unfortunate because if really want to make things work for the environment fast and soon, then appropriate and just mechanisms to impose sanctions on both non-committing and non-performing parties must be put in place.

Another technical hindrance to the full implementation of MEAs is the overlap and conflict between and among multilateral agreements. This “institutional overlaps†could lead to the duplication of efforts, or worse, defeat the objectives of other agreements or legal regimes (UNU 2002). A famous example is the conflict between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. The former identifies hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), whereas the latter considers HFCs as one of the greenhouse gases affecting climate change. To resolve this problem, better management and coordination of MEAs are necessarily called for. To this end, the Inter-linkages Initiative of the United Nations University now talks about “creating synergies and coordination†across disciplines, regions and other relevant clusters.

The need for a new paradigm Obviously, to fully implement the multilateral treaties and make these effective in restoring the earthâ€^TMs ecological balance to its pre-industrial level require more than just the establishment of national bodies to take the lead, as in the case of the Philippines. These bodies have to be provided with enough resources and capabilities to have teeth and at least make a dent in the policymaking arena. But more than that, it should be equipped with a political will that do not ebb and wane with the change of political leadership.

Finding specific ways to ameliorate the incapability of governments to effectively implement sustainable development programs and projects due to its inherent bureaucratic weaknesses is beyond the scope of this paper. Arguably, multilateralism still plays an important role in forging international initiatives to stop the earthâ€^TMs further degradation and destruction. Environmental problems are classic “problems of the common†hence it must be addressed internationally not just by governments from both North and South, but also by non-governmental actors like NGOs and the business sector.

The prospect of WSSDâ€^TMs Type II partnerships As suggested by Pallemaerts (2003), the “Type II†outcomes of the WSSD are a positive note towards this end. While this is nothing new and its success has yet to be seen, the legitimization of the role of these groups in intergovernmental processes may have relevant impacts on the outcome of multilateral environmental initiatives. The importance of this new type of partnership was described in the first regional roundtable of “eminent persons†organized by the WSSD Secretariat in 2001, in the following words:

“In an increasingly globalized world, new partnerships are critical between governments, NGOs, trade unions and the private sector. The role of states and their institutions will become less and less irrelevant. Adequate engagement of stakeholders will lead to the most constructive results†[6]

Re-framing the role of poverty Ultimately, the key to achieving long-lasting sustainability is to change the semantics of MEAs that tend to legitimize the current process of liberalization and trade-led globalization as the way to go to develop and blame poverty as, in the words of Indira Gandhi, “the biggest polluter of the environment†(as cited in Hens and Nath, 2003). It must be noted at this point that the worldâ€^TMs heaviestpolluters are notthe so-called developingcountries. A quicklookatthe Kyoto Protocol clearly acknowledges the fact the heaviest emitters of GHG are those parties that belong to the Annex I group, which is largely composed of highly industrialized countries from Europe and America. The argument that poverty is the main cause of our environmentalwoes,whichisunfortunately common in most discussions on sustainable development (Malabed 2000;Durraiappah1998), also tends to miss the fact that environmental problems like deforestation in most poor countriesare largely related to the current global capitalist structure. In Ecuador, for example, the Amazon forest is being cleared for the extraction of petroleum by US companies,while Brazil exports 50 percent of its mahogany to U.K (Alpay 2002). Thus, a careful analysis of the so-called environment-poverty nexus is extremely necessary in multilateral conventions, lest we end up barking at the wrong tree for years.

There is sufficient scientific evidence supporting the point that the most destructive force impacting the environment is not the activities of the destitute, marginalized people, but rather the highly resource-extractive nature of the current economic models anchored on heavy industrialization and trade liberalization (Glasby 2002). Sadly however, this has been overlooked, intentionally or otherwise, in most MEAs and documents pertaining to sustainable development. It seems that save for some like the Kyoto Protocol, the current high-level discussions on the environment tend to pin down the problem on a much-abused scapegoat which is economic poverty, while the role of industrialization processes in the destruction of the environment is put on the sideline and taken for granted. As Palleamerts (1996, 2003) has observed, current multilateral agreements including even the Rio and Johannesburg Declarations simply legitimized and fortified the place of extensive industrialization and trade liberalization in sustainability discussions. This kind of thinking may simply lead us into curing only the symptoms of our environmental problems instead of addressing the real cause, as is the case now.

Hence, we must understand that our environmental woes are not primarily caused by poverty or lack of economic development. We often miss the point that the most serious environmental problems that we face today such as global warming are caused by highly industrialized countries either by emitting harmful substances in the biosphere or by extracting resources that often include the resources of other countries heavily dependent on raw material exportation.

The human impact on the environment is a function of development patterns and the peopleâ€^TMs lifestyle. A world that is anchored on heavy industrialization and trade liberalization that requires more and more irrelevant technologies and unsustainable consumption demands, will have a heavy toll on the environment. To make MEAs an effective tool in arresting the worldâ€^TMs further destruction and humanityâ€^TMs eventual extinction, it must reflect new approaches to development, approaches that should not be based on the extractive and depletive processes of industrialization. Until then, our “common future†may just remain a “collective hope†that may never see the light of day.

- Kristoffer Berse

Footnotes

[1] Source: Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators (ENTRI)

[2] Sources: Environmental Treaties and Resource Indicators (ENTRI) United Nations Environment Program

[3] Source: Chan-Robles Virtual Law Library

[4] Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 2001. Available online at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030.

[5] Source: National Institute for Public Health (RIVM) and Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). 2001. Electronic database available online at http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar.

[6] (UN 2001 as quoted in Pallemaerts, 2003).