Petition "To Invite Public Participation in the UNEP Survey on
Military Activities and the Environment"

This June the UNEP will begin a global survey of the environmental impacts from peacetime military activities.¹

     The Division of Environmental Law and Conventions of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is planning to begin a global survey to review environmental problems related to military establishments. It will also seek information on ways militaries contribute to environmental policy goals.
     This survey is based on Section 20 "Military activities and the environment" of the Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law for the First Decade of the Twenty-First Century (Montevideo Programme III). This survey builds upon a 1995 survey conducted in response to Agenda 21, the international movement toward sustainability and participatory environmental management.

"Agenda 21" and the first survey on military activities and the environment in 1995

     At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992, more than 178 governments adopted Agenda 21 as the program for action in every area in which humans impact the environment, setting goals for the 21^st century.
     Agenda 21 section 20.22 (h) states, "Governments should ascertain that their military establishments conform to their nationally applicable environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes."² Responding to this section, the UNEP Governing Council decided to conduct the first survey on military activities and the environment to understand each country's situation with respect to this issue.
     Although the survey was a great step toward identifying environmental problems and policies to address them, the scope of the survey did not include input from many geographical areas and actors. The survey covered only 33 countries from Europe including former Soviet Republics, (See UNEP/MIL/3, UNEP/MIL/4), 9 South Asian Countries (See UNEP/MIL/SA/1), and 7 South-East Asian Countries (See UNEP/MIL/SEA/1). That survey did not seek information from CSOs,³ and the regional meetings that followed⁴ did not result in effective international norms for military activities.
     For example, the UNEP convened the Meeting on Military Activities and the Environment at Linköping, Sweden in 1995. At the meeting, participating governments presented a list of "Items Raised at the Linkõping Meeting" that could serve as a reference for future consideration and discussion by the European Commission for Europe (ECE) governments. The list included provisions to implement relevant international conventions and soft laws, environmental impact assessment procedures that would also incorporate public comments, and public access to information on environmental problems caused by military sectors. Unfortunately the meeting did not adopt any concrete timeframe to continue this discussion, nor result in a global dialogue.
     Seven Southeast Asian countries that participated in a sub-regional meeting on this issue, requested UNEP to consider the feasibility of establishing an international information network on this subject. Unfortunately such an effective network has yet to form, and the result has been inefficient information sharing, and slow policy growth outside the ECE.
     Without efficient information sharing countries of South and Southeast Asia have been slow to improve situations involving military related environmental issues and policies. Communities in many of these countries and several East-Asian countries have been seeking solutions to such problems for over four decades, through civil society organizations (CSOs). They have dealt with problems stemming from Agent Orange, hazardous waste in drinking water, unexploded ordinance (UXO), landmines, tragic fires and chemical spills, soil contamination, crashes and noise from flight training. Unfortunately they have not benefited from recommendations like those resulting from the Linköping meeting.⁶ For these communities, improving environmental information sharing and CSO access to military decision processes may be particularly important to finding the solutions that did not come from the first survey.

What contribution can CSOs make to this survey?

     Because the first survey did not involve CSOs, some country reports lacked significant information on these issues. For example, the Philippine and US governments did not report about contamination at the former US Clark Air Base and the former Subic Bay Navy Base in the Philippines in their reports to the UNEP. This went unreported despite work by a Philippine group of scientists and students that received international attention, lobbying efforts by Philippine and US NGOs, and official recognition of the contamination before the survey started in 1995. Although scientists and NGOs warned communities and officials about pollution and risks to human health, neither government took appropriate action to address this issue. Meanwhile the problem grew.
     This lack of action created dire consequences. In 1991 Mt. Pinatubo erupted, evacuating communities in a wide radius and damaging the US military bases nearby. The residents complained that the water from several shallow artesian wells had an unusual taste, smell and color. Later observers found unusually high incidence of skin diseases, miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects, cancers, heart ailments and leukemia among the residents. In 1994 one community leader of 1,072 families monitored the health condition of 500 families that settled in the former US Clark Air base. The research found 144 persons were sick with illnesses caused or aggravated by polluted water from the artesian wells. As of 2000, 76 of those monitored have already died.⁷ As an NGO reported, by 2002, 2457 people living near former Clark and Subic bases had become sick with similar health problems related to pollution left by US military forces. 1041 of these people died by 2002. ⁸
     Moreover there was no legal remedy for those that wanted US action to address this contamination. The bilateral agreement between the Philippine and US governments lacked environmental provisions, and US environmental law provided no relief for the victims when they brought a suit in 2002. This plainly undermines the "polluter pays" principle espoused in Agenda 21 sec 20.22 (g). Without providing a legal remedy, public access to information, and opportunities for public participation in addressing this issue, these countries fail to protect communities.
     If governments and CSOs had collaborated for the UNEP first survey to identify the issue and develop the solution, these stakeholders would have worked together to reduce the risk to the human health and the environment caused by the past US military activities.

Your signature will make a difference - it will enable diverse group of actors, especially CSOs, to participate in the global survey and help decision-makers develop legal framework to address these issues.

     Like the first survey showed, UNEP member states are in a unique position to make this survey reflect the impacts of military activities on their communities, and what they are doing to address them. As a result of the first survey, the UNEP and the global community recognize that it will be important to involve NGOs, local authorities, and affected communities as they improve environmental policy applying to the military sector. (UNEP/MIL/4, 89.) Now the UNEP is interested in broad public involvement for the next global survey, including scientists, NGOs, and affected communities. Each member state may have unique access to these individuals and CSOs. Inviting public comment could not only involve these actors, building a more diverse response to the survey, but also increase public awareness of these issues.
     With a more inclusive sample of what problems and solutions are at play in each country, decision makers may work more effectively at addressing problems affecting communities that host military activities, or did so in the past. Further, it may give these communities a chance to learn from others, build international support for important national policy reforms, and may provide a forum for developing effective strategies for empowering communities. These are all laudable goals recognized by the UNEP and more than 178 member nations since 1992.⁹
     Your signature gives the Executive Director of the UNEP one more reason to recommend that member States seek public comment when they participate in the survey, encouraging governments to work with political minorities¹⁰ when they present the challenges that communities face in each country.
     We hope you will take this opportunity to join other concerned citizens in support of military environmental policy reform. A good start would be to participate in the petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/454164146), but this is only one step. Beyond seeking his support, a letter to an official in your government, urging a public comment process, could be crucial to making this effort happen from the ground up. If you wish to send a letter, we would like to assist you in your work and help other organizations support your goals; you can reach us through the petition site link (the sponsor) or our website. When we are both successful, governments will receive input from their communities and the international community, urging a public comment process that allows the public to participate in the survey.

Invitation to the CSO global survey of environmental impacts from peacetime military activities¹¹

     If you have experience dealing with military related environmental problems or policy, we hope you will also consider participating in our CSO survey, which we are preparing to begin in June. Our survey will help CSOs collaborate internationally to identify military related environmental issues and develop solutions. We aim to submit an interim report of our findings and recommendations to the UNEP Governing Council, meeting in February 2008. We plan to submit final reports at later UNEP regional meetings, and at the UNEP international conference on this issue that is planned for 2008 or 2009.

---

¹ The survey will cover post-conflict impacts on the environment and human health, and ongoing impacts from non-combat military activities.
²For sections of Agenda 21, visit http://earthwatch.unep.net/agenda21/20.php.
³CSOs include all non-government organizations. A recent UNEP Global Civil Society Forum survey split CSO's into "major groups," including business and industry, indigenous peoples and their communities, scientific and technological community, workers and their trade unions, children and youth, Non-governmental Organizations, women, local authorities, and farmers.
⁴ See the previously mentioned conference reports (UNEP/MIL/3, UNEP/MIL/4, UNEP/MIL/SA/1, UNEP/MIL/SEA/1).
⁵ See "The Environmental Problems of the US Military Bases in Korea, and its solution (2005/09/09)" on the Green Korea United website at http://www.greenkorea.org/english/
⁶ Problems with sharing risk information have been concerns in Vieques-Peurto Rico, San Antonio-Texas, and others.
⁷ The Philippine Senate Committee Report No. 237, On Toxic Contamination in the former U.S. Bases in the Philippines (2000)
⁸ Information from "Environmental Impact of US Military Installations in the Philippines," a presentation to the 2002 Asian Civil Society Forum by the People's Task Force for Bases Cleanup, soon to be available on our website.
⁹ See Agenda 21, section 23. 2; establishing Agenda 21's mission requires broad public participation in decision-making and access to information that affects communities and the environment. See also 27.3-4, encouraging NGO participation and collaboration in decisions at all levels of national decision-making that implement the goals of Agenda 21, because "Non-governmental organizations…possess well-established and diverse experience, expertise and capacity in fields which will be of particular importance" (27.3).
¹⁰ Also a priority of Agenda 21; section 23.1 shows governments recognize that genuinely involving all social groups is critical to sustainable development. Subsequent chapters advocate political access for women (24), children and youth organizations (25), indigenous people (26), NGOs (27), local authorities (28), workers (29), businesses (30), scientists (31), and farmers (32).
¹¹ Like the UNEP survey, our survey will cover post-conflict impacts on the environment and human health, and ongoing impacts from non-combat military activities.

Subcommittee on MREC Contact Persons:
Kaori Sunagawa
Phone: +1-802-763-7433
E-mail: ksunagawa@vermontlaw.edu

Weston Watts
E-mail: wwatts@vermontlaw.edu

INTERNATIONAL LAW SOCIETY

Vermont Law School