Hands Across the Sea

By Thomas A. Sancton

It is easy to draw up a plan of action for protecting the earth. But that plan will fail unless it is forged with international fellowship and carried out on a global scale. How much good can one country do by reducing carbon- dioxide emissions if another nation offsets that with an increased output of CO2? How can one country keep its beaches clean if its neighbor down the coast dumps sewage or syringes into the sea? "On most environmental questions, the nation-state is obsolete," said Pace University's Nicholas Robinson. "We have to talk about multinational cooperation."

The first goal of that cooperative effort should be to gather the information needed to fashion effective policies. "We've got to get the earth in intensive care, to start to monitor the vital signs of the planet," said John Eddy of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. This could be done by launching an International Earthwatch Program, possibly under the aegis of the United Nations, to coordinate multinational research projects and centralize essential data on the state of the world. Such an umbrella program could pool the results of hundreds of existing research efforts. A prime candidate for this program would be the Mission to Planet Earth, recommended by former astronaut Sally Ride, which would use NASA facilities to study the earth from space. In addition to improving knowledge of the earth's ills, an International Earthwatch Program could provide the basis for a widespread awareness-building campaign aimed at preparing public opinion for the sacrifices and life-style changes that will be necessary in the coming decades. Environmental education programs should be immediately introduced into schools and workplaces around the world, and government leaders should bring these issues into the heart of political debate.

But research and education are no substitutes for concrete action. The world community must move promptly toward comprehensive treaties to protect the air, soil and water. A framework for the effort exists within the U.N., which has already taken some important initiatives. In 1972 the U.N. organized the landmark Stockholm conference, which set up the United Nations Environment Program. It was under UNEP's sponsorship that 24 countries signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, calling for a reduction in the output of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons. There have also been proposals to enhance UNEP's role as a sort of intergovernmental superagency on environmental questions.

Paralleling the U.N.'s efforts, multilateral financial institutions have a crucial role to play. The World Bank, which lends money for Third World development projects, was long criticized by environmental groups for backing large, ecologically unsound programs -- a cattle-raising scheme in Botswana that led to overgrazing, for example. During the past few years, however, the World Bank has been seeking to factor environmental concerns into its programs. One product of this new approach is an environmental action plan for Madagascar. The 20-year plan, which will be drawn up jointly with the World Wide Fund for Nature, aims at heightening public awareness of environmental issues, setting up and managing protected areas and encouraging sustainable development. Similar aims should also guide the lending policies of the International Monetary Fund, regional development banks and bilateral assistance programs.

Much of the current environmental crisis is rooted in, and exacerbated by, the widening gap between rich and poor nations. Industrialized countries contain only 23% of the world's population, yet they control 80% of the world's goods and are also responsible for the bulk of its pollution. On the other hand, it is the developing countries that are hardest hit by overpopulation, malnutrition and disease. As these nations struggle to catch up with the developed world, a vicious circle begins: their efforts at rapid industrialization poison their cities, while their attempts to boost agricultural production often result in the destruction of their forests and the depletion of their soils.

The greatest obstacle to economic and environmental improvements in the developing countries is their mammoth foreign debt. Collectively, the Third World owes $1.2 trillion to the banks and governments of industrialized countries. A new World Bank report estimates that in 1988 the developing countries made net payments of $43 billion to the industrial nations, up from $38 billion in 1987. How can the rich nations expect poor countries to launch environmental programs while struggling to pay off those crippling loans? Clearly, the Third World's debt payments will have to be lightened or postponed. The best way of doing that seems to be using debt forgiveness as leverage for winning environmental concessions.

One approach that has already been pursued successfully on a small scale is the so-called debt-for-nature swaps. Conceived by the Smithsonian Institution's Thomas Lovejoy in 1984, these innovative deals often involve the cooperation of governments, bankers and conservation groups. In a typical debt-for-nature swap earlier this year, the World Wildlife Fund, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, bought $1 million worth of Ecuadoran debt held by Bankers Trust at the discounted price of $354,500. The bank was happy to get the troublesome loan off its books, while the World Wildlife Fund gained the power to improve that country's environment. The fund accomplishes this by transferring the loan payments to Fundacion Natura, a conservation group in Ecuador. Fundacion Natura, in turn, uses the money to protect and maintain national parks and wildlife preserves.

However it is accomplished, a greater share of the world's capital will have to flow into developing countries. What they need, said Senator Albert Gore, is a new Marshall Plan for economic development and environmental preservation. But where will the money come from? For starters, the U.S. and the Soviet Union could reduce military spending in order to boost aid for environmental programs. Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, a professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology, argued that the superpowers should redefine "global security" to include "the issues of population, environment and sustainable development." Yet the U.S., the + world's largest debtor, can no longer supply the bulk of aid to the Third World. Nor can the economically strapped Soviet Union provide much financial help.

That leaves Japan, now the world's most financially powerful country, with a heavy responsibility for taking a leading role in bankrolling solutions to the environmental crisis. Japan has long shied away from assuming a major place in international affairs because of its militaristic adventures of the 1930s and '40s, but as Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita has made clear, his country realizes its international duty and is willing to shoulder it.

Japan's foreign aid appropriations of more than $10 billion in 1988 outstripped U.S. outlays, and Tokyo has increased its contributions to the World Bank and other environment-conscious lending institutions. The Takeshita government is willing to give more, but its efforts have ironically been hampered by the U.S., which is reluctant to give the Japanese a greater say in running these international groups. One solution might be to set up a new financial entity, an International Bank for Environmental Protection, in which the Japanese could have a major responsibility for both funding and management.

America, for its part, is at a turning point. The Reagan Administration, with its poor record on environmental issues, is coming to a close. President- elect Bush, who turned the pollution of Boston Harbor into a successful campaign issue, has an opportunity to show that he is serious about saving the planet -- even after the election. He sent out an encouraging signal last week by naming veteran conservationist William Reilly to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Reilly, 48, president of the World Wildlife Fund, promised a "new and constructive course" on environmental problems. It is none too soon.

With reporting by Barry Hillenbrand/Tokyo and Richard Hornik/Washington