ED 256 695

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 016 439

Caldwell, Lynton K.U.S. Interests and the Global Environment. OccasionalPaper 35.Stanley woundation, Muscatine, Imva.Feb 8531p.Stanley Foundation, 420 East Third St., Muscatine, IA52761 (free).Viewpoints (120) -- Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility(142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Air Pollution; Citizen Participation; *Ecology;

Environmental Standards; Futures (of Society);*Global Approach; *Government Role; HazardousMaterials; *International Cooperation; Public Health;*Public Policy; Quality of Life; TechnologicalAdvancement; Waste Disposal; Water Pollution

IDENTIFIERS *Environmental Issues; *Interdependence; UnitedStates

.BSTRACTThis essay presents an argument for policies

responsive to global environmental needs by examining the causes andconsequences of six critical environmental issues, and then offeringspecific U.S. policy recommendations. Following an explanation of theglobal nature of environmental problems, a summary of the salientfacts regarding the following six issues is provided: quality of theatmosphere, depletion of fresh water, loss of soil productivity, lossof genetic diversity, tropical deforestation, and toxic contaminationand hazardous materials. In each of these cases, human behavior hasdisrupted the natural biogeochamical cycles of the biosphere, therebygenerating chain reactions that multiply the problems confrontingpeople and their governments. it is argued that regardless of thepolicy positions of the government on international environmentalissues, U.S. citizens are involved in all of the aforementionedglobal issues and many mere. The essay urges the United States toreturn to a position of leadership in global environmental matters,based on the conclusion that'the cost of regaining credibility andleadership in international environmental affairs could be much lessthan the ultimate failure to do so. A glossary of acronyms and a listof Stanley Foundation papers and activities are also included in thedocument. (LH)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *s from the original document. *.*******f**************************************************************

About the EssaySince the mid-1960s a worldwideenvironmental movement has emerged andapprehensions have been aroused concerningthe serious maladjustments between peopleand their environment. The weight of evidencehas demonstrably grown toward recognitionthat the world is confronted by a crisis ofglobal proportions.

In Occasional Paper 35, Dr. Lynton Caldwellforcefully argues for policies responsive toglobal environmental needs. He examines sixcritical environmental issues, their causes andconsequences, and then offers specific USpolicy recommendations.

Dr. Caldwell calls on the United States toreturn to a position 1 leadership in globalenvironmental matters. "The United Statescannot escape sharing in the consequences ofenvironmental disasters that fall on the rest ofthe world. To understand this is also tounderstand why vigorous positive leadership ininternational environmental policy is in thenational interest as well as in the interest ofpeopl- everywhere."

Additional copies of this paper are availablefree of charge, and multiple copies can besupplied as long as inventory allows.

This paper is published and distributed aspart of the Stanley Foundation'sprogramming. The views expressed are thoseof the author and not necessarily those ofthe Foundation.

3

us Interestsand theGlobal

Environment

ISSN 0145-88411985 Tt1e Staniey Foundation

Lynton K. Caldwell

OccasionalPaper 35

The Stanley FoundationMuscatine, Iowa USA

February 1985

4

Lynton Keith Caldwell, Director of theAdvanced Studies in Science, Technology,and Public Policy Program, is the Arthur F.Bentley Professor of Political Science andProfessor of Public and EnvironmentalAffairs at Indiana University. He has servedas a consultant to the United States Senate;the Congressional Research Service; theDepartments of State, Commerce, and theInterior; the National Institutes of Health;and the Office of Technology Assessment.Lynton Caldwell has also been a staffmember and consultant to the UnitedNations and UNESCO.

Dr. Caldwell has written and lecturedextensively on environmental issues. Hismost recent books are Science and theNational Environmental Policy Act: RedirectingPolicy Through Procedure (1982) andInternational Environmental Policy: Emergenceand Dimensions (1984).

5

US Interests and the Global Environment

Since the mid-1960s public awareness of serious maladjust-ments between people and their environment has been grow-ing. A worldwide environmental movement has emerged andapprehensions have been arousedreinforced by studies, con-ferences, and reports which investigate threatening environ-mental developments, analyze their causes, and proposeremedial action. Scientists have taken leading roles in theseinquiries, many of which have been sponsored by govern-ments as well as by nongovernmental and international orga-nizations. This new environmental awareness has poseddifficult policy problems. Scientific evidence and public con-cern have caused governments to address problems for whichthey have had little previous experience and for which legaland technical solutions have not been readily available. Presi-dent John F. Kennedy proposed a new course for US policywhen he wrote in the introduction to Stewart Udall's bookThe Quiet Crisis (1963):

The crisis may be quiet, but it is urgent.. . . we mustexpand the concept of conservation to meet the imperi-ous problems of the new age. We must develop newinstruments of foresight and protection and nurture inorder to recover the relationship between man and natureand to make sure that the national estate we pass on toour multiplying descendants is green and flourishing.

The perception of an environmental crisis that is global inscope has not been universally shared; the notion of limits tomankind's ability to populate the earth and to exploit theresources of its environment is contrary to general and long-standing assumptions. Critics of the environmental move-ment have declared its assumptions to be unfounded and itsrhetoric alarmist, arguing instead that new resources are beingdiscovered and that technology enlarges human capabilities.In their view the global crisis exists largely in the minds ofmisguided people. Within a narrow and arbitrary logic thisrejection of global environmentalism may appear to makesense, but when compared with the grow:ng findings of thesr Aces regarding the state of planet Earth, these plausiblearguments become half-truths. While the critics are entitled toa respectful hearing, their premises need to be made explicitand their selection and treatment of factual evidence made

3

clear. Whether there is indeed an environmental crisis is betterascertained from the realities of the living world than from thetendentious use of logic and statistics.

The weight of evidence and opinion since the early 1970shas demonstrably grown toward recognition that the world isconfronted by an environmental crisis of global proportions.Beginning in the technoscientifically advanced countries andamong better informed individuals, awareness of environ-mental problems has spread throughout the world, gaining anunforseen strength in many developing or Third World coun-tries. The mutual need of nations for cooperatior in environ-mental protection measures has been affirmed trough newinternational arrangements, organizations, ar.J agreementsbacked by national statutory law. New nongovernmental envi-ronmental organizations have emerged in nearly every coun-try where voluntary citizen action is permitted. In the UNGeneral Assembly and in the Governing Council of the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP), rhetoric oftenexceeds national commitment to action; nonetheless, rhetori-cal commitment is a necessary prerequisite to actionthe wordusually must precede the deed.

The implementation of this new dimension in internationalaffairs has not proceeded smoothly or uniformly in the yearssince the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Juin1972 confirmed the legitimacy and importance of the globalenvironment as an issue for international consideration. Muchhas been accomplished within a relatively short time, and yetas more has been learned about the human impact upon theearth, the more critical the circumstances appear to be. Collec-tively the nations have the knowledge and technical capabili-ty needed to overcome their environmental problems. Thecrisis is one of choiceof timely and appropriate action to betaken before environmental losses become irretrievable orenvironmental damage irremediable. Because this crisis occurswithin a world of independent yet interdependent nations,the role played by the stronger amonl, them inevitably impactsupon the effectiveness of the whole. Thus the position takenby the United States in world environmental affairs assumesan importance transcending its political boundaries.

As in other countries, there is a diversity of opinion in theUnited States regarding the relationship of the nation to theworld environment. However, there are US interests in thisenvironment that exist apart from opinion. It is important that

4

US citizens, and other peoples as well, understand these inter-ests because the international cooperation essential to copingwith the critical environmental problems now confronting theworld cannot be effective without US participation and sup-port. The great scientific, technological, and economic resourcesof the United Statesalong with a record of past leadershipin international environmental policyplace this nation in aunique position in international environmental affairs. Thereare many practical reasons why US interests require the gov-ernment of the United States to play a constructive and lead-ing role among nations in shaping sound and farsighted policiesfor the protection of the g:r;bal environment.

What Makes the Issues Glotal?In developing its policy position for the 1984 UN Conferenceon Population, the US delegation queried whether there wasa global population crisis or merely problems of overly rapidpopulation growth in particular countries. The latter positionwas adopted on the reasoning that not all countries wereoverpopulated and in some birth rates were falling. A similarpoint of view was taken by a Soviet delegate to an interna-tional environmental meeting: oceanic pollution, he said, wasnot a global or international prof ',ern but a responsibility foreach country in which pollution originated. In contrast, reportsfrom the International Council of Scientific Unions, the Inter-national Union for Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources (IUCN), and the UNEP have identified a series ofinterrelated issues as global in character including excessivegrowth of human population, air pollution, and overexploita-tion of the living resources of the seas.

Population growth is not a problem in every country, somehave achieved population stability or in a few cases experi-enced decline. However, high rates of population increasehandicap all efforts to improve economic and environmentalconditions in many developing countries. National efforts andinternational assistance in education, health, housing, andrural development have been unable to keep pace with birthrates. Excessive population growth characteristically increasesthe num'ier of the very poor whose pressure for survivalovertaxes their natural resource base. Around the world fromEl Salvador to Haiti to the Sahel to the Middle East and SouthAsia, people pressure contributes to deforestation, soil exhaus-tion, degradation of water supplies, and loss of resources inplant and animal life. The consequences of this pressure upon

5

the environment are not confined to countries in which theyfirst occur but spread across the globeaffecting the qualityof air and water, speeding the loss of genetic diversity, andcausing mass migrations of peoples seeking escape from animpoverished environment.

Why do some people regard as local, issues which otherssee as global? The answer in part lies in whether one's focuson environmental problems is confined to the places wherethey originate, or whether the problems are seen as intercon-nected by cause and effect to phenomena in other places. Onpublic issues, important policy differences follow from theperspectives taken. People who do not perceive a global envi-ronmental crisis and question its reality tend to focus on dis-crete, geographically bounded aspects of environmentalproblems. They might, for example, be concerned with oilspills at sea, but not necessarily with international traffic inpetroleum that makes the oil spills probable. A more inclusiveperspective would involve world energy needs. This compre-hensive perspective, which may be called holistic or ecologi-cal, is a systems way of looking at events. Systems thinkingis implicit in the perceptions and objectives of the internation-al environmental movement. The systems approach to envi-ronmental problems reveals why many, although localized inorigin, have nevertheless become international issuessomeglobal in extent.

An issue becomes global not because of where it originates,but because of what it affects. Cause-effect relationships in theenvironment were not often perceived and less often ade-quately understood before the advent' of modern science.Scientific understanding of environmental relationships is more-over a relatively recent development. Three factors in particu-lar account for the ability of science to explain environmentalrelationships and to influence public and international policy,

The first factor is the development of the means of environ-mental surveillance by air, sea, land, and outer space. Only inthis generation have men been able to see the earth whole. Byairplane ansi satellite the surface of the earth is now systemati-cally surveyed and photogrammetric records are made forcomparison of change over time. Equipment capable of pene-trating the deep sea and outer space, and drilling equipmentcapable of probi.,g the mantle of the earth have enabled sci-ence to greatly enlarge basic knowledge about the planet andits environment. A large number of instruments and tech-

6

piques have expanded scientific knowledge regarding the struc-tu I e of matter, including living matter. From nuclear accelera-tors to electron microscopes, an unprecedented array ofinstrumentation has enormously expanded human knowl-edge of the conditions of life on earthincluding the effectsof human activities on the planetary environment.

The second factor, following from the first, is the greatlyenhanced ability to measure. This ability to detect and tocompare down to very minute components of things is adayabsolutely fundamental to government regulations on behalfof public health and safety; it is the scientific basis of policiesregarding toxic substances in consumer goods-and the envi-ronment. As a consequence of these advances in the sciences,people no longer generally believe that "what they don't knowwon't hurt them." People now tend to suspect that the oppo-site is more likely to be true.

These greatly advanced techniques for surveillance andmeasurement would not by themeslves change people's per-ception of their environmental relationships. A third factor isrequireda means of synthesis and trend projection that givesraw data meaning. Data alone are not persuasive. To under-stand complex environmental relationships, data must be ana-lyzed, compared, and related; its changes projected in timeseries; and a coherent synthesis of relevant information for-mulated as findings. This processing of information was scarcelypossible before the development of advanced computer tech-nology. The ability to project into the future the interactionsof measured trends has enabled scientists to estimate proba-ble causes of past and present developments and to makeinformed predictions regarding what may happen if currenttrends continue unchanged. Thus, the computer can revealrelationships and probabilities that the human mind unaidedcould not readily conceive. From this new source of insight aseries of studies and reports has emerged that provides theconceptual foundation for national and international environ-mental policy.

Beginning with Jay Forrester's World Dynamics (1971), moreexplicitly in the studies on The Limits to Growth (1972) andMankind at the Turning Point (1974) sponsored by the Club ofRome, and followed by at least six additional global systemsmodels leading to the US Global 2000 Report (1980), the literateworld received a picture of its present ecological circum-stances with prognoses of its possible futures. In a letter of

7

0

transmittal to the president, the Global 2000 Report summa-rized its findings:

Environmental, resource, and population stresses are inten-sifying and will increasingly determine the quality ofhuman life on our planet. These stresses are already severeenough to deny many millions of people basic needs forfood, shelter, health, and jobs, or any hope for better-ment. At the same time, the earth's carrying capacitythe ability of biological systems to provide resources forhuman needsis eroding. The trends reflected in thtGlobal 2000 Study suggest strongly a progressive degra-dation and impoverishment of the earth's natural resourcebase.

If thew trends are to be altered and the problems dimin-ished, vigorous, determined new initiatives will be requiredworldwide to meet human needs while protecting andrestoring the earth's capacity to support life. Basic naturalresourcesfarmlands, fisheries, forests, minerals, ener-gy, air, and watermust be conserved and better man-aged. Changes in public policy are needed around theworld before problems worsen and options for effectiveaction are reduced.

These conclusions, and those of comparable studies stirredcontroversy and stimulated conferences and research efforts.Although widely rejected as prophecies of gloom and doom,they have nonetheless changed the thinking of many peopleregarding the responsibilities of government in relation to theworld's environment.

No less significant have been the reports of scientific inves-tigators regarding specific environmental effects and trends.National and international scientific studies have reportedfindings regarding sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and par-ticulates (for example, dust) in the atmosphere. Other studieshave reported the spread of toxic substances in the environ-ment, especially through water and food chainsending inhumans. Reports on environmental factors in health, disabil;t and death, especially from the World Health Organization(WHO), have contributed to public apprehension. From theseand other publications from many different sources, a grow-ing consensus has emerged regarding the reality of a globalenvironmental crisis. The concept of the biosphere as the sumtotal of all planetary systems, almost unknown a generation

8 11

ago, is now commonplace in environment-related interna-tional documents and agreements, and is gaining currencyamong the general public.

A series of global environmental issues have now beenidentified as critical to human welfare. They are global becausetheir effects, and often their causes, not contained bynational or even continental boundaries. However localizedtheir immediate consequences may be, their effects ramifyingin one form or anothereconomic and demographic as wellas ecologicare ultimately felt, however indirectly, through-out the biosphere. Not all international issues on superficialexamination appear to be global. Yet when fully understood,their global character becomes apparent. The United NationsRegional Seas Programme is obviously bounded in implemen-tation, yet its larger purpose is to end thy, pollution of theglobe-encircling ocean environment. National populationgrowth that outruns food supply, human services, and employ-ment opportunities contributes to social unrest that may leadto uncontrollable migration of people, civil disorder, and eveninternational war. No nation can safely assume immunityfrom the effects of these developments.

Six Critical Environmental IssuesThere are many ways of categorizing environmental problemsand the policy issues that follow from them. Any list of criticalenvironmental issues would include the following six. Theyare widely regarded as critical because the trends which haveplaced them on the agendas of scientific inquiry and publicpolicy threaten human welfare over all or large areas of theearth and, unless reversed in the very near future, may resultin irretrievable damage to planetary life-support systems. Theyare also critical because, although the need for remedial actionis urgent, remedial means are presently either not available(that is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) or would requirecomplex socioeconomic changes that even willing govern-ments could not readily bring about (for example, tropicaldeforestation). Yet none of these trends are today beyondremedy if the will to reverse them can be mobilized.

One further characteristic of these issues requires noticenone are compartmentalized; each issue interrelates with twoor more of the others and with still more issuesecologic andeconomicnot mentioned here. These interrelationships posedifficulties for policymaking because any solution to an issue-

12 9

creating problem may have implications for oft er issues. Forexample, toxic contamination has berc.nc a critical issuethroughout the world and its efiect. are found in air, water,soil, and food chains. Direct, short-range policieo elirrinatetoxicants in any t ngle medium (that is through air pollutioncontrol) may merely drive the twuc material into other media(for example, from landfills to ground water).

What follows is a summary of the salient facts regarding sixcritical issues, including examples of what is being done aboutthe issue and by whom. In each of these cases human behav-ior nas disrupted the natural biogeochemical cycles of thebiosphere thereby generating chain reactions and positive feed-back that multiply the problems confronting people and theirgovernments.

Quality of the AtmosphereThe earth's atmosphere is now believed to have evolved froman earlier thermochemical condition in which higher forms oflife now present could not have survived. The atmosphere hasbeen changed through natural forces, but is now being alteredat an accelerating rate by human action. Four aspects of at-mospheric change threaten its quality. Three are by-productsof modern industrial society. They are emissions of: (1) sul-phur dioxide and nitrous oxides resulting in acid precipitation;(2) carbon dioxide accumulating toward a greenhouse effect,raising the temperature of the earth, melting the polar icecaps, and altering weather patterns; and (3) fluorocarbonsconcentrating in the ozone layer above the earth and impair-ing its ability to shield the earth from lethal radiation fromouter space. A fourth aspect of harmful atmospheric changehas been attributed primarily to unwise agricultural practice:soil erosion and desertification, the resulting increased amountof dust in the atmosphere affects agricultural productivity :.*.ndthe health of plants and animals. The phenomenon is global,as measurable quantities of atmospheric dust are carried fromAfrica to the east coast of the United States and from Chinato western North America. During the dry season a dust cloudhundreds of miles in extent hangs over south.= and westernAsiaan indicator of serious maladjustment of human activi-ties and environmental limitations.

No single government can cope with these problems; theacid rain issue is a more urgent agenda item for governmentsin Western and Central Europe than it appears to be in NorthAmerica. The carbon dioxide problem is long range, but its

10 13

implications are extremely dangerous, involving the perma-nent flooding of coastal areas throughout the world and aher toward aridity in now fertile food producing areas, nota-bly the US Midwest. No solution to the problem is now insight beyond abandoning the burning of coal, oil, and naturalgas as energy sources. All nations would need to comply. IfChina, for example, chose to industrialize through burningmassive quantifies of coal, the carbon dioxide increase mightnot be stopped regardless of conservation measures in theUnited States and Europe. The fhorocarbon problem can besolved provided that all industrialized nations cooperate, andthis cooperation is more easily attained than with sulfur diox-ide or carbon dioxide because no basic industrial necessity(that is, energy source) is involved.

International action is presently focused on the immediateinterest of acid rain. The issue has become acute betweenCanada and the United States; formal agreements have com-mitted the two countries to cooperate in abating the problem,but domestic economic considerations have caused the UnitedStates to delay action, arguing the need for more research. Thesulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and fluorocarbon problemshave been addressed in numerous conferences and seminarsand by various intergovernmental organizations including theEuropean Community, the International Council of ScientificUnions, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), andthe Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD). One result of these efforts has been the Con-vention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, now ineffect, which had received 30 ratifications as of January 1984.Acid rain has become an international issue in the UnitedStates and there is little reason to doubt that its abatementwould be in the national interest. The problem lies primarilyin the choice of method.

Depletion of Fresh WaterThe demands of modern agriculture and industry and increas-ing levels of population and affluence have placed unprece-dented stress upon fresh water supplies. Although theimmediate problems of water supply in large countries suchas the United States are superficially national, the long-rangeissues everywhere transcend national boundaries. In the UnitedStates, depleting groundwater in Texas and the High Plainshas led to proposals to tap fresh water sources in Northwest-ern Canada and the Great Lakes. Reaction of Canadians andthe governments of the Great Lakes states has been almost

1411

uniformly negative. Mean% hile environmental disputes havearisen between Canada and the United States over degrada-tion 'if rivers crossing their international boundary. Residentsof Montana have complained regarding the quality of waterin the Poplar River affected by a power plant in Saskatche-wan, and Canadians in Manitoba have opposed completionof the Garrison Diversion irrigation project in North Dakotaif Missouri River water is to be discharged into the HudsonBay watershed. The United States government has createddifficulties for Mexico by preempting Colorado River waterfor irrigation and urban water supply. To avoid treaty viola-tions, the United States has commissioned a $243 milliondesalinization plant on the Lower Colorado to deliver an accept-able supply of fresh water to Mexico.

In Europe the fresh water issue is especially acute in theregion of the Lower Rhine. In the Netherlands a coalition ofenvironmental groups organized an International Water Tribu-nal in 1983 to protest the continued pollution of the Rhine byup-stream countries and to ascertain the extent to which inter-national treaties, declarations, and domestic laws were beingviolated. In African and Asian countries, allocation of riparianwater rights among semiarid countries has encountered theinevitable issue of water qui lity. Water supply deficiencies inregions such as the Sahel al sub-Saharan Africa indirectlyaffect the United States through demands upon US food sup-ply and technical assistance to offset famine, and throughpolitical repercussions from possible conflict among the fourstates forming the Lake Chad Basin Commission (Cameroon,Chad, Niger, and Nigeria). Soviet proposals to reverse theflow of several great Siberian Avers to irrigate Central Asiahave raised questions regaing the consequences for the Arc-tic Ocean and possible effects upon the climate in the North-ern Hemisphere.

The United States has excelled in the engineering of watersupplies, but has been prodigal and shortsighted in water use.Prospective water shortages in the western United States haveled to proposals to divert water from the Great Lakes andCanadian sources, but the consent of Canada would be requiredand may not be obtainable. Within the United Nations sys-tem, fresh water problems have been addressed by the Foodand Agriculture. Organization (FAO), WHO, United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)and UNEP. A major UN Water Confrence was held in March1977 at Mar del Plata, Argentina. As early as 1965, UNESCO

12 15

took a lead in launching the International Hydrological Dec-ade from which evolved the International Hydrological Pro-gramme (IHP), and in 1981 the International Drinking WaterSupply and Sanitation Decade was initiated by action of theUN General Assembly. A World Register of Rivers Discharg-ing into the Oceans is jointly maintained by IHP and UNEP,and since 1976 a freshwater mosiOnng program has beencarried on jointly by UNEP, WHO, WMO, and UNESCOwithin the framework of UNEP's Global Environmental Mon-itoring System.

Loss of Soil ProductivityScientific studies and reports by FAO identify soil erosion anddegrading quality as a largely unrecognized problem of threat-ening proportions. Its causes and its effects are numerous andwidespread. Causal factors include erosion la, wind and waterresulting fmtn deforestation, overgrazing, and cultivation ofsteep slopes. Effects are losses in productivity, degraded a irquality, and siltation of streams lakes, and impoundmentsbehind -3 lms, with a host of tertiary environmental conse-quences affecting hydropower, industrial water uses, aquaticbiota, flooding, and desertification. Following the UN Confer-ence on Desertification held in Nairobi in 1977, a UNEP effortto and combating the spread of deserts was initiated A twoyear assessment of the situation presented to the UNEP Gov-erning Council in May 1984 revealed a problem of globalproportions and growir qty. It was estimated that sincethe 1977 conference, dc: on has continued to increaseat an approximate rate il'ion hectares per year.

Topsoil may remain in place and yet lose much of its pro-ductivity through excessive dosage with inorganic fertiPzers,herbicides, insecticides, and compression by heavy machin-ery. The long-range effects of the technology of modem a,.3,r4.-business upon crop production are debatable, but every oun-

. try, and especially the United Sates, "as a stake m the a ricul-tura. future. Air and water quality and plant ge Piedra a alsofactors in this future. World f,opulations are growing t 'wardunprt 7edented levels and a major disruption of food produc-tion anywhere could have economic and political conse-quences everywhere. Internation:ai cooperation thus far haslargely been confined to researchfor example, in the map-ping of world soil types. Soil loss continues to be regarded asprimarily a national problem despite the fact that its interna-tional repercussions are becoming ever more evident.

1 6 13

Loss of Genetic DiversityThe mirashics of modern agriculture have pod an unanticipat-ed threat to natural and agricultural ecosystems through lossesin the variety and diversity of many species of plants indige-nous t'a various countries. Patented hybrid seed stock is seenby some agrc n.rmists and plant ecologists as threatening,through displacement, the survival of native genetic strainshaving long-tested survival capability. The issue was consid-ct NJ sufficiently serious to be addressed at the InternationalConference on Plant Genetics which met it Rome in April1981. This issue emong otters is now on the agendas of theConsultative Group for International Agricultural Research(CGIAR), which associated with the World Bank, and of theIniemational Board for Plant Genetic Resources on whichCGIAR, FAO, and UNEP are represented.

Habitat destruction through deforestation, draining, con-v trsion of land to cultivation, and urbanization are majorfactors in depletion or extinction of species. Poaching for foodand the commercial sale of protected species has become athreat to the survival of certain species of plants and animals.International cooperation has proven necessary to obtainnational protection from the commercial exploitation of threat-ened plants and animals. Proltable international markets forrare plants, animals, and animal oroducts greatly increase thedifficulty of controlling illegal collecdirg and poaching.

The 1976 Convention on International Trade in EndallgereclSpecies undertook to remedy this difficulty by controlling themarket for rare and threatened plants and anima,s. Anotherinternational effort to protect variety and diversity in bothcultural and natural environments was the 1975 ConventionConcerning the Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritagea concept originating in the United States. Associ-ated v,:th this treaty has been the establishment, under theUNESCO sponsored Man and the Biosphere Programme, ofbiosphere reserves (226 reserves in 62 countries as of late1983). These reserves and other areas protected through theWorld Heritage Convention and the international movementto establish and protect national parks, are some of the mea-sures being taken to safeguard variety and diversity amongthe living sp . of the biosphere.

The loss of genetic diversity is bad not only because theworld thereby becomes poorer and less interesting, but becauseopportunities and safeguards are also lost. With genetic losses

14 17

through extinction of plant and animal species are losses ofbiochemical and behavioral characteristics poorly under-stood, perhaps undiscovered. Losses of potential sources offood, pharmaceuticals, and opportunities for insight into phys-iological and behavioral life processes are occurring, and havebecome increasingly unacceptable in view of scientific evi-dence suggesting that irreplaceable assets are being needless-ly sacrificed. The United States, as the principal agent of thegreen revolution in agriculture and a major market for naturalproducts, has a special responsibility to preserve genetic diver-sity. Recognition of this circumstance caused the US Agencyfor International Development in cooperation with other fed-eral agencies to sponsor a conference in 1981 on the preserva-tion of genetic diversity with special reference to the nation'sbilateral aid programs.

Tropical DeforestationThe rapid reduction of the tropical rain forest appears onevery list of critical environmental issues. Its effects are global,first because the forests are believed to be major regeneratorsof atmospheric oxygen, second because loss of the forests isaccompanied by loss of habitats and species with the resultinggenetic impoverishments previously noted, and third becauseresulting damage to tropical soils through erosion, laterization(rock-like hardening), and loss of soil fertility impairs the lifesupport base of people and other living things.

Among the causes of tropical deforestation are the cuttingof trees for fuel wood and the clearing of land for agricultureand cattle raising. World Forestry Congresses nave repeatedlywarned governments about the consequences of the loss of

the tropical forests. The International Council for Research inAgroforestry collaborates with UNEP's Ecosystems Task Forcein promoting research on combining agriculture with forestry.Encouraged by the World Bank, FAO, and UNEP, tropicalcountries have begun to cooperate in the development ofmanaged tropical ecosystems. In March 1980, UNEP spon-sored a conference in Libreville, Gabon, on the world's tropi-cal forests. In 1980 nine African countries meeting in Yaounde,Cameroon, agreed upon a treaty relating to the improvedmanagement of tropical forests and ecosystems. Yaounde isalso the location of the regional Centre for Scientific Informa-tion and Documentation in Tropical Ecology.

The worldwide importance of these conserving eliorts wasunderscored by Tatsuro Kunugi of japan, chairman of the

15

18

1983 UN Conference on Tropical Timber which was convenedunder the auspices of the UN Conference on Trade and Devel-opment, when he said that the 37 articles adopted constituted"a global policy in resources management, taking into accountthe implications of this policy for other important sectors suchas energy, agriculture, food supplly, and the preservation ofecosystems."

Toxic Contamination/Hazardous MaterialsThe enormous ingenuity of the chemical industry has producedan unprecedented number of useful compounds during recentdecades. This innovation, although widely beneficial, has cre-ated serious ecological problems, sometimes resulting fromunforeseen side effects (as with DDT and PCBs), and moreoften from failure to adequately assess the risks involved inreleasing new chemicals into the environment and in neglect-ing to take effective measures for their harmless disposal.Toxic contamination of air, water, soil, and biota was initiallybelieved to be a problem largely confined to developed coun-tries; but international trade, and the atmospheric and oceanictransport of toxicants, has spread the problem around theworld.

Investigation of effects and consideration of controlmeasures has been undertaken by many national govern-ments and scientific bodies, by the European Community, theInternational Labour Organization, WHO, OECD, and by UNEPwhich has established the International Register of PotentiallyToxic Chemicals and the International Programme on Chemi-cal Safety. Two nongovernmental scientific bodies have alsobeen established to address specific hazards: the InternationalCommission for Radiological Protection and the InternationalCommission against Nitrogen and Carcinogens. Concern overpossible harmful effects of hazardous materials in commerceprompted the UN General Assembly on 17 December 1981 toadopt by a vote of 146 to 1 a esolution on protection againstproducts harmful to health and environment. The United Statescast the sole dissenting vote.

Disposal of radioactive materials is a special concern of theInternational Atomic Energy Agericy, based in Vienna. Eachgovernment, however, appears to follow its own preferencesin dealing with nuclear wastes. Global contamination by nucle-ar war is the ultimate hazard, but serious threats to livingthings are present in peacetime uses of atomic energy.

16 19

The foregoing discussion provides a selective sample of theenvironmental issues that have aroused worldwide concernand have caused governments to institute new forms of inter-national cooperation in defense of their environments and ofthe biosphere. The hazards of overpopulation and war havenot been included in this listing, partly because their threat tothe global environment is widely (but not universally) under-stood. Their potential effects are more inclusive than environ-mental and even a cursory treatment of their potentialenvironmental impacts could exceed the limits of this paper.There are few environmental problems that are not somehowrelated to excessive population growth. The rapidly expand-ing cities of the Third Worldin Africa, Asia, and Latin Amer-icapose very serious social, political, and economic problemsfor the future. These problems are being addressed throughvarious components of the UN system, but thus far resultshave been disproportionately small in relation to the dangersinherent in the problems.

How the United States Is InvolvedRegardless of the policy positions of the government on inter-national environmental issues, US citizens are involved in allof the aforementioned global issues and many more. Althoughsince 1981 the government appears to have retreated from itsearlier position of leadership, nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) based in the United States have increased their par-ticipation in international environmental affairs. At inter-national conferences on environment and population, contra-dictory positions have become commonplace between officialand unofficial US representatives. This division weakens theinfluence of each group and raises doubts as to the representa-tive character of official US policies.

For example, at the Session of a Special Character held bythe Governing Council of UNEP in 1982 to commemorate the1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment and to assessits results, the official recommendation of the US delegationwas that nations should rely on market forces in preferenceto regulations to cope with environmental problems. Thisadvice was widely regarded as simplistic by NGO representa-tives, especially in relation to developing countries in whichmarket economies were weak. Similarly, at the United NationsConference on Population held in Mexico City in mid-1984,officials of the United States took the position that adverseeffects of overpopulation were being exaggerated and that

17

20

economic growth could overcome the alleged adversities. TheNGO population and family planning groups in the UnitedStates generally dissented from the government's position, asdid many representatives, both official and unofficial, fromdeveloping countries with serious population-enviror mentproblems.

Responding to charges that the government has abandonedits earlier commitment to global environmental protection,spokesmen for the Reagan administration have denied thecharge that the United States no longer leads in world envi-ronmental affairs. Their position has been that controls andregulations by governments and through binding internation-al agreements are not the best way to preserve environmentalquality. The United States position on the Governing Councilof UNEP and in the UN General Assembly has been thatgreater reliance should be placed on free market forces tocorrect environmental abuses. In the official view, responsibil-ity for environmental policy should rest with each country,which should adopt its own protective measures without inter-position by other countries or by intergovernmental bureauc-racies. For example, President Ronald Reagan in early 1981withdrew President jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12264restricting US export of hazardous materials on grounds thatthe United States should not try to write rules for the rest ofthe world and should not impose its standards on other coun-tries.

Although the US position has been that market forces pro-vide a better way to achieve environmental policy objectives,this viewpoint has not won acceptance abroad. Claims thatthe United States is still leading in issues of internationalenvironmental policy are hardly credible when no other nationsare following. Because the United States has stood alone onissue after issue since 1981 does not mean that its officialposition is wrong. But the fact remains that in votes on envi-ronmental issues in the UN General Assembly, the divisionon the hazardous materials resolution was 146 to 1, on theWorld Charter for Nature 111 to 1 (8 technical abstentions).And in the World Health Organization Assembly the vote oncontrol over export of artificial infant formula for bottle feed-ing was 118 to 1 (4 abstentions). Risk to infant health arosefrom the inadequate provisions in many tropical countries forsterilizing bottles, especially in rural areas in which contami-nated water added a danger not encountered in breast feed-ing.

18 21

On other issues the United States has been less isolated yetstill very much in a negative minority. After having lead indrafting the UN Law of the Sea Treaty which includes numer-ous environmental provisions, the United States reversed itsposition, declined to join 125 signatory states and undertook,mostly unsuccessfully, to persuade its closer allies to abstain.In addition, the Reagan administration attempted to reduce oreliminate US funding for international environmental pro-grams, notably appropriations for UNEP and the UNESCOsponsored Man and the Biosphere Programme, and the WorldHeritage Convention. At the 1984 UN Conferences on Popu-lation, the official US delegation, as previously noted, took apolicy line unacceptable to many other countries and to manyUS nongovernmental participants. In each of these instances,however, the United States did not oppose the environmentalprinciple involved but rather gave higher priority to economicvalues or, in the case of the population issue, to a particularview of morality.

For all that, the US government is inescapably involved ininternational environmental issues in which US interests areat stake. These interests, moreover, are shared with othernationssome with all nationsand are not exclusively USproblems. Three issues illustrate the point: acid rain, environ-ment and development in the Caribbean, and the future ofAntarctica.

Acid rain has become a high priority issue through Westernand Central Europe and in Eastern North America. Its inci-dence and effects are even wider, but appear to be most acutein the Northeastern United States, Eastern Canada, and inScandinava, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. The issuein the United States is both domestic and international. Theofficial position if the federal government has been ambigu-ous. President Reagan has declared the issue to be of highestpriority for the Environmental Protection Agency, but, fol-lowing strong protests 4om high sulphur coal producing states,the administration apikars to have taken a course of delay,calling for more study before action. Nevertheless, the issuewill not go away, and action taken by governments in Europewill have effects upon policy in the United States. Meanwhilethe issue tends to corrode not only Canadian-US diplomaticrelations, but also buildings, bridges, machinery, and culturalmonuments in both countries, and progressively diminishesthe viability of streams, lakes, forests, and agricultural lands.

19

22

In the Caribbean area the US government has shown greatconcern for social, economic, and political stability, but its rolein international efforts to integrate environmental protectionand sustainable development has ranged from negative toambiguous. Since 1979, when a major Conference in Environ-mental Management and Economic Growth in the SmallerCaribbean Islands was held in Barbados, a number of cooper-ative ection programs have been adopted. In April 1981, aUNEP sponsored regional conference met in Jamaica andadopted a Caribbean Action Plan comprising 66 environmen-tal projects of which 25 were designated as of high priorityand 33 for immediate action. In August 1981, a meeting ofNon-Governmental Caribbean Conservation Organizations washeld in the Dominican Republic and adopted a complementa-ry strategy with assistance from nongovernmental US sourcesincluding the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the University ofMichigan, and the Caribbean Conservation Foundation. ACaribbean Trust Fund has been established with regional andexternal funding, and in March 1983, 13 of the 27 Caribbeannations signed the Treaty of Cartagena for the Protection andDevelopment of the Marine Environment of the Wider Carib-bean Region.

Throughout these efforts the role of the US government hasbeen ambivalent. Administration policy has been slow to linkenvironmental protection with economic development, andhas preferred bilateral aid to financial assistance through mul-tilateral efforts such as the UNEP sponsored Wider CaribbeanRegional Seas Programme. Unwillingness to participate inprograms in association with Cuba may also have deterred USinvolvement. There are substantial indications that many ofthe roots of poverty and unrest in the region are environmen-tala documented example is the ecological impoverishmentof El Salvador preceding its social disorders. Nearly two dec-ades before the outbreak of civil war, a Fellow of the TropicalScience Center in San Jose, Costa Rica, traveling in El Salva-dor reported massive deforestation, soil erosion, fuelwoodcrisis, and environmental pollution. He foresaw a social explo-sion based on poverty attributed largely to "human ecologicproblems caused by overpopulation." Similar evidence of man-induced ecologic disaster, especially affecting food produc-tion, has been documented in many other countries andreported by UN agencies and independent investigations. Mas-sive illegal immigration to the United States has been as mucha consequence of the inability of people to subsist on worn-out land, as of a desire to escape from political oppression.

20 23

The case of Antarctica involves a different set of US inter-ests. The United States has taken a lead in the scientific explo-ration of the Antarctic continent and in its protection fromdamaging development and from political conflict. Unlike othernations, the United States, despite its presence and preemi-nent investment in Antarctic research has made no Territorialclaims on Antarctica. In 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signedby 12 nations including 7 which agreed to suspend their terri-torial claims for the duration of the treaty. This treaty andsubsequent agreements are administered by the ConsultativeParties which do not include UN agencies or most Third Worldcountries. The possibility of mineral wealth in the continenthas become a two-way source of contentionfirst, betweenthe Consultative Parties and those Third World states demand-ing a share in any material benefits and second, between theforces for resource development and those urging the preser-vation of undeveloped Antarctica as a natural reserve for sci-ence.

Here again US opinion appears to be divided between theadministration together with some private groups willing toconsider controlled development, and most scientific and envi-ronmental groups that are strongly opposed. There is alsointernational concern among environmental organizations overthe exploitation of Antarctic marine life especially by Sovietbloc nations and Japan. The effect on marine food chains ofreducing the number of the shrimp-like krill has been ques-tioned by marine scientists. Through all of these and othercontroversies, the preeminence of the United States in Antarc-tic affairs gives it a key position in any decision affecting theregion. After 1990, a new regime for Antarctica will becomenecessary unless the present treaty is extended. The UnitedStates cannot avoid involvement in Antarctic decisions and itwould appear to be clearly in the national int. est for thegovernment and scientific community to cooperate in for-mulating a policy position that would protect the area frompolitical conflict and from despoliation for resources availableelsewhere.

US Interests and National PolicyIn none of the issues previously described have US interest,broadly defined, been injured by policies protective of theglobal environment. The immediate interests of some US citi-zens might have been adversely affected by some measureswhich the overwhelming majority of nations have found to

21

2 4

be in the general interest. Even the closest US allies favoredcontrols over export of toxic or otherwise hazardous materials,voted for restrictions on promotion of artificial infant formulain 'topical countries, and supported the Law of the Sea Treaty.No national interest whatever appears to have been in jeopar-dy in the UN Charter for Nature or in appropriations to assistUNEP, international scientific environmental investigations,the World Heritage Convention, or the Wider Caribbean ActionPlan. The dollar cost of US contributions to international envi-ronmental protection efforts becomes relatively insignificantwhen compared with the aggregate expenditures of the USgovernment.

It would be unfair to suggest that the position of the UnitedStates in international environmental affairs has been whollynegative. Individual federal agencies, notably the NationalPark Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Agencyfor International Development have continued to provide assist-ance upon request to other countries. In effect, US policy oninternational environmental affairs has tended toward incon-sistency explained perhaps by a statement attributed to a StateDepartment official quoted in the New York Times (28 March1983) to the effect that "the Reagan administration still doesnot have an international environmental policy."

It appears that the United States has given up its leadershipin global environmental affairs and has umiecessarily preju-diced some of its long-term interest abroad without anysignificant benefits at home. Its government has been unableto persuade other nations including its best friends to adoptits uncertain approach to environmenta' issues. While envi-ronmental policy has not yet become an issue for partisandivision in the United States or in most other countries, therise of "green parties" in several European nations suggeststhat such division is possible. For the present, however, scientificanalyses of public attitudes in the United States, the UnitedKingdom, the Netherlands, and West Germany show no polar-ization and reveal similar opinion profilesa high public con-cern for environmental quality cutting across social, economic,and political boundaries. A strongly marked increase in envi-ronmental concern has become evident in many Third Worldcountries. Paradoxically much of the world that resisted USleadership at the time of the 1972 UN Conference in Stock-holm is now receptive to policies and programs that the USsupported then but declines to support now.

22 25

It seems safe to say that no national interests have beenserved by the ambiguous positions on international environ-mental cooperation taken since 1981 by the US government.Where official policy has been calculated to protect the specialinterests of manufacturers, exporters, or resource developers,it has been generally unsuccessful. Other countries havedeclined to follow the US attempted lead, and policies regardedas objectionable in Washington (for example, the infant for-mula resolution) have been implemented internationally with-out US participation. An unfortunate instance occurred whena representative of the US Environmental Protedion Agencylobbied, unsuccessfully, against proposals in the OECD toadopt international controls over the transboundary transportof hazardous chemicals. Low budgets for international envi-ronmental programs may indeed result in higher future coststo US taxpayers. El Salvador and Haiti are cases in pointwherein effective US assistance years ago to reverse socio-ecological deterioration would have cost the taxpayer muchless than is now being exacted merely to prevent bad situa-tions firm becoming worse. The government in Washing-tonand even the Kissinger Commission in its report onCentral Americahas not seemed to understand the difficultyof building a productive economy on a ruined ecologic resourcebase.

The budget cuts and negative votes in international assem-blies are symbolicthey have had no significant effect ongross federal expenditures, but they have sent a message toother countries on the apparent indifference of the UnitedStates to world environmental affairs. It would be to the nation-al advantage for the president and Congress to reverse thisnegative impression. International cooperation in the Agencyfor International Development, the Department of the Interi-or, and the Environmental Protection Agency could be officiallyencouraged and financially strengthened. The agency intendedfor the initiation and review of US environmental policy hasbeen the council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) created byTitle II of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA). Under the Reagan administration the budget of theCEQ was cut by 75 percent, its professional staff largely dis-banded, and the appointment of council members oftendelayed. Restoration of the CEQ to its former status could bea major step toward regaining national leadership and credi-bility abroad. The international and domestic role of the CEQcould be enhanced to the national advantage by an expandedimplementation of Title II of NEPA which authorizes and

23

26

directs the council to sponsor and assist stadies relating toenvironmental trends. No administration thus far has begunto realize the potential of NEPA, best known for its relativelysecondary requirement of environmental impact statements.

Maintenance of a continuing dialogue between the largenongovernmental environmental organizations and the fed-eral government could be helpful. It could help to reach mutu-al understanding that might avoid the spectacle in internationalgatherings of official US representatives and organizations ofUS itizens taking opposing positions. Such divisions maydemonstrate freedom of citizen action in the United States,but they also v-zaken the credibility of the United States amongother nations.

What policy options would serve US interests in relation tointernational environmental issues? A more positive role inUN organizations is indicated inasmuch as, despite its defects,the UN system is the only structure approaching universalityamong nations. Regardless of political differences, all nationsshare a concern for protection of the biosphere. Hostile gov-ernments historically have been known to work together onmatters of mutual self interest, so US participation in "politicsof antagonistic cooperation" would not be exceptional, Espedaily in view of the consequences of environmental deteriora-tion in many Third World countries, US support for UNenvironmental programs could ward off the much greatercosts that the United States might have to bear alone shouldremedial efforts fail. The United States and the Soviet Unionhave cooperated in scientific and technical aspects of environ-mental protection. Joint efforts toward common purposes helpto build better relationships among otherwise suspicious andunfriendly nations. The Wider Caribbean Regional Seas Pro-gramme would seem to be a logical place for positive ratherthan reluctant US participation.

The US government might also find ways to encourage andassist nongovernmental international environmental effortssuch as the World Conservation Strategy, developed largelythrough the IUCN. Our country has traditionally drawn amuch harder line between official and nongovernmental rela-tionships than have many other countriesFrance and Japan,for example. US gcvernment agencies have assisted the IUCN,but the United States is not one of the 58 nations officiallyaffiliated. Proposals to privatize and commercialize environ-mental surveillance capabilities, such as Landsat, could have

24 27

an adverse effect upon environmental science unless protec-tive measures were taken to assure access to the satellite sys-tem by other governments and nonprofit organizations.

In summary, the costs of regaining credibility and leadershipin intematicnal environmental affairs could be much less thanthe ultimate cost of failure to do so. The position of the USgovernment since 1980 has been sufficiently ambiguous onint: mational environmental issues to permit a progressivemovement toward a positive position without making a for-mal reversal of policy. The United States cannot escape shar-ing in the consequences of environmental disasters that fallupon the rest of the world. To understand this is also tounderstand why vigorous positive leadership in internationalenvironmental policy is in the national interest as well as inthe interest of people everywhere.

GlJssary of AcronymsCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural

Research

FAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationIHP International Hydrological ProgrammeIUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

and Natural ResourcesNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNGO nongovernmental organizationOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel-

opmentUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultur-

al OrganizationWHO World Health OrganizationWMO World Meterological Organization

28 25

Stanley Foundation Publications

Publications available free of charge include:US-Soviet Competition in the Third World, Space Weapons andArms Control, The United States "'NESCO, Objectives of USEconomic and Security Assists eport of the Twenty-FifthStrategy for Peace Conference. der 1 M, 64 pp.The United Nations: Perforn. re and Challenge, Excerpts fromspeeches by C. Maxwell Stanley. August 1984, 16 pp.Peace and Security: The United Nations and National Interests,Report of the Nineteenth United Nations of the Next DecadeConference. June 1984, 40 pp.The United States and the Future of the NonproliferationRegime, Report of a Vantage Conference. May 1984, 44) pp.International Information Policy, Report of the Fifteenth UnitedNations Issues Conference. April 1984, 28 pp.Rethinking US-Soviet Relations, World Economic Recovery andGrowth, Preserving Peace: The UN Option, US Policy in CentralAmerica, Report of the Twenty-Fourth Strategy for Peace Confer-ence. October 1983, 64 pp.The United Nations: Peace and Security, Report of the EighteenthUnited Nations of the Next Decade Conference. June 1983, 48 pp.The United Nations: I. Conflict Management, 2. EffectiveAdministration, Report of the Fourteenth United NationsProcedures Conference. May 1983, 40 pp.Global Citizenship, An Address by C. Maxwell Stanley. April 1983,16 pp.US Policy and North -South Relations, US-China Relations in the1980s, US Security and Arms Control in Europe, US-SovietStrategic Nuclear Negotiations, Report of the Twenty-ThirdStrategy for Peace Conference. October 1982, 64 pp.

Also avaiiduir:Managing Global Problems. C. Maxwell Stanley. 1979, 286 pp.Management concepts applied to major global problems. Hardcover$12.30, softcover $7.95, postpaid from the Foundation. Now atspecial rates of $7.50 and $5.50.

Order publications including Occasional Papers from:The Stanley Foundation420 East Third StreetMuscatine, Iowa 52761Telephone 319-264-1500

2926

Occasional Papers

18. Can Space Remain a .Peaceful Environment?Herbert Scoville, Jr. andKosta Tsipis, June 1978

19. The Latin AmericanNuclear-Wearn -Free ZoneAlfonso Garcia RoblesMay 1979

21. The Congressional ForeignPolicy RoleClifford P. HacketNovember 1979

22. Chinese Policies TowardLimiting Nuclear WeaponsAmos Yoder, March 1980

24. A New InternationalDiplomatic OrderTom BoudreauDecember 1980

29. Radiological WeaponsControl: A Soviet and USPerspectiveVictor L IssraelyanCharles C. FlowerreeFebruary 1982

30. Resource Optimisation andWorld PeaceArthur H. PurcellMarch 1982

33. Soviet Security in FluxNish Jamgotch, Jr.May 1983

34. De rlig with InternationalCrisemim,s fromZimbabweJeffrey DaviclowOctober 1983

Manuscripts Welcome

The Stanley Foundation invites manuscript submissions for theOccasional Paper series. Occasional Papers are original essaysproposing practical policy options for US foreign policy orinternational organizaidon on a wide variety of issues. They arecopyrighted by the Stanley Foundation and distributed free ofcharge throughout the United States and abroad.

Manuscripts should be written in English and be 20-30 typed(double-spaced) pages. Authors of manuscripts selected -forpublication receive a modest honorarium.

The Stanley Foundationt OP

420 East Third StreetMuscatine, Iowa 52761 USATelephone 319-264-1500

27

Stanley Foundation Activities

The Stanley Foundation encourages study, research, anddiscussion of international issues contributing to a securepeace with freedom and justice. Programming reflectsfounder C. M. Stanley's long-time concern for global security.Stanley Foundation activities include:

Conferences for diplomats, scholars, business leaders, andpublic officials from every continent are conducted by thefoundation each year. Following most, a comprehensivesummary report is printed and widely distributed free ofcharge to policy makers and interested individuals. (-der-ence participation is by invitation only.

Educational Seminars for US congressional staff membersare convened annuraly at the United Nations and in theWashington, DC, area. The sessions focus on issu...; importantto the United Natic ns and the United States.

Occasional Papers. Polic. y-oriented essays by diverseauthors are published periodically as Occasional Papers anddistributed free nationally and internationally. Papers presentpractical initiatives, options, or strategies for US foreign policyor international organizations. Manuscript submissions arewelcome.

Common Ground. Radio Series on World Affairs. Thisuncommon program on world issues features discussion byUS and foreign experts on political, economic, military, andsocial issues in international retaticms. Cassette listingavailable.

World Press Review. This monthly magazine excerpts andreprints material from the press outside the United States.Sold by subscription from World Press Review, 230 ParkAvenue, New York, New York 10169.

The Outreach Program supports midwestern groups thatseek information on international issues. Planning assistance,educational materials, and speaker support are available tochurches, professional and service groups, and othernonprofit organizations. Outreach projects aim to stimulateinternational awareness and encourage participants to joinwith others in pursuing peace and shaping public policy.

The Stanley F dation, a private operating foundation,does not provi . A resource list is available.

28 31