Eco Science - Law Of The Sea

ECOSCIENCE: POPULATION, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT PAUL R. EHRLICH STANFORD UNIVERSITY

ANNE H. EHRLICH STANFORD UNIVERSITY

JOHN P. HOLDREN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

W. H. FREEMAN AND COMPANY San Francisco

RICH NATIONS, POOR NATIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT /

uses of outer space and Antarctica. More recently, there have been extensive negotiations on a treaty to control the use of oceans. (

JLaw of the Sea.) What has been described as "the greatest international conference ever held"126 met in Caracas in summer 1974 to begin work on a treaty dealing with the control of the oceans. The second session of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)127 reached no final agreements, but in its tortuous proceedings several trends could be discerned. The emphasis was on dividing up the pie—on how to allocate rights to exploit the oceans rather than how to protect their vital functioning in the ecosystems of Earth. The less developed nations were anxious to "augment their meager natural resources with none of the unpleasant connotations of economic aid."128 The overdeveloped countries, on the other hand, were primarily trying to retain as much as possible of their hegemony over the seas (which they, far more than the LDCs, have the ability to exploit). A dominant trend has been toward establishing a 200-mile economic zone, which would effectively balkanize most of the oceans' known wealth. One view is that this would lead to having humanity's common heritage decimated piecemeal as individual nations exercised dominion over all living and nonliving resources within their zones. About the only good thing that can be said about the 200-mile zone is that its establishment might lead eventually to more rational use of those resources since their individual ownership by nations would at least tend to avoid the problems involved in multilateral exploitation of a commons. Other topics discussed in detail at the ongoing conference have been rights of passage through straits, the rights of landlocked nations to a share of oceanic resources, the establishment of an international authority '"Elizabeth Mann Borgese, Report from Caracas, the law of the sea, Center Magazine, November/December, 1974. '"The first session in New York in 1973 dealt only with procedures; the first and second conferences in 1958 and 1960 had accomplished little but reveal the complexities of the problems and the diverse positions of states and blocs (see Edward Weak, Jr., The politics of the ocean, chapter 6). »«C. R. Pinto of Sri Lanka, quoted in Time, July 29,1974. It has been suggested that "The uses of international commons should be taxed for the benefit of the poorest strata of the poor countries" (Barbara Ward. The

Cocoyoc Declaration), but there is thus far little sign that this will occur.

for the mining of seabed minerals outside the economic zones, the responsibility of nations to control pollution originating from their shores and to protect the marine environment, and the establishment of means of settling disputes and enforcing agreements. A third eight-week session of UNCLOS in Geneva in May 1975 produced a draft treaty, which was not voted on by the participating nations but was instead considered the basis for further negotiation.12' The draft extended the territorial waters of all nations to 12 miles from shore, provided for a 200-mile economic zone, specified means to control polluting activities, and encouraged the transfer of technology from rich to poor nations. The most controversial provision was for an International Seabed Authority, controlled de facto by the LDCs (who would be a majority in the agency), that would regulate deep-sea mining. The United States has held out for "private initiative" to share in managing the seabed resource. Further negotiations are scheduled for 1977. In part, their success will depend on what unilateral actions are taken by nations in the meantime. The United States, for example, has extended its jurisdiction over fisheries up to 200 miles from shore, which conforms with the draft treaty. Several other countries, including Mexico and Canada, have followed suit. But legislation being considered by Congress on deep-sea mining does not conform to the draft treaty. This places U.S. negotiators, who have tried to dissuade other nations from taking unilateral action, in an awkward position. If Congress passes such legislation, it could have a less than salubrious effect on future negotiations—especially if American firms are permitted to begin deep-sea mining before the treaty is finally passed and ratified. On the other hand, these unilateral actions may be pushing negotiators to examine other alternatives. By 1977, Elizabeth MannBorgese was envisioning a third possibility for the Seabed Authority as "a comprehensive and flexible system of joint ventures, acceptable to states and companies under the control of the [Authority and for the benefit of all countries, especially the poorer ones. . . ,"> 2 > a '"Material in this paragraph is based primarily on Deborah Shapley, Now, a draft sea law treaty: But what comes after? 1 ^"Quoted its Claiborue Pell, The most complex treaty ever negotiated in history, World Issues, vol II, no. 1 (February/March), 1977.

942

/ THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT: FINDING A WAY OUT

The complexity and comprehensiveness of the treaty account for the lengthiness of the negotiations. But, unfortunately, even a definitive treaty may fail to provide the kind of apparatus required to administer, conserve, and distribute the resources of the seas in a way that is equitable and that fully protects the vitally important ecosystems of the oceans, just because an exploitative view of the environment continues to dominate all such discussions. U.N. Environment Program, The exploitative view of the environment first surfaced explicitly at the international level at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972. That gathering featured platitudes from the ODCs, who are busily engaged in looting the planet and destroying its ecological systems, and demands from the LDCs that they get a piece of the action. One could only take heart that the world's nations even took the condition of the environment seriously enough to attend such a conference. That they did was a tribute to the brilliance, persuasiveness, and persistance of one man, Canadian businessman. Maurice Strong, secretary general of the conference^ Strong became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (ITNF.P)1 rhp major positive result of the Stockholm conference. UNEP was given only a small budget, and its headquarters was tucked away in Nairobi, perhaps in the hope that it would not make waves. Under Strong's leadership, it nevertheless began to serve several vital functions. For instance, it has established the Earth Watch monitoring system to serve as an international clearinghouse for environmental information. Earth Watch is explicitly designed also to help bridge the gap between scientists and technologists on one hand and political decisionmakers on the other.130 The kinds of information to be collected include an international register of toxic chemicals, which list properties of those chemicals, their uses, their effects, and their known or inferred pathways in the environment. UNEP's very location in Nairobi (the first such United Nations agency headquartered in an LDC) has resulted in its first major contribution—an enormous and growing ""Maurice Strong, A global imperative for the environment.

interest and concern in poor nations about environmental problems.131 This concern was already well established in some areas among the people132 but had been notably absent in most LDC governments. Under Strong's leadership a list of high-priority areas was established at UNEP: (1) human settlement, health, habitat, and well-being; (2) land, water, and desertification; (3) trade, economics, technology, and the transfer of technology; (4) oceans; (5) conservation of nature, wildlife, and genetic resources; (6) energy. A program has been started in each area, and by early 1975 more than 200 projects had been initiated^ projects that according to Strong were designed "to create a leverage to move the programme towards our pr;or-_ ities."133 Unfortunately for UNEP. Maurice Strong left^ the agency in 1975; whether the
Toward a Planetary Regime International attempts to tackle global problems—or at least to start a dialogue among nations—have proliferated in recent years. Besidesmie UNCTAjD^Law of the SeaT) andfEnvironmental conference^, the United Nations has_ sponsored World Population and World Food conferences (discussed earlier) in 1974, a conference on the Status of Women in 1975. the Pabitar Cnnfen-nrc nf 1976 (dealing with the problems of cities), and^a conference on Water Resources in 1971. A Conference on Science and Technology is scheduled for 1978, and it is expected to create a new agency for World Science and _ Technology Development. The agency's mission will be to facilitate the transfer of needed technologies to LDCs and to foster development of indigenous scientific and technological education and research in those "countries.134 '"Roger Lewin, Environment in a developing world; Jon Sigurdson, Resources and environment in China; Conor Reilly, Environmental action in Zambia. 132 For example, see Amil Agarwal, Ghandi's ghost saves the Himalayan trees. '"Lewin, Environment in a developing world, p. 632. 134 Salam, Ideals and realities.

RICH NATIONS, POOR NATIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT /

Superficially, it usually appears that such conferences do little more than highlight the political differences between rich and poor countries, but in fact they can lead to constructive action on the problems discussed. Because of the diversity of interests and viewpoints of individual nations, and because of the inequities of the world economy, it seems to take an unconscionably long time to reach a consensus on dealing with each problem. But an important Step often is tn nht{^r| agrpf mpnr That a Problem exists, first of all, and, second, that international action is appropriate and necessary. Each of the conferences named has been the culmination of this process; but what counts for the future is whether agreement can be reached on solutions to the problems and whether controls can be established before it is too late. [Regulation of one vital global common^ has not yet been seriously discussed—that commons is the atmosphere. Even more than the resources of the oceans, the_ atmosphere is shared by all human beings—and other organisms as well. It is crucial to preserve the atmosphere's quality and the stability of global climate.135 But that these are now threatened and should be protected by international agreement is only beginning to be recognized in a few quarters. Should jiLaw of the^e&be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future(Law of the Atmc Csphere)to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution.! Perhaps_ those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United_ Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. _ "Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including "*S. H. Schneider and L. E. Mesirow, The genesis strategy.

all food on the international market. . '^ The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea and other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions. The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposed world government schemes in not being primarily political in its emphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of all discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas the Regime would control are not now being regulated or controlled by nations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve far less surrendering of national power. Nevertheless, it might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource-environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury.

What the Human Community Can Do Humanity has reached a critical point in its history. Either the fissioning of societies into two distinct groups—rich and poor—will proceed, leading inevitably to conflict and possibly to economic collapse of some regions, at least; or serious efforts will be made to bring the two groups closer together. With regard to the latter course, as we have discussed at some length, there are plenty of ideas on how to go about it. The main obstacles are, as usual, social, political, and economic. Too few people in ODCs are convinced of the absolute necessity of reducing their consumption of material and environmental resources—of de-development. Too few people in all countries appreciate the environmental and resource constraints within which society must operate. And too many people with power oppose changing the present course because, for the time being, they are profiting from the status quo. And it may not be possible

943