WORLD ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZATION:

A DESPERATE NEED FOR

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Doç. Dr. Firuz Demir YAŞAMIŞ

Introduction

The last three decades on our Globe, have witnessed two important environmental phenomena: first, the glamorous success in environmental diplomacy thus leading the way to ample amount of global bilateral and multilateral environmental agreements, conventions and protocols resulting in further enhancement of legal framework and enrichment of international environmental law and, second, continuing deterioration in global environ-mental quality despite the international and national actions and remedies already taken against this ongoing process.

Meadows and his associates work titled as “The Limits to Growth, A Global Challenge; a Report for the Club of Rome Project on the Predicament of Mankind” (Meadows 1972), was the first eye opening research in this regard. Having its own thoughts traced back to Malthus (An Essay on the Principle of Population), P. and A. Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) and G. Hardin (The Tragedy of Commons), Meadows and his friends have made this astonishing statement: “If the present trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be sudden and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity… It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable for the future.”

Similarly, almost at the same period, an eye opener report (US Government 1980) submitted to the President of the USA was also repeating the above mentioned statement: “If public policies unchanged through the end of the century, a number of serious world problems will become worse…” This Report indicated that the world population will go up to 6.35 billion in the year 2000, GNP will still be low and the food problem will be unsolved in developing countries, there will be more pollution but less stable economies, national states will be more vulnerable to social and political disruptions, regional water shortages will be observed, the year 2050 will be turning point for global climate change and the rate of extinction of plants and animals will be accelerated.

The works of Mishan (The Costs of Economic Growth), Odum (The Strategy of Ecosystem Development), White Jr. (The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis), Stone (Should Trees Have Standing), Komarov (The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union), Commoner (Closing Circle), Boulding (The Economics of Coming Spaceship Earth) and Lovelock (Gaia) have also resulted in indicating the same problem and the destiny: World’s resources are finite and under a big threat of irrational consumption thus endangering the right of living of the next generations on this Globe. (Nellisen 1997)

Amidst these theoretical and philosophical understandings, perceptions and conceptions, the well known Brundtland Report (UN 1987) has finally shaped the commonly shared belief of the Globe’s unescapable fate: ‘there are also environmental trends that threaten to radically alter the planet, that threaten the lives of many species upon it, including the human species.’

The authors of “The Limits to Growth” have repeated their study almost 20 years later (Meadows 1991) and showed that “the world has already overshot some of its limits and, if present trends continue, we face the prospect of a global collapse –perhaps within the lifetimes of children alive today”.

This statement is also supported by another very important, independent and dependable study which has been carried out by the World Resources Institute (WRI) under the title of “PAGE: Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems” - a study to be completed by another but more global study called “MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”. (WRI 2000) The PAGE has analyzed five of the World’s major ecosystems, namely, agroecosystems, forest ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, grassland ecosystems and coastal and marine ecosystems. Study on agroecosystems revealed that environmental damage threatens future world food production. Forest ecosystems study showed that forest areas in the developed countries continue to increase slightly, while clearance for agriculture, development and logging in the developing countries is reducing forests by at least 140.000 square kilometres every year. Likewise, freshwater systems study also revealed that the world’s freshwater systems are so degraded that the ability to support human, plant and animal is greatly in peril. Grassland ecosystem study warned that the world’s grasslands have declined in their extent and condition, as well as their ability to support human, plant and animal life. Finally, the coastal and marine ecosystems study indicated that the Planet’s coastal zone is in danger of loosing its capacity to provide fish, protect homes and businesses, reduce pollution and erosion and sustain biological diversity.

Hilary French, from the Worldwatch Institute (WWI), has also proclaimed similar findings for the global environment in her book. (French 2000 a) French said: “The world economy and the natural world that it relies on are both in precarious states as we enter the new millennium, provoking fears that an era of global instability looms on the horizon. Over the course of the twentieth century, the global economy stretched the planet to its limits.”

Basing upon this belief and giving so many convincing data and evidence, French came to the conclusion that “the time is now ripe to build international governance structures needed to ensure that the world economy of twenty-first century meets people’s aspirations for a better future without destroying the natural fabric that underpins itself.”

However, a considerable amount of effort has been spent to change the ongoing trends and the course of global environmental fate. These include both dealing with the individual cases and episodes of environmental pollution and establishing technological and institutional infrastructure for more effective environmental management. Countries mainly in the north and some in the south have taken steps to stop the environmental calamities, problems and nuisances.

On the other hand, more than 200 multilateral environmental agreements have been signed to protect and enhance the global environmental quality. Amongst these, CITES-Convention on International Trade in Endangered Spe-cies of Wild Fauna and Flora, RAMSAR-Convention on Wetlands of Internati-onal Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, BONN-Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, BASEL-Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Convention to Combat Desertification, Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer are few to name.

These international legal documents covered almost every aspect of global environment including climate change, global warming, acid rain, ozone layer depletion, and extinction of rare species and deforestation of tropical rain forests. Undoubtedly, these international endeavors have played very important role in diminishing the environmental nuisances. For instance, the Montreal Protocol, on ozone layer depletion succeeded in achieving the original objectives. The CITES, the BASEL, and the RAMSAR conventions can also be seen as other successful initiatives. Naturally some others were not so successful due to several reasons. Consequently, it would not be wrong to state those international agreements; conventions and protocols were the proofs of a glamorous success for global environmental diplomacy.

As far as the monitoring, implementation, compliance management and enforcement of these multilateral environmental agreements are concerned, two distinctive institutional models have been materialised: first, to set-up a unique institutional framework for each individual agreement in which the original and the ratified documents are deposited, secretarial works are provided, the management functions have been performed or, secondly, to set-up a world-wide institutional entity such as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Global Environmental Feasibility (GEF) to deal with the global and regional environmental problems.

Unfortunately, either way has proved to be in great problems. These problems range from securing the adequate financial contribution, to manning and cooperation and coordination among the parties to the multilateral environmental agreements. Additionally, the UNEP institutionally and financially was so weak to deal with the complicated global environmental problems and the GEF has so far resulted in a disappointment especially for the southern countries. The overall consequence of these global trends and actions has only become the continuance of global environmental and ecological deterioration. The destiny of the Globe seems to be still in the same direction as forecasted by the above-mentioned studies.

Institutional Reasons of the Failure: Inadequacies in Organization, Management and Finance

The present global institutional set-up for managing the global environment is rather weak and ineffective. The UNEP, the GEF and the United Nations Sustainable Development Commission (CSD) mainly constitute the present system. The UNEP with its current financial and personnel availabilities cannot cope with the global environmental problems. Additionally, the legal status in which the UNEP is trying to fulfill its mission cannot provide a base for an effective and efficient handling of global matters. As far as the GEF is concerned, it would be unrealistic to expect that the GEF would be successful in re-coursing the global environmental problems such as climate change, bio-diversity, deforestation, and desertification. The CSD of ECOSOC (the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations) does not have its own financial resources to cope with the global environmental problems.

In addition to the above-mentioned global organizations, there are several other indirectly related global organizations. These include the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some of these organizations have not yet incorporated the environmental concerns within their own mandates and some of them have attached secondary importance to the global environmental concerns.

The third group of global environmental organizations is the “secretariats” established by the multilateral environmental agreements. Some of these secretariats have been successful in fulfilling the missions such as ozone layer depletion and whale protection but the majority of them have failed. Furthermore, institutional relations amongst these secretariats are not satisfactory. Similarly, the relations between the secretariats and other international organizations are virtually non-existent. These secretariats are sparsed all over the World thus experiencing huge amount of communication, cooperation and coordination problems. Even, most of them are not aware of the priorities of others. Political priorities differ amongst these organizations. Contradictions in terms of strategies, policies, and objectives are highly likely. It seems rather unlikely to expect that these secretariats will unite and will form a kind of global collaboration platform to fight with the global environmental problems. Naturally and expectably, the NGOs either national or international -despite their intense efforts- cannot be a leverage to modify and reshape the global organizational misgivings and shortcomings described above. Under these circumstances, planning the global environmental problems is almost impossible whereas the planning of global environmental problems bears an utmost necessity.

Scientists due to the lack of data and information on the nature and characteristics of the issues have not yet adequately defined most of the global environmental problems. Genetically modified organisms, some of the toxic and hazardous chemicals such as PCB and ozone layer depletion are the known examples in this regard. The boundaries of the environmental sciences have been reached in most cases and further additional knowledge is an absolute necessity to make accurate predictions and to develop secure solutions. Scientific research needs have not yet been adequately met for global ecological and environmental problems.

Similarly, directing and/or managing the Globe’s ecosystem are not possible under the given conditions. There is no global management of World’s ecosystems and there will not be in the future under the present circumstances. Furthermore, the global rules have to be developed, formulated and codified. Certain organizations should be set-up to monitor the developments and implement the sanctions agreed upon internationally. Technical and administrative infrastructures should be established. New sources of finance should also be secured to run all these procedures and facilities. International courts should be able to issue binding resolutions on the offenders and rule breakers. Environmental funds should be available to help those countries, which are in need of financial assistance. However, none of these crucial systemic inputs is available at the moment. Therefore, an effective global management of ecosystems is not in sight for the near future.

Consequently, the global ecosystems will continue to deteriorate, the global environmental quality will be jeopardised and extinction processes of some certain living creatures will continue. This process will not only damage the global ecosystems but will also threaten and endanger the future political stability of the nations as well as the life conditions of all human kind living on the this planet.

World Environment Organization (WEO): A Desperate Global Need

This alarming phenomenon necessitates the establishment of a global institution to deal with the problem, to forecast the future, to identify the required counter-measures, to develop rules, norms and sanctions to be applied to all related parties, to generate funds, to finance the expenditures, to establish the global monitoring systems and laboratories and to try the polluters and offenders.

Similar thoughts in this line have also been reflected by the “OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21^st Century” (OECD 2001), which has been adopted by the OECD Environment Ministers on May 16, 2001. Although, the Strategy did not call for the establishment of the WEO, the following statements taking place in the document are remarkable in this regard: “Efforts are needed to better manage the environmental affects of globalisation through improved national and international environmental governance. Over time, non-OECD countries will account for an increasing share of environmental pressures at regional and global levels. Action by OECD countries to combat these pressures will only be effective if accompanied by countries require robust policy and institutional frameworks to play their role in addressing global and regional environmental problems and to ensure that maximum benefits are derived from globalisation… Stronger efforts are needed to ratify, implement and ensure compliance with and enforcement of existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements and instruments. Best practices in the implementation of existing multilateral environmental agreements should routinely disseminated. Some new multilateral instruments may need to be developed to address gaps in the existing international environmental governance system, but the priority should be on making existing multilateral environmental agreements as effective as possible. Improved cooperation and coherence between existing multilateral environmental agreements should also be promoted…”

Several important calls came from the prominent world leaders and global organization. The Prime Minister of France, M. Jospin, in his speech at the World Bank Conference on Development Economics in Paris on 26 June 2000, said: “Problems are now global and require global solutions. States acting in isolation are not in position to protect their citizens’ interest and guarantee them the benefits of globalization”. Jospin, called for the strengthening of the United Nations and other institutions “which endeavor to guarantee international public assets, especially in areas where there are still gaps.” Jospin said “to this end, France will propose a new ‘World Environment Organization’ to enforce international commitments. France will be taking an initiative along these lines, based on the UN system, when it assumes the Presidency of the European Union…”

Similar idea has been voiced by Germany in June 1977 at the Special Session of the UN General Assembly (Rio + 5). Germany has proposed the establishment of “World Environment Organization” under the possible formats of “World Environment Council” at the level of UN “ECOSOC” or even at the level of UN “Security Council” or as an independent “Global Environment Organization” with competencies similar to WTO”.

WTO, also, proposed the establishment of World Environment Organization. The Director General of WTO, Renato Ruggiero, in his speech in Geneva on March 15, 1999 suggested that “we need a WTO-similar, multilateral, rules-based system for the environment – a “World Environment Organization” to also be the institutional and legal counterpart to the World Trade Organization”.

Recently, in a meeting held in Canberra, Global Greens Conference, in June 2001, delegates from more than 60 countries proposed that the WTO should be subject to environmental controls imposed by the new WEO, which would be backed up by an environmental court.

Several academicians are also supporting the idea and proposing the establishment of “World Environment and Development Organization”. Biermann and Adonis, in their article (Biermann 1999) have stated the following conclusion: “While improved efficiency and more coordination are desirable, they will not suffice on their own to upgrade the efficacy of the existing system of international institutions in global environmental and development policy. This system, therefore, needs to be complemented by a further specialised agency of the United Nations: a World Environment and Development Organization that integrates existing programs and institutions. This could, first, serve to give an enhanced status to the urgent tasks of global environmental and development policy among national governments, international organizations, NGOs and civil society at large. Secondly, it could help to improve the institutional setting for the negotiation of new conventions and programs of action and for the implementation and coordination of existing ones. Thirdly, this would be a way to strengthen the capacity for action of states, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, through improved international cooperation and support.”

What Kind of New Global Institutional Framework?

The recently published WRI Report (2000) reveals the following: “The Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE) shows that the overall capacity of ecosystems to deliver goods and services is decreasing. Yet human demand for ecosystem products -from water to food to timber- continues to increase. Globally, we have managed agriculture, forests and freshwater systems to achieve remarkable growth in the output of food and fiber. But, when PAGE researchers examined the full range of goods and services produced by five major ecosystems, they found that the increased output of some goods and services has resulted in steep declines in virtually all others -from water quality and quantity to biodiversity and carbon storage. In many cases, these trade-offs were unconscious. Nonetheless, even with a new awareness of the value of traditionally overlooked ecosystem services like biodiversity and carbon storage, we can’t simply reverse the trade-offs we’ve made… The poor and disadvantaged would pay the human consequences of such strategy.”

Therefore, the correct answer to the question of “What kind of management” lies within the limits of the management approach to be adopted for the global environmental and ecological problems. Since, the present approach is based upon continuos and extensive abuse of scarce resources for social and economic development, which naturally results in creating more pressures for ecosystems, the new approach should base upon the concept of ecosystem management of global resources.

The WRI Report (2000) also points out five major criteria of ecosystem approach:

·      An integrated approach,

·      Reorients the boundaries that traditionally have defined our management of ecosystems,

·      Takes the long view,

·      Includes people, and

·      Maintains the productive potential of ecosystems.

Although, above mentioned criteria are developed mainly for local and regional ecosystems, same principles can also be applied to global ecosystems. Therefore, the WEO should try to manage the global ecosystems in the same line. This approach, if adopted, also specifies the statute, functions, duties, responsibilities, authorities and powers of the new institution.

However, the proponents and adversaries of the WEO seem to have contradicting ideas over the characteristics of the new institution. While the proponents are supporting the idea, the adversaries are sceptical about the chances of success of the new proposed organization. Both parties are expressing their opinions taking into consideration the environmental and political realities of today’s World. Since, the ecological problems is always analyzed and discussed simultaneously with the problem of global unemployment and achieving global economic growth especially in the poor and developing countries, it is expected that consolidation of the contradicting interests of world nations will not be an easy task.

Despite this discouraging difficulty, the proponents of the idea seem to be convinced on the merits of the new organization. In this regard, two main options of strategies can be thought for the establishment of the new WEO:

·      Radical option: A totally brand-new and comprehensive international body.

·      Incremental and transient option: Utilization of present international organizations such as the UNEP and the GEF.

Naturally, first option is the ideal solution. However, the feasibility of this option is greatly doubtful. The existing serious contradictions between the north and south as materialized in Kyoto and aftermaths and the problem of securing revenue sources for the operational expenses of the WEO as has been observed in the GEF practices where the donor countries have much more power and right to say than the receiving countries make this option rather difficult if not impossible.

Therefore, the second option seems to be more practicable. In this regard, the UN path should be followed and the UNEP, the GEF and the CSD should be united under a single umbrella. Likewise, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) may also take part in the new organization. What would be more significant is the integration of individual secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements in the scheme. These organizations must be effectively incorporated into the new system.

The management functions of the new body should also be planned. At the first phase, which would be the transition phase, status gaining and institution development functions should be given the priority. Upon the completion of this stage, a full-scale management of global ecosystem -perhaps incorporating an international court into the system- should be the overall target for the new entity. International arbitration over environmental disputes and the management of ISO 14000 series of standards known as the International Environmental Management System Certificates should also be incorporated within the new process.

As indicated in a recent article (Cone 2002) the WTO is certainly a good example in this regard. First, the international experience gained in the Uruguay Round should be repeated for the enhancement of the idea and then again the WTO model should be replicated in terms of status, structure, relations, decision-making, functions, duties, authorities and fund raising. Therefore, the main functions of the WEO should be similar to those of WTO as follows:

·      Administering multilateral environmental agreements

·      Acting as a forum/platform for environmental negotiations

·      Settling environmental disputes

·      Reviewing national environmental policies

·      Assisting developing countries in environmental policy issues through financial and technical assistance and training programs

·      Cooperating with other international organizations.

Organizationally, the WTO structure, which is mainly comprised of the Ministerial Conference, the General Council, the specialized committees, the multilateral environmental agreements secretariats and the General Secretariat, can be adopted. Biermann and Simonis (Biermann 1999, 2000) seem to be certain about the sources of finance. These researchers are basically pointing out the sources to be derived from the developed countries’ already promised environmental financial assistance (like Sweden and the Netherlands) to developing countries, buying up of the debts of developing countries by the developed ones, a levy on international air travel and a levy on foreign exchange transactions.

Conclusion

The ongoing deterioration of global environmental and ecological quality parameters should create an effective alarm for world leaders, leading countries and international organizations. It is already proven that even the spectacular success in environmental diplomacy is not adequate to reverse the well-known adverse, unmitigable and irrevocable impacts of global environmental deterioration. The establishment of the WEO can only achieve such a revolution. The existing bodies of the UNEP and the GEF as well as the huge accumulation of international relations expertise in the UN can provide a very effective leverage in this regard.

Consequently, the time has arrived to revolutionize the global environmental governance. Hilary French’s comments and expectations on the venue are inspiring: “…Thirty years ago, photographs taken from space by the Apollo expeditions indelibly impressed on all who saw them that our planet, while divided by political boundaries, is united by ecological systems. These photos helped inspire the first Earth Day, which in turn motivated numerous countries to pass environmental laws and create environmental ministries. This year, the world will celebrate Earth Day 2000. The time has come for a comparable groundswell in support of the international governance reforms that are needed to safeguard the health of the planet in the new millennium.”

 

 

TÜRKÇE ÖZET

DÜNYA ÇEVRE ÖRGÜTÜ:

KÜRESEL ÇEVRENİN YÖNETİMİ İÇİN ACİL BİR GEREKSİNİM

Günümüzde çevresel yıkım ve felaketler artık ulusal sınır tanımamaktadır. Bunun da ötesinde, üzerinde yaşadığımız gezegenin hemen her köşesinde her gün çeşitli çevre “suçları” işlenmektedir. Küremizin nadir bitki ve hayvan türleri yok olma süreci içine girmiştir. Bu süreç süreklilik kazanmıştır. Ormansızlaşma ve çölleşme tam hızla yol almaktadır. Yalnızca Güney Amerika kıtasının yağmur ormanları değil aynı zamanda Afrika kıtasının ve eski doğu bloku ülkelerinin büyük bir kesiminin orman varlığı tümüyle tahrip olmuştur. Küresel ısınma ve asit yağmurlarının etkileri küresel uygarlığın kaderini tehdit altına alırcasına daha çok gözle görülür duruma gelmiş ve yadsınamaz bü-yüklüklere erişmiştir. Genetik yapısı değiştirilmiş organizmalar, üzerlerinde yeterli bir denetim süreci olmaksızın, her gün sayılarını artırmakta ve geniş tüketici kitlelerin kullanımına sunulmaktadır. Zehirli ve tehlikeli atıkların özel-likle gelişmekte olan ülkelere yasa dışı yollardan ihracına devam edilmektedir. Buna karşılık, küresel çevrenin korunması amacıyla her yıl onlarca uluslararası belge ve anlaşma imzalanmakta ve yürürlüğe konulmaktadır. Ancak, ne var ki, bu anlaşmaların ve belgelerin uygulanma durumlarını gözlemleyecek ve de-netim altında tutacak küresel bir izleme sisteminin yokluğu nedeniyle bu belgelerin uygulanabilirliğine ilişkin koşullar açıklık ve netlikle bilinememekte ve irdelenememektedir. Bu nedenle de çevre alanında yapılmış tüm uluslararası anlaşmalar uygulamada önemlerini büyük ölçüde yitirmektedir.

Yukarıda verilen bilgiler göstermektedir ki, küresel çevre yönetimi ve planlaması yeni kurumsal düzenlemelere acil gereksinim duymaktadır. Ulus-lararası toplum bu acil gereksinime yeterli düzeyde yanıt üretmek zorundadır. Bu amaçla kuruldukları varsayılabilecek Birleşmiş Milletler, Birleşmiş Milletler Çevre Programı (UNEP – United Nations Environmental Program) ve Küresel Çevre Fonu (GEF – Global Environmental Feasibility) gibi uluslararası örgütler küresel ölçekte yeterince örgütlenememiş, yetkilendirilememiş ve akçalı kay-naklara kavuşturulamamıştır. Bu nedenle, bu tür kuruluşlardan kürenin çevresel geleceği bağlamında umutlu olabilmek olanağı ortada kalmamıştır.

Bu olumsuzluklara karşılık, eski “Tarifeler ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması Örgütü’nün (GATT – General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade) Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ; WTO - World Trade Organization) şekline dönüştürülmüş olma-sı uluslararası örgütlenme modelleri açısından cesaret verici yeni bir örnek olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. DTÖ’ne üye ülkeler küresel ticaretin geliştirilmesi için ulusal yetkilerinin bir kesimini bu kuruluşa devretmişlerdir.

Dünyamızın giderek çoğalan ve büyüyen çevresel sorunları da küresel ölçekte ve bütüncül işlevler yerine getirebilecek yeni bir kurumsal yapıya gereksinim duymaktadır. Bu kurum, küresel çevre yönetiminin gerekli kıldığı planlama, örgütlenme, yürütme, denetleme, yaptırım uygulama, işbirliği ve eş-güdüm işlevlerini yerine getirmek amacını taşıyacaktır. Bu kurum Dünya Çevre Örgütü’dür.

Literature Cited

Biermann, Frank, and Udo E. Simonis. 1999. Pleading for a world environment and development organization. In Biopolitics: The Bio-Environment. 7: 51-67.

Biermann, Frank Dr., 2000. The case for a World Environment Organization. Environment. 42/9: 22-32.

Cone, Sydney M. 2002. The environment and the World Trade Organization. http://ssrn.com. Id=345120.

French, Hilary. 2000 a. Vanishing borders; Protecting the Planet in the age of globalization. Norton/Worldwatch Books. New York.

French, Hilary, 2000 b. Coping with ecological globalization. In “State of the World 2000”. The Worldwatch Institute. Norton/Worldwatch Book. New York. Pages 184-202.

Meadows, D. 1972. The Limits to Growth, A Global Challenge. A Report for the Club of Rome Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. New York.

Meadows, D., Meadows, D., and J. Randers. 1991. Beyond the limits; Confronting global collapse; Envisioning a sustainable future. Erathscan Publications. London

Nellisen, Nico, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers. 1997. Classics in environmental studies: An overview of classical texts in environmental studies. International Books. Utrecht.

OECD. 2001. Environmental strategy for the first decade of the 21^st Century. Paris.

UN. 1987. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. The Oxford University Press. London.

US Government. 1980. The Global 2000 Report to the President of the USA. The Government Printing House. Washington DC.

World Resources Institute. 2000. People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life. Washington DC.