Copy from page of European Parliament 2
14 January 1999 A4-0005/99
REPORT
on the environment, security and foreign policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin
Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and
Consumer Protection
(Hughes procedure)
C O N T E N T S
1. A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
2. B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
3. Annex 1
4. OPINION
At the sitting of 13 July 1995, the President of Parliament
announced that he had referred the motion for a resolution tabled pursuant
to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use
of military-related resources for environmental strategies, (B4-0551/95), to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy as the
committee responsible and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health
and Consumer Protection for its opinion.
At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the
President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to
submit a report on the matter.
At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin
rapporteur.
At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament
announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes
Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.
The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June,
21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5
January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament at its
meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.
At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security
and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none
with one abstention.
The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin,
rapporteur; Aelvoet, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam
Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton,
Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka), Lalumičre, Lambrias,
Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha,
Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M.
Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff),
Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.
The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health
and Consumer Protection is attached.
The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the
draft agenda for the relevant partsession.
A
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Rehn Rouva on
the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies
(B4-0551/95).
- having regard to the UN study 'Charting potential uses of resources
allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the
environment', UN (A46/364, 17 September 1991),
- having regard to its resolution of 17 July 1995 on anti-personnel
landmines; a murderous impediment to development (A4-0149/95),
- having regard to its previous resolutions on non-proliferation and the
testing of nuclear weapons and the Canberra Commission report of August 1996
on the abolition of nuclear weapons,
- having regard to the International Court's unanimous ruling on the
obligation of the nuclear weapon states to negotiate for a ban on nuclear
weapons (Advisory Opinion No. 96/22 of 8 July 1996),
- having regard to its resolution of 19 April 1996 on the proposal for a
Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of
civil protection (A4-0100/96),
- having regard to its past resolutions on chemical weapons,
- having regard to the outcome of the UN Conferences in Kyoto in 1997 and
Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
- having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held by the
Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brussels on 5
February 1998,
- having regard to Rule 148,
- having regard to the report of Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and
Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public
Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0005/99),
A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security
situation in the world and that the relaxation of military tension has
resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and
in nuclear weapons in particular, releasing substantial military resources,
B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategic
situation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophic damage to
the integrity and sustainability of the global environment, notably its
bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whether from the accidental
or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or the authorised use of nuclear
weapons based on a perceived but unfounded threat of impending attack,
C. whereas this risk could be very considerably reduced within a very short
timeframe by the rapid implementation by all nuclear weapons states of the
six steps contained in the Canberra Commission's report concerning, in
particular the removal of all nuclear weapons from the present "hair trigger
alert" readiness and the progressive transfer of all weapons into strategic
reserve,
D. whereas Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) commits all of its parties to undertake "to pursue
negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament"
and the Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Conference
reaffirmed that the Treaty's ultimate goal was the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons,
E. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension,
terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security
and that the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in
importance as the security scene changes; whereas as some of the threats to
security are non-military it is important that resources allocated to
military activities are also used for non-military purposes,
F. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were
inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and
environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems
may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that
this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and
defence policies,
G. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an
intra-state rather than interstate level and, where inter-state conflicts do
arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of
basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel,
H. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources
are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both
cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict
prevention must increasingly focus on these issues,
I. whereas the pressure on land, both fertile and habitable, historically a
major cause of tension and conflict, is increasingly caused by environmental
degradation, notably climate change and the consequent rise in sea levels,
J. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable
populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the
incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct
pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance
and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security
problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of
the world,
K. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and
published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of
'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees'
(25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by
2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis,
L. whereas the issue of 'environmental refugees' is merely a symptom of a
humanitarian disaster on a much more massive scale in terms of the 1.3
billion people who live in absolute poverty according to the UN definition;
whereas over one quarter of these people try to subsist in areas of the
world that are extremely vulnerable environmentally and are the main
contributors to global environmental problems such as deforestation and
desertification,
M. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global
issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological
context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance,
this has yet to be reflected in the UN's system of global governance by
emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and
non-military components of security policy,
N. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN's
work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military,
and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment
and sustainable development,
O. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilise adequate resources to meet
the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available
for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of
existing resources is called for,
P. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have
had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts
to cope with the increasing environmental problems,
Q. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets
while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be
found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military
resources for environmental protection,
R. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen
in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and
whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various
environmental strategies which should cover possible transfers,
reorientation and redeployment of military-related resources,
S. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems
cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation
of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international
technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate
military-related technology,
T. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing
on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by
the Alaska-based HAARP system,
U. whereas the experience of the development and use of nuclear power 'for
peaceful purposes' serves as a salutory warning as to how military secrecy
can prevent proper assessment and supervision of mixed civilian/military
technologies if transparency is in any way compromised,
V. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental
crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making
process and that the individual countries must pool their efforts in
response to environmental disasters,
1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and the Parliament a
common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty, which brings together
the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and
international environmental policies between 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle
the following individual issues and the relationships between them:
(a) Agricultural and food production and environmental degradation;
(b) Water shortages and transfrontier water supply;
(c) Deforestation and restoring carbon sinks;
(d) Unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty;(e) Sustainable
development and climate change;
(f) Deforestation, desertification and population growth;
(g) The link between all of the above and global warming and the
humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather
events;
2. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument
of security policy; calls, therefore, on the Member States to define
environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and
security assessments, military research and action plans;
3. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic
society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and
peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the
prevention of environmental damage;
4. Considers that atmospheric and underground nuclear tests have as a result
of nuclear radiation fall-out distributed large quantities of radioactive
cesium 137, strontium 90 and other cancer inducing isotopes over the whole
planet and have caused considerable environmental and health damage in the
test areas;
5. Considers that several parts of the world are threatened by the
uncontrolled, unsafe and unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear
submarines and surface-vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and
leaking nuclear reactors, considering the high possibility that as a result
large regions might soon start to be polluted by the radiation;
6. Considers that still an appropriate solution has to be found to deal with
the chemical and conventional weapons which have been dumped after both
World Wars in many places in the seas around Europe as an 'easy' solution to
get rid of these stocks and that up to today nobody knows what might be the
ecological results in the long run, in particular for the fish and for
beach-life;
7. Considers that the European Union will have to contribute to find a
solution for the problem that, as result of ongoing warfare in whole regions
of Africa, human and agricultural structures have been ruined and therefore
the lands are now subject to environmental disaster in particular by
deforestation and erosion leading to desertification;
8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute to damaging
the environment and health and to undertake all steps necessary to clean up
and decontaminate the polluted areas;
Use of military resources for environmental purposes
9. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damage to the
environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends
therefore that the Member States seek to utilize military-related resources
for environmental protection by:
(a) introducing training for environmental defence troops with a view to
establishing a coordinated European environmental protection brigade;
(b) listing their environmental needs and the military resources available
for environmental purposes and using those resources in their national
environmental planning;
(c) considering which of its military resources it can make available to the
United Nations or the European Union on a temporary, long-term or stand-by
basis as an instrument for international cooperation in environmental
disasters or crises;
(d) drawing up plans for creating national and European protection teams
using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under the
Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies;
(e) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable
development in its concepts of security;
(f) ensuring that its armed forces comply with specific environmental rules
and that damage caused by them to the environment in the past is made good;
(g) including environmental considerations in its military research and
development programmes;
10. Urges the governments of the Member States, since practical experience
in the field is limited, to:
(a) establish centres for the exchange of information on current national
experience in environmental applications for military resources;
(b) facilitating the global dissemination of environmental data including
such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other
information-gathering platforms;
11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to
all military activities and for the military defence sector to assume
responsibility for, and pay for the investigation, clean-up and
decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such
areas can be returned to civil use, this is especially important for the
extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of
the EU;
12. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and health
objectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken by their
armed forces to protect the environment and health;
13. Calls on the governments of the Member States progressively to improve
the protection of the environment by the armed forces by means of training
and technical development and by giving all regular and conscript personnel
basic training in environmental matters;
14. Calls on the European Union to unite around a new environmental strategy
using military resources for the joint protection of the environment;
15. Considers that environmental strategies should be able to include
monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thus collected,
coordinating scientific work and disseminating information, exploiting
relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a
continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment;
16. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in
substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to
step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and
technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using
national programmes and Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme;
17. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work
with a view to combating environmental and natural disasters;
18. Calls on the Commission to conduct a detailed study of security-related
threats to the environment in Europe and to draw up a Green Paper on
military activities affecting the environment;
19. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India
and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without
delay;
20. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and
to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the
development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated;
21. Believes that the secrecy of military research must be resisted and the
right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects be
encouraged;
22. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology
for the destruction of weapons;
23. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the
EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms
processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for
decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important
that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation,
for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of
destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly way as possible;
24. Takes the view that all further negotiations on the reduction and the
eventual elimination of nuclear weapons must be based on the principles of
mutual and balanced reductions commitments;
25. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances
afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the
global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the
condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries
makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further
progressive elimination of nuclear weapons;
Legal aspects of military activities
26. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons
technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and
regulated by international conventions;
27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by
virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern
and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined
by an international independent body before any further research and
testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to
send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any
subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental
and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research
Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;
28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA)
Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in
all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and
degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and
to public health generally;
29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of
Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the
environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for
Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;
30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on
all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to
apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other
functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might
enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any
actual or possible deployment of such systems;
31. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the
establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from
unnecessary destruction in the event of war;
32. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the
establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of
peacetime military activities;
33. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the
proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article 6 of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament;
34. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in
particular, to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the
Conference on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards
full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and
elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the
global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and
sustainability of the global environment;
35. Calls on the Presidency of the Council, the Commission and the
governments of the Member States to advocate the approach taken in this
resolution in all further United Nations meetings held under the auspices of
or in relation to the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament;
36. Calls on the Presidency of the Council and the Commission, in accordance
with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the
Union's position concerning the specific points contained in this Resolution
within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its
agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the
Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora;
37. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the
Commission, the Member States of the European Union and to the United
Nations.
B
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
A defence against environmental threats
The security scenario has undergone considerable change in a relatively
short period of time. It is less than 10 years since the Iron Curtain
divided a nuclear Europe in half. Europe is now uniting as the European
Union enlarges to include former Warsaw Pact countries. The Cold War has
ended and a major war in Europe would now seem impossible. At the same time
new threats are emerging. Massive displacement of refugees, ethnic
conflicts, terrorism and international crime are just some examples of
current threats to security. Another serious threat is posed by natural
disasters and environmental problems caused by nature itself and the human
race's methods of exploiting the earth's resources.
A number of environmental catastrophes have brought the human race new
problems, the latest of these being the dam disaster in Spain. The
landslides in Italy, the devastation wrought by El Nińo and the Chernobyl
nuclear accident are other contemporary examples of the devastating
consequences of natural and environmental disasters. In certain parts of the
world, drought can wipe out several years' harvests bringing starvation, and
in many cases death, to much of the population. Mankind's defences against
these disasters look very fragile at the present time.
Environmental and natural disasters have tragic consequences for individuals
and may have catastrophic repercussions for societies and entire nations.
The cost of this type of disaster is huge both in terms of the lives they
claim and the cost of repairing the material damage. When such disasters
occur, it is obvious that there have not been sufficient resources to detect
and/prevent them. The efforts that are made are often far too late.
Preventive work must therefore be strengthened. The investment required for
this is enormous but the available resources are very limited. A new
approach is required to exploit the available resources, while new resources
are developed at the same time. It is obvious that a nation alone cannot
protect itself against environmental disasters; environmental problems call
for international cooperation. The threatening scenarios are global and
international cooperation is fundamental.
Local and regional ecological problems can have considerable implications
for international relations. Radioactive fallout, floods and drought are not
held in check by national frontiers. Environmental refugees cross national
boundaries to equally poor or even poorer nations. These new causes of
instability and insecurity must be reflected in the content and form of how
nations create and maintain peace and security. Since environmental and
ecological problems constitute serious threats to peace and security, this
fact must also be reflected in foreign, defence and security policy. There
is a need to analyse how military resources can be used against this growing
threat to security and to eliminate these new sources of instability and
unrest. There is an urgent need to mobilise resources to meet the
environmental challenge.
The change in the security situation has resulted in military détente,
disarmament and confidencebuilding measures between the former enemies, the
USA and Russia. This has led to intensive scaling down of military forces,
units have been disbanded and military equipment has, therefore, become
superfluous. Russia and the USA, above all, have radically reduced their
armed forces though military expenditure has also fallen in Europe (1).
The freeing-up of military resources has given the armed forces a unique
opportunity and plenty of capacity to deal with the increasing number of
environmental problems. The armed forces have a highly efficient
organisation and extensive technical resources which can be used for
environment enhancement at no great cost by redeploying or rechannelling
resources. The European Union can unite around a new environmental strategy
in which military resources are used for joint protection of the
environment. The European Union can play an important role in furthering a
joint global assumption of responsibility for the environment and at the
same time promote peace and confidencebuilding measures.
The Member States of the European Union have both the technical and economic
wherewithal to take wide-ranging responsibility for the environment. They
are also aware of the implications of ignoring the environmental challenge.
The destruction of the environment affects the underlying conditions
determining growth and economic development but despite that, military
expenditure worldwide is three to five times greater than spending on the
environment.(2)
The armed forces themselves caused enormous damage to the environment and
should, therefore, also take considerably more responsibility for the
environment.
Modern security threats
There is a growing international awareness of the extent of environmental
problems. This is illustrated in particular by the UN follow-up conferences
on water (Mar del Plata), desertification (Nairobi), the environment and
development (Rio de Janeiro) and climate change (Kyoto). Environmental
problems can lead to such serious difficulties that they endanger the
security of both individuals and countries. Environmental problems may also
have repercussions in terms of a country's international relations. Air and
water know no national boundaries. Specific examples of potential or
already-existing environmental threats are:
Limited water resources
As the world's population increases, so does demand for clean water. Fresh
water is a very unevenly distributed natural resource, fewer than 10
countries possess 60% of the total fresh water resources on earth(3) and
several countries in Europe are dependent on imports of water. In future
conflicts, attacks on sources of fresh water may not only be an objective
per se but may also be the cause of conflict. Conflicts over water rights
may result in increased international tension and local and/or international
conflicts. For example, disputes over the river Indus could trigger an armed
conflict in the tense relations between India and Pakistan. There is a long
list of potential conflicts over fresh water. An estimated 300 rivers, lakes
and sources of ground water are located in international border areas.(4) In
the Middle East, nine of 14 countries have a shortage of water resources and
there is a great risk that the others will also be affected.(5) In 1995, a
fifth of the earth's population had no access to clean water and it is
estimated that the figure will rise to two thirds by the year 2025.(6)
Climate change
Through an increase in carbon dioxide(7) and other emissions, the average
temperature on earth has risen by five degrees this century. The heat has
also become more intense. Research has found that humidity has risen by 10%
over the last 20 years. The increase in humidity can cause stronger and more
frequent storms in certain regions at the same time as others are stricken
by drought. Up to two decades of intensive research into global climate
change may be needed before more detailed decisions can be taken as to which
measures should be adopted.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international
organisation comprising 2000 of the world's most eminent researchers,
predicts that the earth's temperature will rise by 1.5 - 4.5 degrees and
that sea level will have risen by 50 cm by the year 2100 if carbon dioxide
emissions continue at present levels. It is estimated that up to 1/3 of the
world's population and over 1/3 of its infrastructure are located in coastal
areas. A rise in sea level would submerge large areas of land and several
million people would be affected by famine owing to the loss of extensive
areas of agriculture.
These and other environmental threats may give rise to an exodus of
refugees. Environmental refugees are increasingly attracting international
attention. An estimated 25 million people are refugees from drought, soil
erosion, and other environmental problems, which may be compared with
approximately 22 million 'traditional' refugees. Experts claim that
environmental refugees may cause 'one of the worst humanitarian crises of
our time'.(8)
They suffer from social, political and economic problems that may result in
conflicts and violence. Environmental refugees must be given official
recognition. There is a need for greater international cooperation to
curtail these problems and more aid to the countries affected and their
inhabitants.
Military impact on the environment in war and peace
Military activity is responsible for widespread environmental destruction in
society. Military activities have a wide-ranging negative impact on the
environment, in peace and in war, both intentionally and as an unintentional
consequence. Destroying the environment has been an established method of
waging war since ancient times. War is also far and away the most serious
threat to the environment. A topical example is the devastating consequences
of the Gulf War with hundreds of oil wells on fire and large quantities of
toxic substances rising uncontrolled into the atmosphere. It will take a
long time for the environment to recover. Some damage may be irreparable.
The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict
widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails
greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive
activity. Below is a description of some weapons systems which also have
seriously damaging effects on the environment in peace time.
Mines
Mines are enormously damaging to the environment. According to the UNEP
(United Nations Environment Programme), landmines are one of the most
widespread items of material war debris and may affect the ecological
balance. Mine-laying destroys large areas, often agricultural, which are
rendered unusable far into the future. Mines are the greatest obstacle to
development in many of the poorest regions of the world. 80-110 million
mines are deployed in 65 countries throughout the world. They can detonate
several decades after being laid and the majority of those who fall victim
to them are civilians, above all children. Mine clearance is a very
dangerous, time-consuming and costly process. The development of new
mine-clearance methods is progressing far too slowly and must be stepped up.
One positive achievement is that the 1997 Oslo Conference agreed that all
antipersonnel mines should be banned without exception, that stocks of mines
should be destroyed within four years and that countries affected by mines
should be given more aid. A large number of countries signed the 1997 Ottawa
Convention but several countries, including the USA, Russia, India and China
have not done so. The European Union must work to persuade these countries
to become parties to the agreement immediately. The EU should do more to
assist the victims of mines and to support the development of mine-clearance
techniques.
'Non-lethal' weapons(9)
So-called 'non-lethal' weapons are not a new type of weapon but have existed
for many years in such forms as water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas.
However, at the present time, more and more advanced weapon techniques have
been developed which are labelled non-lethal despite the fact that they can
cause extensive damage and even result in invalidity or death.
Both material and antipersonnel technologies have been developed. One
example is acoustic weapons which are capable of confusing and
disorientating and thereby neutralising an enemy by producing a low level of
sound, known as infra-sound. Other examples are adhesive foam and blinding
lasers. Chemicals which discolour water can affect both agriculture and the
population. With the aid of electromagnetic beams it is possible to knock
out the enemy's computer, navigation and communication systems. Non-lethal
weapons can also be used against a country's infrastructure and authorities,
bring the railway system to a standstill or cause chaos in a country's
financial world. What these weapons have in common is that they are intended
to delay, obstruct and overcome a potential enemy at 'strategic level'.(10)
The fact that these different types of weapon are all categorised as
non-lethal is seriously misleading and deluding. The term 'non-lethal' is
intended to portray these weapons as more humane than conventional weapons -
but there are no humane weapons. The use of any type of weapon involves a
risk of injury or death, which is of course the purpose of weapons.
'Non-lethal' weapons tend to be used at an early stage of a conflict and may
actually serve as a catalyst for the conflict. The use of violence by
soldiers and police may increase because the weapons appear to be less
dangerous. The inherent risk is that these weapons reduce the threshold for
the use of violence to settle conflicts.
The aim is to neutralise the enemy without sustained suffering and without
fatalities. But how and against whom 'non-lethal' weapons are used is an
important consideration in terms of the implications of these weapons. A
weapon that can render a soldier harmless, may injure or even kill a child
or an elderly person. The distance from which they are fired and in what
quantity are other factors with a bearing on the effects of the weapon. By
way of comparison, conventional weapons result in 'only' 25% mortality.(11)
Non-lethal weapons are used as an effective aid in modern warfare, either
independently or in conjunction with conventional weapons. For example, the
USA used radiofrequent weapons in the Gulf War to knock out Iraq's energy
system(12) , despite not knowing the antipersonnel effects of RF weapons.
Non-lethal weapons should, therefore, not be regarded as separate from a
lethal system but rather as a component thereof. The development of
non-lethal weapons increases both their options. The result is therefore
greater use of force rather than the opposite. 'Non-lethal' weapons do not
result in non-lethal conflicts.
As a wider range of non-lethal weapons are developed, the military, police
and politicians become more and more interested in testing how they work.
Non-lethal weapons must not be used as an instrument of political
interference and dominance of the northern over the southern countries.
There is no effective legislation governing non-lethal weapons. Only a small
number of non-lethal weapons and techniques can be banned through the
interpretation of various arms control regulations, e.g. adhesive foam
(which was used in Somalia and Bosnia). Certain types of laser (which blind
people) have also been restricted in the Convention on Certain Conventional
Weapons. Biological toxins (e.g. salmonella and other bacteria) are banned
by the Biological Weapons Convention. Several of these weapons may have
serious environmental implications. International law must therefore be
strengthened to regulate the new weapons which are under constant
development.
The International Red Cross Committee's Cyrus project could be used in the
absence of other reliable international standards for non-lethal weapons.
The Cyrus project has classified and established criteria for conventional
weapons in relation to mortality, invalidity, necessary treatment, blood
supply, etc. The European Union should pursue a policy to extend
international conventions to cover new weapons technologies and the
development of new arms strategies.
Chemical weapons
The United Nations' commitment to destroying chemical weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has resulted in serious concern about
the environmental impact of military activities and has strengthened the
need to seek out ecologically sound methods of disarming weapons. The
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in April 1997. Under
the terms of Article 1, the states which have ratified the Convention
undertake never and under no circumstances to develop, produce or export
chemical weapons. They also undertake never to use chemical weapons and to
destroy already existing chemical weapons. Under Article 3, states shall, no
later than 30 days after the Convention enters into force, notify whether
they possess chemical weapons and their location and submit a plan for
destruction of those weapons. Destruction should begin with the oldest
stocks. 165 states have signed the Convention and 110 have ratified it. 26
states have not signed the CWC, including some important countries in the
Middle East.
The destruction of chemical weapons is a cause for serious concern over the
environment - they include tens of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas, nerve
gas and other chemical substances. Chemical weapons can be destroyed by
incineration but very few countries have suitable facilities to do this. To
disarm chemical weapons is expensive, three to ten times more expensive than
to produce them. If Russia, which has very large stocks, is to be able to do
so, it needs financial aid from other countries. In Kambarka, a town in
Russia, there are 6000 tonnes of chemical weapons stored in wooden sheds 2
km from a densely populated area. Handling the considerable quantities of
hazardous substances calls for a substantial input of resources and they
will take a considerable number of years to destroy. There is a clear risk
of accidents and of weapons falling into the wrong hands.
It has been confirmed that approximately 150 000 tonnes of bombs, artillery
shells and mines filled with chemical weapons, chiefly mustard gas,
phosgene, tabun and arsenic-based weapons were dumped in the Skaggerak at
the end of the Second World War. The corresponding figure for the Baltic is
40 000 tonnes. Many of the containers have rusted through and the chemical
weapons are in direct contact with the sea water. It has nevertheless been
decided that they should remain on the seabed for the time being as the risk
of extensive leakage during salvage is considered to be appreciably greater.
Nuclear weapons
The environmental impact of a nuclear war would be enormous. It is likely
that the combined effects of radioactive fall-out over large areas, the
depletion of the ozone layer through nitrogen oxides, from nuclear
explosions and climate change caused by widespread and sustained fires would
cause largescale environmental disasters over large areas of the globe.
Test explosions also have manifestly destructive effects on the environment.
The total quantity of radioactive fall-out emitted into the atmosphere by
atmospheric tests is estimated to be between 100 and 1000 times greater than
that discharged by the Chernobyl disaster.(13) The 1963 partial test ban
treaty between the USA, the USSR and the UK bans nuclear testing in the
atmosphere, outer space and under water, i.e. in all environments except
under ground.
France has carried out more than 180 nuclear test explosions at the Mururoa
atoll in the Pacific Ocean since 1966 with significant impact on the
environment.(14) Several kilos of hazardous plutonium have been recovered
from the sediment at the bottom of the lagoons at the Mururoa and Fangataufa
atolls. Plutonium particles have also been spread across the land on three
islands in the vicinity of Mururoa. (15) India and Pakistan have also
recently carried out test explosions.(16) Their technical development is not
considered to be sufficiently controlled, which means that these nuclear
tests may have an impact on the environment far beyond the region itself. An
independent international investigation into the environmental impact at the
test locations and their surroundings should be carried out immediately.
Plutonium is the absolutely most hazardous substance known to man. Many
countries possess large quantities of military plutonium and nuclear weapons
can be produced relatively simply from 'civilian' plutonium. Facilities
which at present have a civilian function can be converted within a short
space of time to produce weapons. When plutonium is manufactured, a large
quantity of highly radioactive liquid waste is produced. The handling of
nuclear waste causes immense problems. The large-scale production of weapons
of mass destruction which has taken place during recent decades has produced
large quantities of waste. There is no known serviceable method of storing
radioactive waste. It is usually stored in tanks, but large quantities have
been discharged directly into the environment. This radioactive waste is
extremely flammable and may explode if it is not ventilated or cooled. In
1957 an accident occurred at the Chelyabinsk-65 nuclear plant close by the
town of Kystym in the Ural mountains, a radioactive tank exploded and
radioactive waste dispersed over an area of 1000 square kilometres. 10 000
people had to be evacuated. At Lake Karachai near Chelyabinsk-65, it is
still possible, merely by standing at the edge of the lake, to absorb so
much radioactive radiation as to die on the spot. (17) In the Baltic states
there are large areas which are polluted by previous Soviet military
activities. In Estonia, Lake Sillanmä, also known as the 'atomic lake',
contains radioactive military waste equivalent to thousands of atomic
weapons. Sillanmä is 100 metres from the Baltic Sea. Any leak into the
Baltic would have devastating repercussions for the environment in the
entire Baltic Sea region.
At the end of the 1980s, Russia had more nuclear submarines than all other
countries in the world together. The Kola Peninsula and Sevrodvinsk in
Russia currently have the largest concentration of nuclear reactors in the
world (240 units). (18) Large quantities of radioactive waste and
nuclearpowered submarines have been stored at the shipyards on the Kola
Peninsula. Russia and the Russian fleet are in an impossible position to
deal with the scrapped reactors. They have no financial resources to pay for
safe decommissioning. Low wages have resulted in highly qualified staff
leaving the shipyards, which has led to a severe shortage of skills.
Even in central Moscow, 1200 sources of radioactive poisoning have been
found, including in sandpits, air-raid shelters, private flats, garages and
sports facilities.(19) The possibility of coming across nuclear weapons,
chemical and biological weapons from military stores and substances from
research institutions or industry in Russia must not be underestimated.
It is of serious concern that there is no adequate equipment to dispose of
the waste in an environmentally safe manner. Both from an economic and an
environmental point of view, any accident that may occur would have
devastating repercussions. With every year that passes without sufficient
measures being taken, the risk and scale of a serious accident increase.
A practical and realistic proposal for a method of phasing out the world's
nuclear weapons does, in fact, exist. The proposal was presented in August
1996 by the independent group of experts making up the Canberra
Commission.(20) In July 1996, the International Court at The Hague delivered
a unanimous opinion to the effect that Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty commits nuclear states to initiate negotiations on nuclear
disarmament. The Court also ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons
was not consistent with international law. The European Union should
actively work towards the implementation of the Canberra Commission's
proposal and Article 6 of the NonProliferation Treaty.
HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate
On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament
held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been
invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee
regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions,
or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted. (21)
HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the
US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being
conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former
Soviet Union. (22) HAARP is a research project using a ground based
apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat
up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams. (23) The energy
generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the
ionosphere and produces artificial 'lenses'.
HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be
controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere.
If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy.
HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any
other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving
target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.
The project would also allow better communications with submarines and
manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the
reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could
block global communications while transmitting one's own. Another
application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several
kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military
facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the
curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.
From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van
Allen Belts(24) to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse
generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio
communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic
radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons
travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora
Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt
the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth's magnetic field could be
disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications.
According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen
belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns.
It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive
Antarctic regions.
Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the
ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us
from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again,
but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other
direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.
With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global
concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks.
The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined
before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of
which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be
remedied.
HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military
purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere
and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious
threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even
now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall
of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and
democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary
control.
A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the
prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental
modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on principles
governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space
including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea) casts considerable doubt on HAARP on legal as well as
humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the
Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.(25) This would mean
that HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new
weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies.
Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment
from unnecessary destruction in war.
Impact of military activities on the environment
Not only military weapons systems but, by and large, all military
activities, including peace-time exercises, have some form of environmental
impact. However, when environmental destruction has been discussed, the role
of the military has not in general been touched upon, only the impact of
civilian society on the environment has been criticised. There are at least
two explanations for this.(26) Owing to its secrecy, military activity is
more difficult to discuss and it is difficult to set the nation's top
priority - its security and defence - against the environment. At the
present time, however, when environmental and natural disasters constitute a
serious threat to security, these arguments are more dubious. The armed
forces endeavour to prepare themselves in peace time for operations in war
in as realistic conditions as possible. They therefore carry out their
exercises under warlike conditions, which involves subjecting the
environment to great stress. This is illustrated, for instance, by the
withdrawal of Soviet troops and the abandoned military bases in Eastern and
Central Europe which have left deep scars on the local environment. Military
exercises entail widespread damage to the landscape and animal life. Troop
exercises subject large tracts of land to extensive environmental
destruction. Test sites for artillery and tactical missiles tend to require
larger surfaces for military purposes. Likewise, production of munitions and
the industry that manufactures military equipment cause widespread
environmental problems.
The military is responsible for emissions of several gases affecting the
climate, primarily carbon dioxide, but also incineration of fossil fuels and
emissions of freons, which results in the depletion of the ozone layer.(27)
Consumption of aviation fuel is a major source of emissions of acidifying
substances such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxide. The armed forces
account for much of all consumption of aviation fuel and are responsible for
a very large proportion of all aviation emissions. (28) High-flying planes
and rockets have a particularly damaging impact on the environment, both in
the form of noise and fuel emissions. All rockets using solid fuel emit
large quantities of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust emissions and every
flight of a space shuttle injects around 75 tonnes of ozone-destroying
chlorine. Likewise, noise from military exercises using heavy calibre
ammunition may bring about environmental disruption.
Metal pollution is dispersed into the environment through shooting practice;
often large quantities of small calibre ammunition containing lead is used
and large quantities of lead are dispersed into the environment.
Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive information about consumption of
metals.
Consequences in the form of environmental problems caused by disarmament is
only a recently observed phenomenon. Every year, large quantities of
explosive substances are destroyed, mostly through industrial processes.
Some ammunition cannot be destroyed in this way for various reasons but must
be detonated. Obviously, scaling down is a necessary and positive process
but it must be carried out in environmentally acceptable ways.
Environmentally sound technology must be developed for the purpose of
destroying weapons.
Several nations have already begun to exploit the opportunities for using
military-related resources to restore the environment destroyed by the armed
forces. All other sectors in society have to take responsibility for the
environment and the military sector should also do so. As in other sectors
of society, environmental issues must form an integral part of the armed
forces' activities and be incorporated in the decision-making and budgetary
processes.
In May 1993, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took a decision
- 'application of environmental norms to military establishments' - to
encourage national governments to enact national laws for the military
sector. Finland, for example, has drawn up a green paper to regulate the
impact of military activities on the environment. Sweden has followed
suit.(29) In June 1996 Sweden, in conjunction with the USA, also drew up
environmental guidelines for military activities.(30) The military should
establish environmental targets and proposals for measures to help reduce
the impact on the environment in accordance with Agenda 21 and the Rio
Declaration. (31) They should also submit reports identifying factors
affecting the environment within the armed forces. Environmental impact
assessments must be drawn up before new projects commence and when procuring
material for civilian and military use.
Every government should take stock of its environmental requirements and
identify the military resources which are available for environmental
purposes, draw up national environment plans and report their experience to
an appropriate body within the European Union and the United Nations.
All military personnel, including conscripts, should receive basic training
in environmental matters. The US armed forces are considered to be quite
advanced in this respect, particularly in terms of equipment, but also in
regard to training. The European Union should cooperate and exchange
experience in this sector with the USA to a greater extent.
Strategies for using military resources for environment-enhancing purposes
Prevention of environmental crises requires infrastructure, organisation and
increased resources. These are available in the armed forces. Many resources
within the military sector could be used to protect, improve and restore the
environment. Essentially, this would be based on two stages: a stocktaking
stage to assess the suitability of the military resources and a political
action plan to guarantee their availability.
Obviously, military-related resources vary a great deal from one country to
another but they comprise skilled personnel, engineers, sophisticated
hi-tech equipment, organisational ability and military research and
development. In many ways, the military sector is in a unique position to
strengthen international civilian capacity to implement environmental
strategies. Military personnel are wellequipped to intervene in the event of
disasters. As distinct from civilian forces, the military are trained to
carry out missions under extreme conditions. They can also be called out in
the event of environmental accidents and to clear up and destroy high-grade
toxic, radioactive and other hazardous substances.
The armed forces also possess a great quantity of information which can help
in detecting changes in the atmosphere, the sea and in the earth's surface
and thereby provide an early warning and forestall environmental disasters.
Military satellites, aeroplanes, surface vessels and submarines are capable
of collecting further information on climate changes and on currents and
temperature changes in the sea. Radar, which was developed for military
purposes, can be used for environmental objectives. Infrared radar can
detect temperature changes in the earth's surface. For example, American
military satellites have been used to establish the number of whales,
classify them and save them.
Environmental problems are global in nature and international cooperation is
therefore crucial to prevent future environmental disasters. Joint
international work can also serve a 'dual' purpose; it can build confidence
for the very reason that it is carried out jointly - countries assist each
other. It can also enable countries to shoulder a reasonable amount of
responsibility for the environment in proportion to their strength.(32) Some
important areas for joint undertakings might be technology transfer, joint
training and education.
Environmental strategies might comprise monitoring the earth's environment,
evaluating the data collected, coordinating scientific work and
disseminating information. As a special form of international aid, national
resources should be made available to the EU and the UN so that they may be
used on request by a country stricken by an environmental disaster.
Environmental strategies must also include a global stocktaking of resources
suitable for environmental protection.
A disaster force composed of both civilian and military personnel could be
set up for deployment in emergency situations. Taking part in international
peace-keeping and humanitarian missions is already an important task for the
military. However, a distinction must be made between such missions within
national boundaries and within another state's jurisdiction. Lessons can be
learned from UN experiences in this respect and, clearly, exercises or
deployment on the territory of another nation must take place in accordance
with international laws. We should consider which resources can be made
available to the UN or the European Union, temporarily, long-term or on a
standby basis as instruments for joint cooperation in the event of
environmental disasters and environmental crises.
Military bilateral and multilateral cooperation has increased tremendously.
Within NATO, a DanishGerman-Polish force is being developed which it will
also be possible to use for civilian disaster aid, in addition to having
traditional tasks. It is expected to be operational by spring 1999.
Technological resources within the military establishment
The military sectors of the EU Member States tend to be research and
development-intensive. In the case of the major military powers,
technological capacity is not only extensive but has also largely remained
unaffected by budget cutbacks in comparison with conventional weapons. The
process of developing new sophisticated weapons is ongoing. The military
sector will probably be a leading consumer of advanced technology in the
immediate future.
Most modern technologies are double-edged, i.e. they can be used both for
military and civilian purposes. This means that military-related
technologies can be transferred to the civilian sector without expensive
modifications. However, it must be borne in mind that the highly complicated
military systems which are based on advanced technologies are not designed
for environmental purposes but require certain adjustments.
The technological capacity of military organisations in most developing
countries is not a match for the environmental problems they face. The CIS
and African countries have tremendous shortages of technology and
environmental know-how. In an international perspective, therefore, transfer
of technology and know-how is an extremely important task for the military.
Collection of environmental data and observations can be facilitated by the
use of vessels, aeroplanes and spacecraft to identify and trace
environmental abuse such as the dumping of waste and oil or natural hazards
such as forest fires.
Another possible application of military-related resources is to use
military capacity to monitor activities which are potentially damaging to
the environment. Military resources can also be used to monitor agriculture,
drought, afforestation and other forms of land conservation. Other areas of
application might be as aid in developing countries, e.g. in the form of
transport and disaster work, liming of lakes and forest with the aid of
military aircraft and vessels but also combating of oil discharges and
research and development resources for global environment work.
Military personnel on environment duty - an example
The Swedish Parliament decided on 13 December 1996 to make environmental
protection a special part of its defence policy and, in the long-term, to
train 10 000 conscripts per year within the civil defence.(33) The decision
has not yet been implemented but formed the basis for a proposal put forward
by a group of officers.(34) The proposal was presented to a hearing of the
European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament on 19 May
1998 and is summarised in brief below.(35)
It is entirely possible during compulsory military training to train
soldiers in environmental protection and it is also necessary in order to
have the resources and capacity to deal with environmental problems.
Introducing military training in environment duty makes use of society's
existing resources and creates a new resource for international environment
work.
Training of 'environment soldiers' can take place in cooperation with the
various authorities responsible for overall defence, local authorities,
county councils, universities and colleges but also environmental
organisations, industry (e.g. the petro-chemical industry, the power
industry, the mining industry and other processing industry) and
international bodies.
Conscripts on environmental service should primarily be trained to deal with
the greater environmental threat existing in war but also be used as a
rescue and relief force in peace time and war. Under the proposal, the
training would, in its final phase, comprise six companies per environmental
brigade in two batches, i.e. a total of 12 companies per brigade per year.
Training would be led by an instructor, an officer in charge of
reconnaisance and information and a commandant. Under the overall command,
there would be six environmental companies comprising a company commander,
an environmental engineer, company engineers, an adjutant and 12
instructors. The environmental engineer would also be in close contact with
the emergency and rescue services and with researchers. As backup, they
would have a unit for finance, personnel, a material division, catering and
conscripts on environment and defence duty. At the initial stage, the group
commanders are given training in leadership and some basic training in
environmental protection work.
In the introductory phase of training, soldiers should be given basic
training in soldiering and environmental protection with the emphasis on
military training and physical fitness. This is followed by environmental
training and training in the use of equipment relating to the soldiers'
respective duties. The final phase of training will be used for
predetermined environmental projects. During basic training, environment
conscripts may also be used in serious environmental disasters - apart from
the planned environmental projects - to assist in the event of forest fires,
snowstorms, landslides etc.
Had environmental brigades been operating, they could have intervened
swiftly and effectively during the floods in Poland, the Czech Republic and
Germany in 1997 and during the dam disaster in Spain and the landslides in
Italy in 1998.
Following basic training in peace time and under war conditions, and for
five years afterwards, trainees should be called up for 24 to 48 hours in
the event of environmental disasters or any other emergency situation. This
could be mandatory or on a voluntary basis.
In an operational context, the environmental protection company is a mobile
unit whose main duty is to respond, within and beyond the nation's borders,
to requests from Swedish local authorities or other nations for relief
operations. (In Sweden alone there are 10 000 'environmental bombs' of
various kinds in need of 'defusing'.) The company is to carry out its duties
independently or in cooperation with other companies and units from the
emergency and rescue services under the command of those services and/or the
local authority requesting their intervention. Using its own transport
resources the company should be able to perform various missions within the
country for a duration of 72 hours.
In the same way as UN soldiers perform peacekeeping missions, environment
soldiers may also undertake international duties, like their UN
counterparts, on a voluntary basis.
Annex 1
19 May 1995
B4-0551/95
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION by Mrs Rehn Rouva, on the potential use of
military-related resources for environmental strategies, included by
decision of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy.
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
. Having regard that the international environment and ecological problems
of today are caracterised by new souces of insecurity and conflict;
. considering that these changes should be reflected in the content and form
of how to maintain and create security, that is to say in the security and
defence policies;
. taking into account the necessity to reorientate the aims and resources of
those policies;
. having regard that for this initiative it is necessary to mobilise
adequate resources for meeting the challenge of environmental protection
effectively; and that the unique potential of military establishments to
increase the capabilitities in reaching this objective;
. whereas for the European Union the initiative in integrating
military-related resources into environmental strategies would be an
opportunity to take the lead in new and peaceful means;
. seeing that the cost of implementing these strategies might amount to 774
billion dollars for the next ten years and that this shows the necessity for
cooperation;
. having regard that a new range of hitherto unexplored possibilities have
been opened by the new international situation and the politicial detente
and military de-escalation;
1. Proposes a European action plan to integrate military-related resources
into environmental strategies.
26 November 1998
OPINION
(Rule 147)
for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
on the motion for a resolution on the environment, security and foreign
policy (report by Mrs Theorin)
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
Draftsman: Mr Karl-Erik Olsson
PROCEDURE
At its meeting of 20 July 1998 the Committee on the Environment, Public
Health and Consumer Protection appointed Mr Karl-Erik Olsson draftsman.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 12 October and 25
November 1998.
At last meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 26 votes to 2, with
1 abstention.
The following took part in the vote: Collins, chairman; Dybkjćr,
vice-chairman; Olsson, draftsman; d'Aboville, Blokland, Bowe, Breyer,
Cabrol, Correia, Eisma, Estevan Bolea (for Bébéar), Flemming, Florenz,
González Álvarez, Graenitz, Hulthén, Kuhn, Lange (for Díez de Rivera Icaza),
Leopardi, McKenna, Oomen-Ruijten, Pimenta (for Burtone), Pollack,
Roth-Behrendt, Tamino, Trakatellis, Valverde López, Virgin and White.
1. INTRODUCTION
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent disarmament process have
led to a 34% fall in global military spending since 1988(36) . Military
cutbacks have released huge economic resources, whilst factors such as
supply crises, ecological imbalances, migration, nationalism, ethnic
conflicts and international crime pose a growing threat to international
stability. Other factors which have a long-term impact on developments in
the security sector include environmental destruction and shortages of fresh
water and food.
This highlights the need for security policy to take greater account of
environmental factors and indicates that environmental investments are
essential for achieving stability in security terms in the future.
2. OBSERVATIONS
There is currently no direct military threat to Europe, and the risk of a
major war is non-existent. However, a number of other, non-military threats
have emerged, amongst them the ongoing destruction of the environment. The
shortage of fresh water, desertification, climate change and accidents at
chemical and nuclear power plants pose a real threat to international
security. The right to exploit dwindling natural resources is no longer
primarily an instrument of power politics, but is often the root cause of
international conflicts.
It is therefore necessary to widen the European security and defence concept
so as to take greater account of threats to the environment. The military
sector could provide resources and know-how to improve environmental
protection, e.g. by means of satellite-based monitoring, helping to clean up
after industrial and nuclear accidents and with relief work after natural
disasters. However, your draftsman considers that the response to the
changes that have taken place in the perceived threat should primarily be to
switch budgetary resources away from the military defence sector to civil
environmental protection measures, e.g. preventive measures to safeguard the
environment, the decontamination of land and water, improved rescue and
disaster relief services and increased international assistance in
environmental matters.
The defence sector and associated industries do substantial damage to the
environment. For instance, military transports emit significant quantities
of greenhouse gases and acidifying substances, and military training areas
usually show signs of major damage to biological diversity and must often be
decontaminated before they can be used for civil purposes. Despite the
effect it has had on the environment, the defence sector has traditionally
not been covered by civil environmental legislation. In view of the
increasing pressures of the environment, it too should be subject to
existing environmental legislation and be made liable for cleaning up the
areas that have been damaged as a result of past military activities. Its
adaptation to more environment-friendly practices could be improved by
setting environmental objectives and if it provided training for its own
personnel on environmental matters.
One of the potentially most serious environmental problems resulting from
global disarmament is the lack of supervision of waste from past nuclear
arms manufacturing processes and of biological and chemical weapons stores.
It is often costs substantially more to destroy the weapons than it does to
produce them - as much as ten times more in the case of chemical weapons,
for instance.
The chaotic economic situation in Russia and the former Soviet Republics has
led to inadequate supervision and storage of surplus weapons and to delays
in their destruction. Your draftsman therefore recommends that the Member
States actively promote increased international cooperation, e.g. within the
UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of destroying such weapons in
as environment-friendly way as possible.
Since the Member States' defence industries are concentrated in particular
regions, the ongoing disarmament process could result in crises in those
regions. The EU and the Member States should therefore step up their efforts
to convert military production facilities and technologies to produce civil
goods, and for civil applications, using both national and EU-funded
programmes.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
calls on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, as
the committee responsible, to incorporate the following conclusions in its
report:
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection,
A. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an
intra-state rather than interstate level and, where inter-state conflicts do
arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of
basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel,
B. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources
are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both
cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict
prevention must increasingly focus on these issues,
C. whereas the pressure on land, both fertile and habitable, historically a
major cause of tension and conflict, is increasingly caused by environmental
degradation, notably climate change and the consequent rise in sea levels,
D. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable
populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the
incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct
pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance
and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security
problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of
the world,
E. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and
published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of
'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees'
(25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by
2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis,
F. whereas the issue of 'environmental refugees' is merely a symptom of a
humanitarian disaster on a much more massive scale in terms of the 1.3
billion people who live in absolute poverty according to the UN definition;
whereas over one quarter of these people try to subsist in areas of the
world that are extremely vulnerable environmentally and are the main
contributors to global environmental problems such as deforestation and
desertification,
G. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global
issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological
context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance,
this has yet to be reflected in the UN's system of global governance by
emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and
non-military components of security policy,
H. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN's
work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military,
and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment
and sustainable development,
1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and the Parliament a
common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty, which brings together
the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and
international environmental policies between 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle
the following individual issues and the relationships between them:
(a) Agricultural and food production and environmental degradation;
(b) Water shortages and transfrontier water supply;
(c) Deforestation and restoring carbon sinks;
(d) Unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty;
(e) Sustainable development and climate change;
(f) Deforestation, desertification and population growth;
(g) The link between all of the above and global warming and the
humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather
events;
2. Considers that the EU common strategy should address each of the above
factors within the context of their individual and collective contribution
to the level of international crime, notably drugs trafficking, increased
immigration pressure towards the EU and their impact on EU foreign,
development and security policies in the light of their effects on regional
stability and development;
3. Notes that environmental problems are the most serious threat to mankind
today and that the perceived security threat now includes not only
conventional conflicts but also non-military threats such as supply crises
and ecological imbalances;
4. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument
of security policy; calls, therefore, on the Member States to define
environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and
security assessments, military research and action plans;
5. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic
society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and
peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the
prevention of environmental damage;
6. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to
all military activities and for the military defence sector to assume
responsibility for, and pay for the investigation, clean-up and
decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such
areas can be returned to civil use, this is especially important for the
extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of
the EU;
7. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and health
objectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken by their
armed forces to protect the environment and health;
8. Notes the drastic change in the global security situation that has taken
place following the end of the Cold War and the reduced need for military
resources; calls on the Member States to take vigorous action to switch
budgetary resources away from the military sector, including direct or
indirect military related research, to other sectors such as rescue and
disaster relief services, the decontamination of water and land, and
preventive measures to safeguard the environment and the public, and to
create, within the military sector, special environmental defence regiments
which can be deployed rapidly in the event of disasters;
9. Regards the use of radioactive energy sources (RTGs) in space craft by
both military and civilian space programmes (eg Cassini, which will make an
earth flyby next year), and the continuing development of 'star wars'
systems to be a major environmental risk, and calls for an immediate halt to
such activity, since in particular it is now possible in almost all missions
to develop solar panels as alternatives to RTGs;
10. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the
EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms
processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for
decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important
that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation,
for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of
destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly way as possible;
11. Regards the US military ionospheric manipulation system, HAARP, based in
Alaska, which is only a part of the development and deployment of
electromagnetic weaponry for both external and internal security use, as an
example of the most serious emerging military threat to the global
environment and human health, as it seeks to interfere with the highly
sensitive and energetic section of the biosphere for military purposes,
while all of its consequences are not clear, and calls on the Commission,
Council and the Member States to press the US Government, Russia and any
other state involved in such activities to cease them, leading to a global
convention against such weaponry;
12. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on
all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to
apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other
functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might
enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any
actual or possible deployment of such systems;
13. Considers, in the light of the above, that the threat to the global
environment posed by the existence of and potential accidental or
unauthorised use of nuclear weapons now far exceeds any conceivable threat
to the defence and security of the five declared nuclear weapons states, as
defined by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
that such weapons were originally designed and deployed to contain;
14. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances
afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the
global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the
condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries
makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further
progressive elimination of nuclear weapons;
15. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in
particular, to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the
Conference on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards
full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and
elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the
global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and
sustainability of the global environment;
16. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in
substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to
step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and
technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using
national programmes and Community initiatives such as the Conver programme;
17. Calls on the Presidency of the Council and the Commission, in accordance
with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the
Union's position concerning the specific points contained in this Resolution
within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its
agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the
Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora;
18. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India
and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without
delay.
- having regard to the report of Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and
Defence Policy (A4-0000/98),
A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security
situation in the world and that the relaxation of military tension has
resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and
in nuclear weapons in particular, releasing substantial military resources,
B. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension,
terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security
and that the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in
importance as the security scene changes; whereas as some of the threats to
security are non-military it is important that resources allocated to
military activities are also used for non-military purposes,
C. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were
inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and
environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems
may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that
this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and
defence policies,
D. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilize adequate resources to meet
the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available
for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of
existing resources is called for,
E. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have
had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts
to cope with the increasing environmental problems,
F. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets
while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be
found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military
resources for environmental protection,
G. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen
in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and
whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various
environmental strategies which should cover possible transfers,
reorientation and redeployment of military-related resources,
H. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems
cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation
of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international
technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate
military-related technology,
I. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental
crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making
process and that the individual countries must pool their efforts in
response to environmental disasters,
Use of military resources for environmental purposes
1. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damage to the
environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends
therefore that the Member States seek to utilize military-related resources
for environmental protection by:
(a) introducing training for environmental defence troops with a view to
establishing a coordinated European environmental protection brigade;
(b) listing their environmental needs and the military resources available
for environmental purposes and using those resources in their national
environmental planning;
(c) considering which of its military resources it can make available to the
United Nations or the European Union on a temporary, long-term or stand-by
basis as an instrument for international cooperation in environmental
disasters or crises;
(d) drawing up plans for creating national and European protection teams
using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under the
Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies;
(e) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable
development in its concepts of security;
(f) ensuring that its armed forces comply with specific environmental rules
and that damage caused by them to the environment in the past is made good;
(g) including environmental considerations in its military research and
development programmes;
2. Urges the governments of the Member States, since practical experience in
the field is limited, to:
(a) establish centres for the exchange of information on current national
experience in environmental applications for military resources;
(b) facilitating the global dissemination of environmental data including
such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other
information-gathering platforms;
3. Calls on the governments of the Member States to ensure that all
environmental requirements and legislation applying to civilians also apply
to all military activities and that the costs of cleaning up after
environmental damage caused by the armed forces should be borne by the
defence budget;
4. Calls on the governments of the Member States to ensure that their armed
forces lay down environmental objectives and proposals for action to help
reduce environmental impact and submit reports identifying aspects of
military activity with environmental implications, and to require
environmental impact assessments before new projects are begun and when
purchasing equipment for both civilian and defence purposes;
5. Calls on the governments of the Member States progressively to improve
the protection of the environment by the armed forces by means of training
and technical development and by giving all regular and conscript personnel
basic training in environmental matters;
6. Calls on the European Union to unite around a new environmental strategy
using military resources for the joint protection of the environment;
7. Considers that environmental strategies should be able to include
monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thus collected,
coordinating scientific work and disseminating information, exploiting
relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a
continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment;
8. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work with
a view to combating environmental and natural disasters;
9. Calls on the Commission to conduct a detailed study of security-related
threats to the environment in Europe and to draw up a Green Paper on
military activities affecting the environment;
10. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and
to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the
development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated;
11. Believes that the secrecy of military research must be resisted and the
right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects be
encouraged;
12. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology
for the destruction of weapons;
13. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the
proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article 6 of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament;
Legal aspects of military activities
14. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons
technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and
regulated by international conventions;
15. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by
virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern
and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined
by an international independent body before any further research and
testing;
16. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the
establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from
unnecessary destruction in the event of war;
17. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the
establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of
peacetime military activities;
18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the
Commission, the Member States of the European Union and to the United
Nations.
----------------
(1) SIPRI Yearbook 1997, Appendix 6A. Tables of military expenditure and
6B. Tables of NATO military expenditure.
(2) Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities
for civilian endeavours to protect the environment, UN: A46/364 1991,
§ 74.
(3) (Brazil, Russia, China, Canada, Indonesia, the USA, India, Columbia
and Congo) International Freshwater Conflict: Issues and prevention
Strategies, Green Cross International 1997, p. 4.
(4) Ibid, p. 1.
(5) Ibid, p.3.
(6) Time Special Issue November 1997, p. 18.
(7) 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are discharged into our atmosphere
everyday.
(8) ()Climate Institute in Washington "Environmental Exodus: An Emergent
Crisis in the Global Arena".
(9) On 5 February 1998, Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and
Disarmament arranged a public hearing on HAARP and so-called
non-lethal weapons. This section is based on that hearing.
(10)They are produced in e.g. the USA, China, the UK, France, Russia and
Israel.
(11)Dr Robin Coupland, International Red Cross.
(12)Nonlethal technology and airpower, 1993, Air Command and Staff College
research project.
(13)Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities
for civilian endeavours to protect the environment, UN: A46/364 1991 §
26.
(14)The impact of nuclear testing at Mururoa and Fangataufa, 1995.
(15)New Scientist 1998
(16)Between 11-13 May 1998, India carried out five nuclear tests. Pakistan
carried out six tests between 28-30 May 1998.
(17)Plutonium, Deadly Gold of the Nuclear Age, IPPNW and IEER 1995, p. 65.
(18)18% of the world's nuclear reactors are located there, Bellona report
Volume 2: 1996 The Russian Northern Fleet p. 10
(19)Atom declassified, 2nd ed. IPPNW, Moscow 1996, p. 83
(20)The proposal is available on the Internet at
www.dfat.gov.au/dfat/cc/cchome.html
(21)This section is based on information from the hearing.
(22)Dr Nick Begich, speaker at the hearing.
(23)The ionosphere contains vast protective magnetic fields know as the
Van Allen belts which intercept charged particles (protons, electrons
and alpha particles).
(24)In 1958 the US Navy exploded 3 devices containing nuclear material 480
km above the South Atlantic. Designed by the US Department of Defence
and the Atomic Energy Commission under the code name Project Argus.
Source: Dr Rosalie Bertell.
(25)Article 1, the Antarctic Treaty.
(26)Swedish Government official reports SOU 1992: 104, p. 54
(27)Military defence and the environment, FM sector report 1995, p. 8
(28)The Swedish armed forces alone discharged 866 199 tonnes of carbon
dioxide emissions in one year; ibid p. 60
(29)Handbok miljö för Försvarsmakten (Environment Manual for the Armed
Forces)..
(30)Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector supported by the NATO
Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society.
(31)Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration are practical results of the UN
Conference on the Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992
(32)Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities
for civilian endeavours to protect the environment, UN: A46/364 1991.
(33)Bill 1995/96: 12. Total defence renewal
(34)'Training of civilian conscripts for environmental duty' and 'Training
of environmental conscripts', the Borĺs Environmental Brigade.
(35)The training proposal is based on the regiment in Borĺs but may also
be applied to other units.
(36)Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In
1988 global military spending totalled $1066 bn, compared an estimated
$704 bn in 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[| Top of page |] | Webmaster | © European Parliament |