From: <larris>
Subject: ECO GENEVA (INC) #5 June 24, 1991 (34K)
ECO NEWSLETTER
CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS - GENEVA
June 24, 1991
Issue #5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Climate Negotiations Start with Talks on Principles
2) Ozone Thins Over Geneva
3) NGO Profile: Haribon Foundation - Phillipines
4) An Indonesian Perspective on Global Warming
5) U.S. Could and Should Cut Emissions - NAS
6) A Climate of Goodwill (editorial)
7) The People, the Profit, the Mouse and the Dinosaur
8) Truck Breaks Down
1) Climate Negotiations Start with Talks on Principles
By Eco Staff
The time spent in talks about talks ended in Geneva yesterday, as
the Intergovernmental Committee on Negotiating A Framework
Convention on Climate Change (INC) began to list principles to be
included in a convention. "The process of negotiation has
started" said the Committee's Chairman Monsieur Jean Ripert last
night.
Temporary Chaos
Having set up two Working Groups with specified mandates, the
Committee's work got off to a chaotic start Monday morning as
debate broke out over how each Group might decide on principles
that applied to the whole process. Order was restored after a
Plenary which decided that Working Group 1 (on commitments to
reduce pollution) should decide on principles, and if Working
Group 2 (on legal and institutional questions) came across any,
it would refer them to Group 1 to determine.
By the end of the afternoon session delegates were generally
agreed that the first tentative steps to real progress had been
taken, albeit mainly in the shape of simply putting issues of
real concern on the table. Working Group 2 proceeded peaceably
but in Working Group 1 countries began listing an extraordinary
diversity of `General Principles'. Political maneuvering
features heavily in the listing of `Principles' and at least one
extended run of interventions appeared to have been organized by
the G77 group of developing countries, which sources say is
drafting sections of its own preferred Convention.
Principles And More Principles
Some of the `principles' put forward for a Climate Convention
were as follows:
China highlighted:
* Poverty
* Sovereignty
* Right to development and decent living standards for all
human beings who are born equal.
* Sustainable development as defined by the UNEP 15th
Governing Council statement.
* New additional and adequate resources and technology
transfer - best available environmentally sound
technologies on fair and most favourable terms.
The delegate noted with incredulity that someone had come up to
him and asked why China could not agree to stabilise its
emissions on 1990 levels.
India
Endorsed above principles. Added specific formulations:
* `all inhabitants of the planet have an equal right to the
oceans and other global sinks and to other atmospheric
resources subject to the provisions of international law'
* `the right to develop is an inalienable human right. All
peoples have an equal right to matters relating to living
standards'
* `global climate change is a matter of common concern for
mankind'
* `responsibility for taking and facilitating measures for
abatement or adaptation rests with the countries
responsible for emitting excessively high per capita levels
of greenhouse gas emissions, past and present'
* `developing countries should be fully compensated for the
incremental costs of measures they decided to take with
respect to climate change' - requires technology transfer
on preferential terms.
* `Transfer of environmentally sound technologies shall not
be restricted on political grounds
* `No environmental conditionality will be introduced in aid
financing'
* `No country or group of countries shall introduce barriers
to trade on environmental grounds'
Malaysia
Supported India and China. Its 16 Principles were:
* Common concern
* Sovereign rights to exploit own natural resources
* Global obligation to protect climate based on equity
* Differentiated contribution
* Precautionary principle
* Developed countries responsible, should take main
responsibility
* Special consideration for developing countries to meet
economic development
* Obligation to provide new and additional funding and cover
incremental costs
* Obligation of developed countries to transfer technology on
preferential basis
* Non conditionality such as barriers to trade
Ghana
Supported all above
Vanuatu
Stressed precautionary principle. Egypt, Sudan, Mauritania
support above with the latter stressing polluter pays principle
and the specific needs of developing countries
US
Clear recognition of our interdependence has emerged, the
interdependence between environment and economics. Cannot include
environmental health unless also have economic health and `we
endorse this principle'. Neither can work at the expense of the
other.
In much the same way interdependence between developed and
developing countries - need a partnership. Neither can prosper at
the expense of the other. Need to work towards common goal -
protection of the environment and betterment of living standards.
US would have comparable number of principles which we reserve
the right to come back with at the next session, to spell out
interdependence.
Kuwait
Called for a holistic and integrated approach to covering all
greenhouse gas emissions, sources and sinks, and the economic and
social implications of measures.
Norway
Precautionary principle
* Sovereign right to natural resources
* 4 operative principles -
Cost effectiveness - individual country measures must be
effective in the global context
Sustainable development
Universality - need for cooperative efforts, those most
affected not necessarily those who cause most gases
historically.
Equity, between industrialised and developing countries
responsibility to all, but differentiated by level of
development Convention must reflect this.
Additionality - closely linked to equity. Developing countries
need to concentrate resources on development.
USSR
What title should we give to the Convention? Is it to overcome
the impacts of climate change, or to counteract negative effects?
* Causes should be considered together as should sources and
sinks
* Measures to be adapted should be economically justified and
scientifically substantiated, with cost-benefit principle
applied.
* Right to develop - applies to all countries. Must be
differentiated by all kinds of considerations. Countries in
transition also have own priorities for development.
Delegation reserves right at future session to draw on formed
principles. Should not be too many principles if we want a
Convention!
Small Island States
* Precautionary principle
* Polluter pays
* Sustainable development
* Equity
* Differentiated responsibility
Austria
* Precautionary principle
* Differentiated responsibility
Kiribati
* Precautionary Principle
* Polluter Pays
Netherlands
Precautionary principle should be driving the process
* Equity - common but differentiated responsibility of
countries
* Stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations at level
which prevents dangers from anthropogenic emissions
In view of level of development, fair and equitable compensation
to assist developing countries
Sweden
Categorized many of the principles - empasized right to
development ones, the precautionary principle/environment
protection ones, including those specifically about how to
transfer technology
China
Opposed Swedish categorisation. Might lead to hierarchy of
principles,
* Would want right to develop as central one.
Finland
Spelt out the principles already signed up to in Ministerial
declaration at 2nd World Climate Conference
Others also spoke but Eco's reporter is poorly fed and was
flaking out by this point.
2) Ozone thins over Geneva
by Liz Cook
Despite new NASA satellite data which shows the ozone layer over
northern mid-latitudes is thinning twice as fast as scientists
had previously thought, Parties to the Montreal Protocol have
failed to make a commitment to further toughen the international
agreement.
No delegation was willing to go beyond their current ozone
protection policies at the third annual meeting of the Parties in
Nairobi last week. In particular, the Soviet Union, Japan, and
some developing nations voiced opposition to further
strengthening the protocol. NGOs are concerned that no
international consensus exists to improve the pact when it is
next up for amendment in 1992.
Instead, the Parties simply instructed the protocol's assessment
panels to study the matter. Specifically, they mandated the
panels to look at "the possibilities and difficulties of an
earlier phaseout of the controlled substances, for example the
implications of a 1997 phaseout." They also asked the panels to
identify the areas where HCFCs are the only suitable alternative,
estimate the quantity of HCFCs that will be needed, and suggest a
possible date for an HCFC phaseout.
NGOs had hoped that governments would issue a strong declaration
specifying their intention to accelerate the phaseout of
ozone-destroying compounds currently controlled by the Montreal
Protocol, and to add strict protocol controls on harmful
substitute chemicals known as HCFCs. Such a declaration from the
Nairobi meeting, committing the Parties to an amendment in 1992,
would have sent a strong signal that the world community is
prepared to take further action.
Unsatisfied with a call for more assessment, seven governments
issued a statement confirming their commitment to eliminate CFCs,
halons, and carbon tetrachloride by no later than 1997, and
methyl chloroform by no later 2000. The delegations of Sweden,
Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Denmark also
said they would stand by their plans to limit, no later than
1995, the use of HCFCs to applications where more environmentally
safe alternatives are not available.
NGOs at the meeting welcomed the governmental statement, but said
that even faster phaseouts are necessary. The Montreal Protocol
presently requires industrialized nations to eliminate CFCs,
halons, and carbon tetrachloride by 2000 and methyl chloroform by
2005. It places no controls on HCFCs.
On a more positive note, China announced that it had acceded to
the amended Montreal Protocol on June 14th. China's announcement
provided the meeting with a sense of optimism that the recently
established ozone fund is encouraging global participation in the
protocol.
The Executive Committee overseeing the ozone fund also met in
Nairobi and finally cleared the way for the release of funds to
pay for ozone-protecting projects in developing countries. By
approving workplans for the three implementing agencies - UNEP,
UNDP, and the World Bank - the committee moved beyond the
administrative details that had bogged it down during its first
year.
As mentioned in yesterday's ECO (Issue IV), NGOs applauded the
Parties' decision to accept a United States proposal to adopt
rules and procedures for the fund's Executive Committee that
would permit NGOs to observe its meetings. The committee shut out
NGOs from its first four meetings and had adopted interim rules
that permanently excluded NGO observers, unless invited by
special invitation. The U.S. and other delegations stressed the
important contribution that NGO observers have made to the
Montreal Protocol negotiations to date.
NGOs have pressed for observer status, so that they can help
ensure that the ozone fund provides developing countries with
environmentally sound technology appropriate to their development
needs. NGOs are particularly concerned about new chemicals that
industry is developing to replace CFCs, many of which have long
lifetimes and significant global warming potentials.
3) NGO Profile: Haribon Foundation - Philippines
by Anna Torres
The Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources
has for the past 19 years, been working on environmental
protection and sustainable natural resource use in the
Philippines.
It is also convenor of the Green-Forum Philippines, a broad
coalition of NGOs, people's organizations, and church groups
working for social equity, and sustainable development. Its
programs are guided by a framework of commitment to ecological
security, and equal sharing of benefits and responsibilities for
natural resources management.
Operating on both policy and grassroots levels, Haribon is
involved in major issues on energy, forestry, biodiversity, and
coastal resources management. It has recently lobbied for a total
commercial logging ban, and has been pushing for more
community-oriented forest policies in the Philippine Forestry
Master Plan, while continuing to support the ancestral land
rights of indigenous peoples. (It is currently opposing a
proposed coal-fired thermal power plant primarily since this
would destroy a valuable marine park area in Luzon.)
The Green Forum has recently been conducting regional
consultations to generate an alternative grassroots-based vision
of environment and development. The results were, consistently,
expressions of a desire for economic self-reliance, ecological
balance, social justice and empowerment. These now form the basis
for stepped up local organizing efforts to realize strategies
focused on community development, environmental information and
action campaigns, and economic productivity projects.
4) An Indonesian Perspective on Global Warming
By Agus P. Sari
Global Warming is a issue over which there is no border between
developing and developed countries. It is also obvious that the
polarisation between developing and developed nations should be
stopped. But there are still several issues that can be seen in
the perspective of developing countries.
Firstly, the discussion concerning Carbon Trade. Developing
countries, or at least Indonesian NGOs, see this concept as an
extended right for richer countries to pollute, if they have
enough money to pay. Carbon dioxide, the most significant
substance of greenhouse gases, is mostly emitted from the `energy
sector', or to be more sinistic, from the `energy sector by which
developed countries fuel their luxury life-style in an excessive
manner'.
Developing countries, with a lack of money to fund their
development, can easily be trapped through this concept of
`trade' into allowing other (developed) countries to carry on
polluting the atmosphere; they will be paid to allow it. I prefer
call this concept the right (of developed countries) to pollute.
But once the effects of climate change occur, there is nothing
that money can buy to prevent them.
The second issue relates to the discussions concerning
technological and financial `transfer' between developed and
developing countries. Thee is still a lack of `indepth'
assessment as to whether this `transfer' will create another
dependency between developing countries and the developed ones.
An example of this type of dependency is the Montreal Protocol.
Developing countries will be forced to buy CFC substitution
technology from developed one. The `transfer' process must
encourage developing countries to foster their capability to do
research and development on appropriate technology by themselves.
Although deforestation does have a significant role to play in
global warming, this issue should not switch our focus from the
biggest contributor to the climate change effect: energy. The
root of the deforestation problem is not the trees, more the
forestry management process and how to democratize the whole
process from planning to monitoring.
This is the third issue we should examine. The root of the
deforestation certainly not a question of a luxury `life-style'
and should not be treated like those that are - such as the
emission of CO2. Deforestation often happens in developing
countries because of basic economic demands - deforestation
there is more of a `life or death demand' than a `luxury demand'.
It is important that the two be distinguished.
The fourth issue, relates to CO2 emissions from developing
countries. Although, as yet, this emission rate is negligible
compared to the rate of developed countries, the rapid growth in
every sector, coupled with a lack of access to energy-efficient
technology makes the growth of energy demands in developing
countries a potential problem in the near future. Most of
developing countries have a greater than 10% growth rate.
Among developing countries though, we have to look at this issue
more casuistically, on a country-by-country basis. Energy
consumption in Indonesia is different from that in Senegal,
Kenya, or in other developing countries. Per capita consideration
more likely to be a fair basis for comparison.
In Indonesia, especially in Java, the demand growth of
electricity is 13%, and the demand will be 27,000 to 32,000
Megawatts by the year 2000, while the capability to meet the
demand from the conventional sources will only be 15,000 to
20,000 Megawatts. The remaining 7,000 MW will be met by nuclear
power. If this scenario is followed according to our `brief'
calculation, there will have to be one new plant built here every
two months.
However, there is still a possibility of being more efficient
with the use of energy. A fertilizer company in Indonesia has
proven that a 50% reduction of energy can be achieved. Again,
according to our `brief' calculation, there is still a
possibility of reducing demand-led growth by 25% to 40%, thus
eliminating the need for nuclear power.
These, then, are the four areas related to global warming which
are particularly of concern to developing countries. They are
issues which will require some careful consideration in the
future.
5) US Could and Should Cut Emissions
By Eco Staff
According to a recent report from its prestigious National
Academy of Sciences, the United States could make significant
immediate cuts in its greenhouse gas emissions at little or no
cost, while the risks posed by climate change are in themselves
significant enough to justify action. Professor Thomas Lee of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the authors of
the study Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, comments "it
is readily apparent that a significant reduction in 1990 US
emissions can be achieved at relatively low cost." Although the
anticipated 10-40% cuts encompass CFCs, the higher range would
require action on CO2.
Produced at the request of Congress, the study is an
embarrassment to the Administration which has refused to commit
to such reductions, as it confirms the findings of the IPCC, the
Office of Technology assessment's report which highlighted
cost-effective CO2 reductions, and the advocacy of environment
groups that action is warranted now.
The report concludes that `there is a potential to inexpensively
reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions in the United States'.
The 10-40% reduction could be achieved `at very low cost. Some
reductions may even be at net savings if the proper policies are
implemented'.
The study highlights investment `mitigation measures' such as
energy efficiency investment and energy management as `an
insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the
possibility of dramatic surprises. In addition, the panel
believes that substantial mitigation can be accomplished at
modest cost. In other words, insurance is cheap.' It adds: `the
United States should undertake not only several actions that
satisfy multiple goals but also several whose costs are justified
mainly by countering or adapting to greenhouse warming'.
Observers point out that this runs directly counter to current US
`no regrets' policy which means only taking action where it is
justified by problems other than global warming.
Among the recommended options that could reduce US greenhouse gas
emissions between 10 and 40% of the 1990 levels:
* If US homeowners replaced just three incandescent light bulbs
in each household with high-efficiency fluorescent tubes and
purchased more efficient refrigerators and hot water heaters,
they could reduce residential electricity demand substantially
* If consumers used more efficient cars that do not sacrifice
performance, the could reduce fossil fuel consumption further
* Together, these actions could reduce U.S. emission of
greenhouse gases by up to 15 %
* If companies switched to alternative chlorofluorocarbons,
already being used to combat the loss of stratospheric ozone,
they could reduce CO2 equivalent emissions by as much as another
15 percent
Further options include:
* implement conservation and energy-efficiency improvements in
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings
* reduce emissions through improved motor vehicle efficiency
continue aggressive phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons
* reduce global deforestation and reforest marginal lands in the
US
* consider greenhouse warming in design and operation of
electricity generating systems
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming - Mitigation Panel, is
available for $35.00 (prepaid) plus $3.00 shipping, from the
National Academy Press: telephone +1 (202) 334-3313.
6) A Climate of Goodwill...
By Eco Reporter
Long-term observers of climate discussions were interested in the
final outcome on the (s)election of co-chairs. Newcomers to the
negotiations might find of value some background to the countries
occupying these positions.
Leman has already commented on the fact that, apart from Vanuatu,
all of the key positions - the chair and WG co-chairs appear to
be held by nations with at least two out of three common
qualifications : pro-nuclear, pro-fossil fuels, and
pro-Washington. Not exactly the makings of a "progressive" group
on climate.
ECO welcomes Japan's interest in playing a more prominent role on
climate. As a nation which has proven over the last fif{*filter*} years
how economic growth and energy consumption can be decoupled,
Japan is well-placed to lead the negotiations towards commitments
on C02 target emissions reductions (which Japan has made), and on
institutions and mechanisms to promote renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
As the chair of the IPCC Energy and Industry sub-group, Japan
played a leading role in work on identifying the costs and
benefits of policies to respond to climate change. At times, it
showed a slight tendency to emphasise the US position that the
costs of prevention ("stop global warming") strategies would be
greater than the costs of adaptation ("wait-and-see") strategies.
ECO hopes that Japan will not be seduced by "go slow" arguments
on C02 commitments, which seem to be advanced only by countries
who do not want to see Japan, Germany and others improve further
the comparative trading advantages which superior energy
efficiency offers.
Vanuatu's election is well deserved. Readers may recall that it
was the 1989 South Pacific Forum meeting in Port Vila, Vanuatu,
that captured the spirit of what developed into AOSIS.
Representatives from Vanuatu in the IPCC in 1989 expressed alarm
at the implications of sea-level rise which threatened the
extinction of entire South Pacific island nations.
Vanuatu has played a leading role in the formation of the AOSIS
grouping, both in the UN at New York (where Ambassador van Lierop
is based), at the Second World Climate Conference last November
and at Chantilly.
As noted above, Vanuatu is the only co-chair whose single
national interest is survival, rather than hidden agendas for
continued use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. Ambassador van
Lierop and his supporters will need all their skills to ensure
that the climate convention protects people above petrol, nations
above nuclear.
7) The People, the Profit, the Mouse and the Dinosaur
Yesterday Monsieur Jean Rippert invited NGOs observing at the
climate talks into his offices for a chat. `Non-Governmental
Organizations' at the Intergovernmental Committee On Climate
Change includes `NGOs' ranging from the World Coal Institute to
the Indonesian Friends of the Earth. Chairman Rippert seeks to
make no distinction between the representatives of `the
environment' and `industry' and is too consummate a diplomat to
be fazed by talking over issues with two groups which are, so far
at least, in opposition on almost every substantive point.
It is right and proper that industry and environment groups
should have a place at the table of the climate talks. Naturally,
the negotiations are for governments but it cannot be denied that
these NGOs and others who ought to be more visible - such as
development and health groups - have a useful role to play. Yet
while M Rippert must treat them equally for now, are they truly
so equivalent ?
Industry ought to be part of the solution and not the problem.
New technologies and ways of providing goods and services must,
after all, be found. But to date the industrial representation at
the climate negotiations has been one dimensional.
The handful of coal, oil, energy and automotive lobbyists
registered at the INC are of course just the visible tip of a
vast bedrock of industrial power and influence which dwarfs that
of the more numerous environmental groups present. These
established industrial interests are well entrenched: they do
indulge in advertising and information (sometimes disinformation)
but for the most part they can get what they want in private,
months before the bell rings to call delegates into the
negotiating sessions.
The industry lobby at the INC talks is defending its established
interests. People do work in those industries but for the most
part it is profit that is being defended, and profit made in ways
which create the problem that INC sets out to solve. Profit of
course is not a dirty word: it is the pollution which is the
dirt. It doesn't, as they say, have to be like that. But at the
moment it is.
We need more industrial observers at the global warming talks:
those representing industries bringing a solution rather than
delaying it, the new industries which will provide the sort of
world people want, rather than the sort that has been foisted on
them and is kept that way to protect profit, even if it fatally
pollutes. We need the help of the evolving industries: evolving
in terms of social responsibility and not just technology. Right
now, many of these are small mouse-sized industries compared to
the industrial dinosaurs of the fossil fuel era.
In the end, the `interest' which the environment groups represent
so imperfectly, will prevail. Because these NGOs - and here is
the rub - really are different from the non-governmental
defenders of profit. The environment NGOs only exist because
people in their growing millions believe that something is badly
wrong in the world and it ought to be changed. Most of them have
little influence and less power. The most that many can do is to
give a few dollars or hours to a `NGO' which sets out to defend
their interest, a people's interest.
So next time you meet an industrial NGO at negotiations to
protect the climate of the future, take a closer look and try to
decide if it is one the mice or one of the dinosaurs.
8) Truck Breaks Down
By our Transport Correspondent
There was a time when rail transport was used for almost all
freight in Switzerland. Today however, this most efficient of the
world's rail systems is increasingly replaced by road transport.
Sadly yesterday's Eco fell foul of this trend when the truck
carrying our photocopier from Zurich, broke down en route to
Geneva. Hence the lateness of Eco on Monday. Our apologies to our
readers. Our best wishes to Swiss railways for recapturing some
business. (Note: this is thought to be one of the first trucks
ever to break down in Switzerland. Eco understands it will now be
sent to work in Yugoslavia as a punishment).
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
ECO is edited by Chris Rose; production editors Malcolm
Sutherland and Alister Sieghart
ECO wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the following:
Apple Computer - Industrade AG, Wallisellen
AVEC INFORMATIQUE SA, Route des Acacias, 47 Geneva
Intercontinental Hotel, Wagons Lits
ECO (name as in 'SWCC') has been produced for EDF and others as a
Media Natura project with the generous support of the Apple
Computer Division, Industrade AG, Wallisellen and Avec
Informatique SA, Geneva.
Software support has been donated by Aldus, Applelink, Computers
Unlimited, Microsoft, Sitka. (any others).
Design by Akel Minott, London; Production Editors Alister
Sieghart, Shades & Characters and Malcolm Sutherland, Recruit
Media.
Electronic mail distribution coordinator Lelani Arris, EcoNet
Energy and Climate Information Exchange (US), supported by a
grant from the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation.
Project Management Chris Bligh , Media Natura, 21 Tower Street,
London WC2H 9NS Tel (+44) 71 240 2936 Fax (+44) 71 240 2291.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For enquiries and response to ECO:
ECO Editorial Staff
Tivoli Room, Intercontinental Hotel, Geneva
Telephone: (+41) 22 740 0541 / 734 6574
FAX: (+41) 22 734 8425
E-mail: APC Networks - gn:wwfgland, gn:swcc
Applelink - uk.region1
For Press enquiries to particular NGO spokespersons:
The Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Room
Persan Room, Intercontinental Hotel, Geneva
Telephone: (+41) 22 740 0536 / 734 5243
FAX: (+41) 22 734 6442
For information about fax distribution of ECO (FAX numbers):
Australian Cons. Foundation: Bill Hare 61-3-416-241
Belgium: CAN - Europe Tasmin Rose 32-2-512-6673
S. America : SOS Mata Atlantica 55-11-885-1680
USA: Center for Global Change Pam Wexler 1-301-403-4292
UK: Media Natura Sally Cavanagh 44-71-240-2291
Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the en.climate and
climate.news conferences on EcoNet (APC) and the sci.environment
conference on Usenet.
For information about electronic mail and conference distribution
of ECO, contact:
E-mail coordinator: Lelani Arris
APC Networks - igc:larris
Telephone - 1-403-852-4057 (Canada)
Or contact support staff at one of the following APC Networks:
Network Telephone E-mail
---------------------------------------------------------------
GreenNet (Europe) (44) 71 923 2624 gn:support
EcoNet (US) (1) 415 442 0220 igc:support
Pegasus (Australia) (61) 66 856 789 peg:support
Alternex (Brazil) (55) 21 286 0348 ax:support
Nicarao (Nicaragua) (505) 2 26 228 ni:ayuda
WEB (Canada) (1) 416 596 0212 web:spider
Peacenet (Scandinavia) (46) 8 72 00001 pns:support
For information about Media Natura:
Media Natura Project Manager : Chris Bligh
Telephone (+44) 71 240 2936/ 71 497 2673/ 71 497 2712
FAX: (+44) 71 240 2291
E-mail : gn:medianatura
To find out more about Media Natura please write to Media
Natura, 21 Tower Street, London WC2H 9NS, United Kingdom
******************************************************************
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!!
We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution. We
hope to keep improving our service as we approach UNCED 1992. If
you find this newsletter of value, please return the following
report. Thank you for your help!!
******************************************************************
ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA - ISSUE #1
How did you get the newsletter?
_________e-mail _________________________________address
_________conference or list _____________________name
Have you used the information in reports or newsletters? (please
specify)
Did you distribute it to others? (please list)
Return to:
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris * Project Director
EcoNet: larris * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Telephone: 403-852-4057 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0
Fax: 403-852-3215 * Canada
******************************************************************
ECO GENEVA (INC) #5 June 24, 1991 (