Dear gep-eds,
I am delighed by the comprehensive and detailed response to mmy query.
I will make a summary
and for the benefit of all not only my students.
Best regards,
Kirsten Worm
In my 1990 Saving the Mediterranean chapter 1 I have a brief review of
UNCHE, with
references
> to a number of books and articles on the conference.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pam Chasek
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol
conference
>
>
> In addition to the books and articles that I sent yesterday, there is
another case
study
> that is useful in this regard:
>
>
>
> The Role of the Secretariat in Multilateral Negotiation: The Case of
Maurice Strong and
the
> 1972 Un Conference on the Human Environment, Christian Herter, Jill
E. Binder
>
> Foreign Policy Institute, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies,
Johns
> Hopkins University, Mar 1, 1993 - 59 pages
>
>
>
> It includes a postscript by Amb. McDonald about the negotiations of
the decision to
locate
> UNEP in Nairobi.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is still generally available, but I do have
a copy and could
find a way
> to make it available to interested people.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pam
>
>
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Steven
Bernstein
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:29 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol
conference
>
>
>
> Just to add to Maria's narrative re the Soviet Bloc boycott, the
exclusion of East
Germany,
> but inclusion of West Germany, resulted essentially from Cold War
political maneuvering
on
> the part of the West. Neither Germany had U.N. membership, but West
Germany was a member
of
> the International Atomic Energy Agency and a UN resolution in 1969
allowed its members
to
> participate. The Soviet Bloc boycotted in response. Strong, in his
memoirs, mentions
that
> he fought earlier to appoint a prominent Soviet scientist, Vladimir
Kunin, to the
> secretariat staff, and a second Soviet expert joined even after the
boycott. In
addition,
> as Maria's work seems to confirm, he personally met with the
Soviet ambassador in
Stockholm
> every day of the conference to keep Moscow informed of the
proceedings.
>
>
>
> Of course, Strong was also instrumental in persuading a significant
number of
developing
> countries to participate through initiatives like the Founex meeting
and report (among
other
> initiatives and meetings) as well as very active personal diplomacy.
Their
participation
> and the inclusion of development on the agenda is an important part
of the longer
term
> history/implications of Stockholm well documented in a number of
sources already
mentioned
> in the thread, even if the short term outcomes - apart from the
creation of UNEP -
had
> limited influence or profile in the developing world (as per
Paul's earlier post).
Since
> the question asked that started this thread was about leading
countries, I think it
also
> appropriate to recognize that in this case and in 1992 - perhaps in
at least some
contrast
> to Rio + 20 - the Secretariat, especially Strong and the small group
around him, played
a
> very significant and somewhat autonomous leadership role. I think
Maria's research
lends
> pretty strong support to this as well (right Maria)?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Maria H.
Ivanova
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:11 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol
conference
>
>
>
> Please forgive the detailed response below. The Stockholm Conference
and its impact
on
> global environmental governance have been a major part of my research
agenda.
>
>
>
> Henrik is exactly right about the events and considerations. I have
had a chance to
read
> through a lot of archival material and interview many of the key
actors in governments
and
> at the UN and can corroborate the story he recounts below. During the
interviews I
conducted
> in Sweden, I was also struck by the fact that several of the main
actors there
mentioned
> that acid rain had not been a driving factor. The work of Inga
Thorsson that Henrik
outlined
> below was indeed the motivation behind Sweden's engagement.
>
>
>
> To the original question about the lead countries, however, the
United States and
Sweden
> were perhaps the two most important leading countries. The US was
truly instrumental in
the
> creation of UNEP as one of the major outcomes of the conference. The
Soviet Union was
also
> quite significant even though they did not attend (along with the
entire socialist
bloc
> because of the refusal to allow East Germany to participate). Maurice
Strong was in
regular
> communication with the Soviet embassy and with Moscow and kept them
informed about
the
> conference. I have written up the history, including the contentions
between developed
and
> developing countries in
>
> Ivanova, M. "Designing the United Nations Environment Programme: A
Story of
Compromise and
> Confrontation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics,
Law, and
Economics Vol. 7,
> Issue 3, September 2007.
>
>
>
> I would be glad to discuss the US role offline with anyone
interested. Ambassador John
W.
> McDonald was the secretary of the US delegation to Stockholm and the
author of the
> resolutions that ultimately became Resolution 2997 establishing UNEP.
He received the
State
> Department's highest honor in 1972 for his role in the creation
of UNEP.
>
>
>
> In 2009, I convened the Global Environmental Governance Forum in
Glion, Switzerland.
It
> brought together pioneers of global environmental governance and
current and future
leaders
> from various organizations and governments - including all five
successive Executive
> Directors of UNEP, Amb. John McDonald, Jim McNeill, Lars-Goran
Engfeldt, Gus Speth,
Mohamed
> ElAshry - to discuss the past, present, and future of global
environmental governance.
The
> Final report of the conference features discussion of the history,
including the
Stockholm
> Conference from many of the people who were there. We also produced a
15-min
documentary,
> Quest for Leadership, which features interviews with several of the
pioneers. As an
input to
> the Forum, we produced another 15-minute film, Quest for Symphony,
which discusses
the
> history and challenges of global environmental governance.
>
>
>
> I would be delighted to engage further on this subject with anyone
interested.
>
>
>
> Maria
>
>
>
> Maria Ivanova, PhD
> Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global
Governance
> John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies
> University of Massachusetts Boston
> Tel. +1 617 287 7263
> Mobile +1 203 606 4640
> [email protected]
>
> Co-Director, Center for Governance and Sustainability
> University of Massachusetts Boston
> www.cgs.umb.edu
> www.environmentalgovernance.org
>
> [email protected]
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Henrik Selin <[email protected]
> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:59 PM
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol conference
>
>
>
> In the fall of 1967, a UN committee proposed (yet another) conference
on the peaceful
> utilization of nuclear power. The committee, however, had also
briefly looked at the
> environment as another possible conference topic. This was noted by a
Swedish delegate
(Inga
> Thorsson who had a strong focus on disarmament issues). She/Sweden
wanted to avoid
yet
> another expensive nuclear-focused conference promoting mainly
Western/US industry
interests
> (this was during the Vietnam War and the Swedish social democratic
government was a
bit
> skeptical of many US interests...).
>
>
>
> On December 13, 1967, another Swedish UN diplomat (Börje Billner)
spoke in UNGA
instead
> proposing an environment conference. Sweden continued to work on the
issue throughout
the
> spring of 1968 and got it onto the ECOSOC agenda in May 1968 and
introduced a
memorandum
> (Sverker Åström). December 3, 1968, the UNGA approved the conference.
In May
1969, Sweden
> offered to host the conference and this offer was accepted by UNGA in
December 1969.
>
>
>
> The Swedish conference proposal was motivated by a desire to avoid
another nuclear
> conference, as well as gain global recognition of the environment as
an important
> transnational issue (having much to do with Rachel Carson, population
growth, natural
> resource consumption etc). It was also hoped that the inherent
cross-sectoral character
of
> environmental issues could help tear down counterproductive barriers
within the
sectorally
> rigid UN system, as well as serve to strengthen a UN that was plagued
by tensions
between
> East and West and grappling with the complications of decolonization.
>
>
>
> The Swedish acid rain debate in a sense started to develop with
Oden's October 24,
1967
> newspaper articles but emerged separately from the UN conference
idea. It took a while
for
> the acid rain topic to take off publicly and was more linked to the
activities of the
newly
> created Swedish EPA. It was also initially not at all clear what the
Swedish
international
> political response should be (i.e., the initial response was not
"let's
organize a global UN
> conference with 130 member states and also host it!"). The Swedish
political
response did
> not start to mature until the conference preparations were under way
under the
leadership of
> Maurice Strong.
>
>
>
> Surely, there were overlaps between the conference and the acid rain
issue going back to
the
> early 1970s as the two topics started to merge. There is always a
possibility that
I'm
> wrong, but I don't think there were any substantive links at the
very beginning when
the
> Swedish UN mission started pushing the issue in UNGA and ECOSOC. As
social scientists,
we
> are trained to look for connections. Sometimes they are mainly the
result of
coincidences,
> rather than strategic government planning and action.
>
>
> Henrik
>
>
>
> On 2/13/2013 10:48 AM, Steven Bernstein wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> At the risk of sticking my neck out with interview data that slightly
contradicts
Henrik's
> - please see the note below I just sent him offline. The gist is that
while acid rain
was
> not a big national issue in Sweden until after the 1968 ECOSOC and
UNGA resolutions
> proposing a conference (and, yes, Sweden was the major mover as far
as I know though
> other western countries were supportive), it had started to percolate
into the public
> consciousness and, at least according to some accounts and interview
data, was being
> discussed within the Swedish government. The early theory of acid
rain came from a
> Swedish scientist, Svante Oden, who published it first not in a
scientific journal, but
in
> a newspaper, the October 24, 1967, issue of Dagens Nyheter. So, it
may be that acid
rain
> was in the minds of people in the Swedish government even if there
were multiple
motives
> in proposing the conference (and, there was also a context of a
variety of other UN
> activities around the environment leading up to 1968).
>
>
>
> More broadly, there is a quite detailed account of the politics
around the Stockholm
> conference in the Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism, pp. 31-49
and 139-144.
> (Apologies for the self-promotion - and I'm sure Henrik has more
details than me
on
> decision-making within the Swedish government as I did not look at
that in detail,
but
> focused more on the politics in the run-up to the conference and
North-South dynamics
in
> particular).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Steven
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven Bernstein
>
> Associate Chair and Graduate Director
>
> Dept. of Political Science
>
> University of Toronto
>
> 100 St. George Street
>
> Toronto, ON
>
> M5S 3G3
>
>
>
> Tel: +1 416-978-8493
>
> Fax: +1 416 978 5566
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Steven Bernstein
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol
conference
>
>
>
> Henrik - this is very interesting. One thing that came up in my
interviews about the
> Stockholm conference was the role of Svante Oden, one of the early
researchers on
Acid
> Rain, who also happened to have a popular television show. One of my
interviewees
said
> Oden first published his theory of acid rain (presumably a
preliminary version) in a
> Swedish newspaper in 1967, a year before he published a scientific
article in Ecology
> Committee Bulletin (1968). People assume acid rain was not on the
agenda before 1968
-
> but the timing of the newspaper article suggests it could have been.
I can't verify
that
> the newspaper article or Oden's personal lobbying was "the" or
even a
major impetus for
> the conference, by at least one person I interviewed who was involved
in the
scientific
> meetings around Stockholm and knew Oden claimed Oden did a lot to
publicize the issue
and
> had the ear of some people in government. So, whether or not acid
rain was in the
initial
> resolution in 1968 (I'd have to go back and check - but I think
the original
resolution
> was very general, i.e., "air and water pollution", "soil erosion",
noise pollution, etc.
> without identifying specific causes or issues), there is at least
some evidence that
it
> was in the minds of people in the Swedish government when they
proposed the
conference.
> Does this fit with any interviews you've done?
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Henrik
Selin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [gep-ed] Re: Lead countries behind the Stockhol conference
>
>
>
> If you look at the two international and domestic timelines, it is
clear that the
Swedish
> UN mission first raised the issue of the conference BEFORE acid rain
took off as a
> national Swedish issue. Not by much (less than a year), but getting
acid rain on the
> international agenda was NOT the main reason for proposing the UN
conference (or even
a
> reason at all). This has also been confirmed by personal interviews
with the people
who
> were at the Swedish UN mission at the time (Sverker Åström and
Lars-Göran Engfeldt). They
> came up with the conference idea more or less on their own and then
sold the idea to
the
> Swedish government/PM without being concerned by acid rain. As
diplomats from a
"neutral"
> country, they were much more interested in bridging Cold War
political gaps within the
UN
> and start dealing with the environment broadly as a means to do that,
than tackle
acid
> rain specifically. Of course, once the conference came around, Sweden
happily used it
to
> talk about acid rain...
>
> Henrik
>
> On 2/13/2013 9:46 AM, Radoslav Dimitrov wrote:
>
> I read somewhere that Sweden had an ulterior motive to organize the
conference. After
> the conference began, they put the acid rain issue on the table. The
issue had not
been
> on the official agenda, and delegates from other countries (UK, for
instance) felt
> somewhat ambushed into pre-negotiations. Would be interested to hear
confirmations or
> refutation - anyone?
>
>
>
> Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science
> University of Western Ontario
> Social Science Centre
> London, Ontario
> Canada N6A 5C2
> Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023
> Fax +1(519) 661-3904
> Email: [email protected]
>
>
>
> On 2013-02-13, at 6:53 AM, Kirsten Worm wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear gep-eds,
>
> This year I am once more teaching global environmental politics at
the University of
> Copenhagen, Department of Political Science.
> Inspite of reading several textbook on the Stockholm-Rio process
including the
excellent
> 5th edition of Chasek, Downie and Brown:
> Global Environmental Politics, one question remains:
>
> Who were the lead countries behind the Stockholm conference in 1972.
Chasek et al.
> mentions that the conference was supported by the US,
> but was the US lead state? I wonder about that.
>
> Does anyone have an answer?
>
> Maybe someone out there with even more grey hair than mine even
attended the
conference?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Kirsten Worm, M.A.; Ph.D
> University of Copenhagen
> Department of Political Science
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed"
> group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed"
> group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"gep-ed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
