by The Norwegian Forum on Environment and Development – Presented at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development

http:// www.verdenstoppmotet2002.no

JOHANNESBURG (September 2002) — Military production and consumption are a serious impediment to sustainable development as they cause pollution, occupy resources that could otherwise be spent on activities promoting sustainable development, and can be a factor in causing armed conflicts and wars.

Following the 1992 Rio Conference [the “Earth Summit”], the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure the effective follow-up of UNCED, and to monitor and report on implementation of the Rio Conference agreement at the local, national, regional and international levels.

Even though the Rio Declaration mentions military and peace issues, these issues have hitherto not been addressed by the CSD. And even though the CSD deals with production and consumption patterns related to sustainable development, military production and consumption have to date not been on the CSD agenda. The Johannesburg Summit provides an opportunity to remedy this unfortunate fact.

Forum is of the view that The Johannesburg Summit must:

• Reconfirm principles 24 and 25, and underline that armed conflicts and wars as well as military production and consumption cause death and human suffering and/or are a serious impediment to sustainable development.

• Initiate an analysis of the effects on sustainable development of military production and consumption, with a view to reallocating resources for combating poverty and environmental harm. The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) should also encourage increased research on the relationship between armed conflict, environment and development.

In connection with the WSSD 2002 Forum has worked out position papers on the following areas in addition to military production and consumption: fresh water, energy, HIV/AIDS, sustainable development and food security, poverty and the environment, third world debt, international environmental government and the Forum Declaration.

Problems and Challenges
“Governments and international companies should assess the cost effectiveness in terms of achieving security of money spent on weapons and military equipment compared with money spent on reducing poverty or restoring a ravaged environment.” From The World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future” 1987

1. Military production and consumption – an impediment to sustainable development Military production and consumption are a serious impediment to sustainable development as they cause pollution and occupy resources that could otherwise be spent on activities promoting sustainable development. Furthermore, weapon production and trade facilitate conflicts and wars.

Even though poverty and want have not always led to war, war has always led to poverty and want.

This was asserted by the Nobel Prize winner in economics Amartya Sen, during the Nobel Symposia in Oslo in December 2001. Research on the relationship between armed conflict, environment and development should therefore be fortified both on a national and international level, a view support by central researchers.

Military production causes pollution both in peace and wartime.

Modern warfare causes extensive environmental destruction. Even in peace time, or during preparation for war, military activities actively contribute to the loss of resources and to environmental damage. Production, testing and maintenance of conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons produce large quantities of poisons and radioactive substances and poison the earth, the air and the waters of our planet. Warfare and military exercises destroy natural vegetation and disrupt food production (see the section on landmines) and disturb and destroy ecosystems. Particularly serious is the damage rendered to vulnerable borderline areas. Here the re-establishment of a natural could take thousands of years.

Military production and consumption occupy resources – both financial and human capital as well as raw materials – which could otherwise be spend on activities promoting sustainable development.

This is illustrated by the following facts and figures (mainly drawn from the report “Military Production and Consumption: The Consequences for Sustainable Development” by Ane Scholden):

• In 1999 military expenditures amounted to $781 billion.
• The world average military expenditure as part of GDP is approximately 2.5%.
• The annual world average per capita military expenditure is approximately $130.
• The military expenditure sank after the cold war until 1998, but then increased noticeably both in 1999 and 2000.
• Every year approximately $58 billion is spent on military research and development,
• On a world basis, more than 20 million people are in armed forces, 65% of them in developing countries.

If people employed in the arms industries are included the number reaches 50 million. And if indirectly generated employment is added this number has to be multiplied by two.

Military production and consumption could provoke armed conflicts and wars. A paper from The International Committee of the Red Cross claims that “The massive influx of arms into already unstable regions, where they are sometimes sold for a pittance…, set in motion a vicious circle in which people arm themselves out of fear for their safety, thus further destabilizing the situation. The result may well be armed conflicts.” (1998).

In the new international climate following September 11, the threat of biological, chemical and notably nuclear terrorism is a source of constant uncertainty and anxiety around the world.

In this atmosphere it is important to realise that individuals’ and groups’ access to and supply of weapons plays a vital role in the international security. There is now a reinforced need of controlling the production and distribution of military products. In the international climate after the September 11, disarmament work is more important than ever. All nations are responsible for ensuring that the present situation will lead to the reduction of weapons of mass destruction and a stronger control of the trade in these. It goes without saying that armed conflicts and wars lead to immense human and social sufferings, thereby undermining sustainable development.

This is illustrated by the following facts:

• From 1990 to 1995 more than 5 million people died in armed conflicts and wars,
• Approximately 90% of all causalities in armed conflicts and wars are civilians,
• In 1996 more than 80 million suffered from hunger and malnutrition caused by armed conflicts and wars following devastation of farmlands and destruction of food crops,
• Moreover, wars and armed conflicts leave millions of internal and external refugees. In 1997 there were more than 40 million refugees world-wide.
• According to the Landmine monitor report, landmines leave between 15 and 20 000 victims each year. The US State Department reported that there were 300,000 landmine victims in the world in 1998. This does not include those who died in landmine accidents.

The estimated number of landmines lying on the ground is less important than the fact that an area is suspected of having been mined, since that land area will not then be used. This results in millions of square kilometers of land lying fallow, most of these agricultural land, forest and grazing land for villagers in developing countries. This means that landmines are physically hindering the production of food, of bread winning activities and of social activities in the local community. The clearing of landmines is an essential part of development strategies and action plans for sustainable development. 2.

Military Production and Consumption and the Rio Conference
The UN Conference on Environment and Development, which took place in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, resulted in the Rio Declaration and a plan of action – Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration consist of 27 principles, two of them deal with peace and war.

According to principle 24 “Warfare is inherently destructive to sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and co-operate in its future development.” While Principle 25 states that “Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.”

Agenda 21, on the other hand, does not contain any specific points on these issues.

Hitherto, the issue of war and peace, or military production and consumption has not been on the CSD agenda. Various international conventions have been signed and intergovernmental processes are ongoing in the area of arms, weapons and mines. Examples are:

• Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
• The NAC resolution process,
• The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
• The Chemical Weapons Convention,
• The Biological Weapons Convention,
• The Land Mine Treaty,
• The Action Program by the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light weapons,
• The International War Crimes Tribunal.
• The Anti Ballistic Missiles Systems Treaty

However, none of these conventions or processes deals explicitly with military production and consumption in a sustainable development context. With regard to NGO activities, there is a widespread international peace movement and movement for nuclear disarmament. The link to sustainable development has, however, been given little attention.

This is a serious shortcoming, bearing in mind the mutual dependency between peace and sustainable development.

Forum’s Position
Military production and consumption are not only a serious impediment to sustainable development, but the world’s military systems are capable of destroying humanity itself and the basis on which life is sustained on the planet. Nuclear weapons pose a special threat. Trade in weapons and other military equipment (the second largest trans-border transport in the world) is in practice under no control by international authorities or institutions and is therefore a security threat. Moreover, in general the military sector is not held accountable either for their use of the world’s resources or for the destruction it wreaks on people’s lives and the basis of their subsistence.

Even though the Rio Declaration mentions military and peace issues, these issues have hitherto not been addressed by the CSD. And even though the CSD deals with production and consumption patterns related to sustainable development, military production and consumption have to date not been on the CSD agenda. The Johannesburg Summit provides an opportunity to remedy this unfortunate fact.

ForUM is of the view that The Johannesburg Summit must:

• Re-confirm principles 24 and 25, and underline that war and armed conflicts as well as military production and consumption cause death and human suffering and/or are a serious impediment to sustainable development.

• Initiate an extensive survey and analysis on the effects on sustainable development of military production and consumption. The WSSD must encourage increased emphasis on research into the relationship between armed conflict, environment and development.

• Confirm the commitment that 122 nations have made in relation to the ratification of the Ottawa Convention against the use and production of anti-personnel mines, and emphasize the importance of achieving universal ratification. In addition active support must be given to poorer member countries if they are to fulfil the simple commitments stipulated in relation to the destruction of antipersonnel mine stocks and clearing of minefields.

<=i>=The Norweigian Forum for Environment and Development promotes contact between Norwegian organizations, the authorities, media, institutions and other stakeholder groups working on environment and development questions, nationally and internationally.<=/i>=