A CSO Report on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments For submission to the United Nation Environment Programme
The 9th UNEP Global Civil Society Forum (GCSF), Monaco, 19 February, 2008
* Most of this report was submitted to the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and distributed at the Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments, Bangkok, 17-19 Janaury 2008.
18 Febrary 2008 Edited by the Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns,
Vermont Law School International Law Society1
1 The Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns, Vermont Law School International Law Society, P.O. Box 96 Chelsea Street, South Royalton, VT, 05068, USA URL : http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/page0005.htm Contact persons : Kaori Sunagawa at [email protected] & Weston Watts at [email protected] Table of contents Much of this document was submitted to the Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments and distributed among attending government representatives, Bangkok, Thailand Janaury 17-19, 2008 Reports with (*) were partly revised or added to the original report.
Preface page vi
The Commonwealth of Australia page 1
"Australia: A CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments" by Kim Stewart (Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane)
Relevant information "Comments on the Public Environmental Assessment for the Talisman Sabre Joint U.S.-Australian war games 2007. " by Kim Stewart (Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane
"Shoaiwater Bay: Queensland's presitine wilderness threatened by expanding foreign military use
by Peace Convergence Relevant information * "Military Expansion Explained: The Australia-Guam Connection" by Dr Zohl dé Ishtar (Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Queensland) (This report was submitted by the Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group)
The Republic of India page 56
"India: The Environment and Military Policy and Strategy" by Chet Narayan Pathak, Dy. General Manager (Quality & Environment), Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd
Republic of the Philippines page 58
"Philippines: A CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments" by Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE)
ii "Philippine report on the contamination of former U.S. Military Bases in the Philippies "
by Myrla Baldonado, President, Alliance for Bases Clean-up, Executive Director, People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up
The Republic of Korea page 67
* "ROK: A CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments" by Green Korea United
Japan page 76
"Environmental issues regaring USMarine Corps Futenma Air Station" by Ginowan City Government, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan
* "Noise pollution and low frequent noise pollution around US Kadena Air Force Base" by Okinawa Environmental Network
* "Okinawan Dugong and US military base construction" by Association to Protect Northernmost Dugong (Japan)
* "The Impact of U.S. Military Activities on Environment" by Kenichi Moriyama, Resident of Kushi, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan
"Environmental activities of US Military Forces Japan (USFJ) " by Kaori Sunagawa, Student of Vermont Law School
"Environmental Issue caused by the presence of United States Military Establishments in Okinawa-Japan" by Yoshio OKADA, PhD
Relevant information
"From Okinawa Pefectrual Government’s website"
"Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Asia" by Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE) & NO DU Hiroshima Project
Relevant information
iii
"オーストラリア地位協定の研究 : 特に環境条項と軍事情報通信施設について"
法政大学 教授 永野 秀雄
The Status of Foreign Forces in Australia: How Do Their Environmental Clauses Work? (Japanese paper only) by Professor Hideo Nagano, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan
"軍と環境法: 特に米国の域外軍事施設に関する環境保護法制について"
法政大学 教授 永野 秀雄
National Defense and the Environment the Environmental Protection Regime of U.S. Overseas Installations (Japanese paper only) by Professor Hideo Nagano, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan
African CSO report on Military Activities and the Environment Annex I Most of this report was submitted to the UNEP and distributed to the regional Meeting for Africa on October 3rd, 2007. After receiving additional reports we submitted this report to the UNEP and it is posted on on UNEP-Civil Society website at http://www.unep.org/civil_society/PDF_docs/A-CSO-Report-Miltiary-Establishments.pdf.
Republic of Kenya page 1 Republic of South Africa page 24 République du Djibouti/ Republic of Djibouti page 33 République du Burundi/ Republic of Burundi page 35 République démocratique du Congo - Democratic Republic of Congo page 37 Republic of Uganda page 56 Republic of Ghana page 69 Republic of Cameroon page 73 Republic of Rwanda page 76 Federal Republic of Nigeria page 78 The Somali Republic page 85
iv
Reports from the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) Annex II
Recieved after the UNEP Asia-Pacific regional meeting, we are submitting this report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum.
Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons by International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)
Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NMI in Concord, MA, USA by Grassroots Actions for Peace, Concord, Mass., USA
Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NLI in Colonie, NY, USA by Community Concerned about NL, Colonie, N.Y
Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Europe by The Belgian Coalition “Stop Uranium Weapons!”
Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Asian Pacific Region by Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE) & NO DU Hiroshima Project
Questionnaire of the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey Appendix I on military activities and the environment in peacetime by the Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns (MREC) Vermont Law School International Law Society
v
Preface
Introduction: Four types of problems brought us to compile this report, and they define the scope of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) survey on peacetime environmental impacts of military sectors. Below we present examples of these; sources of concern and hope related to impacts from past warfare, and from past, current, and planned peacetime activities.
Problems from past warfare are numerous and well reported. As the reports from the Republic of Congo present, after wars have ended, pollution from activities2 and the influx of soldiers and refugees3 into sensitive areas can lead former farming communities to harvest wood for charcoal, resulting in deforestation and habitat loss.4 Deforestation is often connected with conflict and military activities as seen in the last survey,5 and is common in this one as well.6 On the positive side, however, some African governments have made tree planting and environmental improvement projects a part of training activities.7 These legacies of war, like those from Viet Nam,8 are within the scope of the UNEP survey insofar as they currently impact the environment during peacetime.
As the reports from the Philippines relate, even communities hosting military facilities that have closed may face substantial problems based on their management of hazardous material. After the Philippine government ended the agreement that allowed the US to use Clark and Subic military bases in 1991, the following year Mt. Pinotubo erupted and mountain dwellers settled on a former motorpool of Clark Field
2 See the Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP) report in Annex I at 42 and 49. 3 The report by Action pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche avec Protection Environnementale de Likende (ADAPEL) at 38, suggests refugee populations and soldiers may have substantially stressed Congo ecosystems after wars in neighboring Burundi and Rwanda. It recommends further studies regarding these impacts and environmental education for Congo military forces. 4 The YDAHDEP report notes increased wood harvesting after military activities polluted the soil and water, but this is an area where further studies and action could elucidate the connection and how to address it. Annex I at 49. 5 For example, military forces cleared forests during past warfare in the Philippines. See their 1995 report at 1, http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/UNEP%20Documents/Philippines.pdf. See also the Myanmar report at 37, http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/MREC_Documents/SubRegionMeetingonMilitaryActivitiesandtheEnvironment.pdf. 6 See also SAFE’s report from Uganda at 59. And UEEF’s report at 64. 7 The Kenyan military has tree planting into training. See http://www.mod.go.ke/army/?page_link=environment. 8 According to the Viet Nam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign, more than 3 million Vietnamese people have suffered from the effects of Agent Orange exposure over 30 years after the Vietnam War (http://www.vn-agentorange.org/aboutus.html). While there abundant studies and information regarding this issue, one particularly interesting source is the country report provided by the Vietnamese government in 1995. See http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/UNEP%20Documents/Viet%20Nam.pdf.
vi Air Base. The reports note the elevated cancer rates and the impact on children, after pregnant mothers drank from contaminated shallow wells.9 Reports from Djibouti also note water pollution and increased cancer incidence in migrating communities related to visiting forces.10 News reports from Kenya also relate legacies of past peacetime activities, where children in rural communities have been maimed on discovering unexploded ordnance (UXO) from past British military training activities.11 A report from South Africa relates how weapon stockpiles and old facilities are in need of remedial action.12 There are also numerous examples of these issues in Annex II. A key issue in these situations is the amount of information available to connect the impact to the activity. Greater attention to hazardous materials management and monitoring may prevent or address this problem.
The current operations of visiting forces in Okinawa, Japan, and in Kenya, present examples of how activities can affect local communities and wildlife. For example, current flight activities expose an estimated 38% of the population in Okinawa prefecture to excessive noise, with attendant social impacts.13 Similar impacts are reported form the Republic of Korea.14 At the same time, visiting NATO activities to reduce piracy have used destructive sonar along the Horn of Africa, and have been associated with beached whales, dugong, and other sirenians,15 similar to those made controversial in the US.16 The problem of how to manage impacts from current activities often raises concerns over how law addresses visiting forces.
Planned facilities in Okinawa, Japan, and closures in the Republic of Korea suggest areas where impacts predicted by civil society have not been adequately addressed in impact assessment procedures, and improvement is possible. In Okinawa, a facility planned for Henoko will fill in the habitat of endangered and culturally significant Okinawa dugong.17 The return of facilities in US use to communities in the Republic of Korea may be a mixed blessing considering liabilities these communities may inherit.18
9 See the Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) report at 61-63, and the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up report at 64-65. See similar reports regarding areas in Vieques Puertor Rico, provided in the Dr Zohl dé Ishtar paper at 12. 10 See the Réseau Ensemble pour le Développement Durable du District d'Arta (E.D.D.A.) report in Annex I at 34. 11 See the African Church Information Service report in Annex I at 20, and more detailed information on the impact of British training activities, see other materials contributed by the Center for natural Resource management, Advocacy and Marketing (CREAM), starting at 16. 12 See the Nelson Mandela Bay Local Environmentalists (NiMBLE) report in Annex I at 25-7. 13 See the estimate cited in the Okinawa Environmental Network report at 85. See also Ginowan City Government, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan report begining at 77. 14 See Green Korea United report at 68. 15 See the Centre For Rural Development (CRD) report in Annex I at 5. 16 See recent developments in the case, NRDC v. Gutierrez, at http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp. 17 See the Association to Protect Northernmost Dugong (Japan) report from 102-106. But see also recent developments in Okinawa Dugong v. Gates litigation underway in th US regarding local access to relevant decision-making through the National Hitoric Preservation Act consultation requirement. See the Center for Biological Diversity press release at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/dugong-01-24-2008.html. 18 See the Green Korea United report at 70.
vii Training activities of the US and Australia planned for Australia’s Shoalwater and Corio Bays present risks to the habitat of migratory birds, and may harm sea turtles, dugong, and corals.19 The Australian reports also present social and environmental impacts of new facilities planned for Guam.20
This is not an exhaustive sample of reports, but it still displays room for growth in this field of international law. Defense establishments, especially visiting forces frequently face limited environmental law, and even more limited local accountability. These are important areas for growth, but that growth needs local input from civil society organizations. At the same time areas of progress suggest there are available ways to address the trends visible in this report.
Project Background: The following is a reflection on the how this project has unfolded, and how the UNEP effort may become more inclusive. This compilation presents the concerns of groups we were able to reach over the last six months. We hope to involve many more concerned groups before the 2009 conference brings nations together to address problems like those represented here.
We sincerely hope you will join us in appreciating the hard work of those that made this report possible, and find your country’s section within the report or help us build one to give your community a voice. Empowering that voice is a goal of the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum, which brings us together to address the concerns our communities face, including those posed by military establishments.
In February, 2007 Kaori Sunagawa of MREC participated in the 8th UNEP Global Civil Society Forum (GCSF) and helped draft the key message on “War, Militarism, and Environment” from a working group organized to address this area.21
In the message, Civil Society Organizations urge the Executive Director of the UNEP:
• To survey globally the state of the environmental consequence from military activities during times of armed conflicts and "peacetime" with its member States, Civil Society Organizations and other relevant entities and individuals.
• To fully implement the program on "Military Activities and the Environment" which is Section 20 of the Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law for the First Decade of the Twenty-First Century (Montevideo Programme III).
These statements refer to a development within the UNEP to address the problems and potential of military establishments in the global effort to make environmental law more effective.
19 See the Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane reports starting at 4, especially 8-10. 20 See the report of Dr Zohl dé Ishtar, Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Queensland, Submitted by the Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group at 45, 47, and 50-52. 21 For the full text, see http://www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF8/pdfs/statement-war-env-gcsf8.pdf.
viii
On 10 October 2006, the UNEP Governing Council determined that the UNEP would prepare to hold an international conference in 2008 or 2009 to review environmental problems related to military establishments, as well as their contribution to enhance the environment, with a particular focus on their activities during peace time and to identify a way forward for the application of environmental norms. (UNEP/GC/24/9 at 44)22 This section also explains how the preparations will involve a variety of stakeholders, including government officials, several international organizations, and NGOs. If this conference produces a declaration or guidelines, norms may define how visiting forces affect and contribute to community goals. If this development changes treaty arrangements or leads to a multilateral environmental agreement, health and the environment may depend less on national power.23
It is important to note that this UNEP effort builds upon a similar effort that followed the 1992 Rio Summit, culminating in 178 nations adopting Agenda 21. This program sets goals for action in every area in which humans impact the environment. Section 20.22 (h) states, "Governments should ascertain that their military establishments conform to their nationally applicable environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes."24 Responding to this section the UNEP Governing Council decided to organize a survey in 1995 and meetings through 1996 on military activities and the environment, to understand each country's situation.25
Although the survey was a great step toward identifying environmental problems and policies to address them, the scope of the survey did not include input from many geographical areas and actors. The survey covered 33 countries from Europe including former Soviet Republics, (See UNEP/MIL/3, UNEP/MIL/4), 9 South Asian Countries (See UNEP/MIL/SA/1), and 7 South-East Asian Countries (See UNEP/MIL/SEA/1).26 It did not include countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, and many of Asia and the Pacific (e.g. China, Japan, South Korea). UNEP also did not seek information from CSOs, and the regional meetings that followed did not result in global norms.27 Concerned that CSOs and regions may not be represented in this effort, our network has worked to improve civil society participation.
22 See the full text of the GC 24 outcomes reported at www.unep.org/GC/GC24/download.asp?ID=240. 23 According to reports, communities in Australia, Djibouti, Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and South Africa may be especially interested in this opportunity. 24 For sections of Agenda 21, visit http://earthwatch.unep.net/agenda21/20.php. 25 This program is described at http://www.unep.org/dpdl/law_instruments/dev_int%20law%20instruments.asp. 26 Portable Document Format (pdf.) versions of these reports are available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/page0005.htm. 27 At the end of the meetings in Europe, NATO members drafted “Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector” to serve as guidance for countries developing environmental programs. Unfortunately only a partial copy of this report is available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf. Norms have evolved, as the International Standards Organizations shows in ISO 14001, a set of standards relating to environmental management for organizations
ix
To increase access, students entering Vermont Law School in the fall of 2006 formed a group (MREC) to report on Military Related Environmental Concerns (MREC).28 Understanding that the UNEP would start by contacting States, MREC members sought to present the views of those most affected by military activities. As a result this report conveys the reports received from civil society major groups, including local governments, concerned individuals, scientists, and non-government organizations (NGOs).29
To prepare this report we have compiled the reports we received from organizations concerned with military activities in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. In October 2007, we contacted African NGOs, compiled responses and submitted the African CSO report to the UNEP regional meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments in Kenya.30 In January 2008, our group also contacted CSOs in Asia and the Pacific, compiled their responses and submitted the Asia-Pacific CSO report to the UNEP regional meeting in Bangkok.
Potential for Improvement: We would like to express our appreciation to the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Convention for inviting CSOs to submit their reports, and for distributing them among government officials attending UNEP regional meetings. While we appreciate this step toward involvement, it has some severe limits. These limits relate to our capacity and the limits of the solicitation approach used by the UNEP.
This role was both welcome and daunting, because these meetings deserve the kind of capacity larger organizations can offer. We had the language capacity to contact groups in English, sometimes in Spanish and French, but language barriers were a key constraint in our work, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. Furthermore, with only limited contacts we regret that our survey only represents a small fraction of individuals that could have responded even in those areas we covered. In the coming months, we hope to improve our capacity in this regard, but the mechanism, submitting reports, also could use some significant improvement.
It is important that CSOs were allowed to contribute to regional meetings but it is unfortunate that they only had access through their reports. Although we provided the UNEP with our CSO reports, we have not been able to access the outcomes of these meetings, or even a list of participating countries. After the Asia-Pacific meeting
that can include military establishments. These, however, do not represent a Multilateral Environmental Agreement, and problems persist with abatement and management, particulalry where visiting forces are stationed. 28 MREC membership includes Kaori Sunagawa, MREC’s founder brought with her experience from Okinawa Japan. Maria Hernandez-Torales brought experience helping the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Peter Gill, brought familiarity with Badger military munitions complex in Wisconsin, while Weston Watts Jr. brought experience from Brunswick, Maine in the US which hosts a closing Naval Air Station. MREC is a subcommittee of the law school’s International Law Soceity (ILS) but does not represent the views or opinions of the school or ILS. 29 Local governments report from Japan, several reports relate scientific studies, including those form Japan, Australia, and the Annex II, the vast majority come from NGOs representing communities, individuals and youth 30 Our report is available at http://www.unep.org/civil_society/recommendations/index2.asp
x we found that there are also some severe limits to how effective this program can be without further CSO involvement. The problem we have seen is one of transparency and outreach. For example, very few people know about these UNEP regional meetings, none of our contacts have indicated they are aware of them, and at least one government representative has not attended a regional meeting because the invitation failed to arrive. With greater visibility we think government representatives would have had more reason to attend, and could have had more to discuss based on the input of civil society. This is particularly important because developing a relevant global norm may be key to facing challenges, even challenges like climate change, and these discussions will prepare officials to address common problems.
For this reason, MREC has also worked to help the UNEP implement proposals in the key message on “War, Militarism, and Environment” by seeking increased CSO access in the project. In the summer of 2007 we conducted an online petition to encourage states to seek input from civil society in preparation for the UNEP global survey.31 On the 9th of July, 2007, we submitted this petition with signatures of 40 individuals and 25 members signing for 20 Organizations; people from the Guam (USA), India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, Puerto Rico (USA), Switzerland, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. As of 16 February 2008, we have received 116 signatures conveying further information on this issue. We would like to personally thank these 116 individuals and groups.
Acknowledgements: Below, we would like to thank the many supporters of this ambitious project. The CSO report for Africa32 as well as that for Asia and the Pacific could not have been completed without contributions from the following participating CSOs and individuals each region. We are deeply grateful for their help.
Africa: Burundi: o L'Organisation pour la Defense de l'Environnement au Burundi (ODEB) / The Organization of the Defense of Environment in Burundi (ODEB) Cameroon: o The Federation of Environmental and Ecological Diversity For Agricultural Revampment and Human Right (FEEDAR & HR) o Cameroon Youth and Student Forum Peace CAMYOSFOP. Congo: o Action pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche avec Protection Environnementale de Likende (ADAPEL) / Action for the Development of Agriculture and Fishery with Environmental Protection of Likende o Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP) o Henri Paul ELOMA IKOLEKI Chercheur à l’ICCN et Coordonnateur du Projet / ELOMA IKOLEKI Researcher with the ICCN and Coordinator of the Project.
31 The petition is still open and available at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/454164146. 32 The Africa report is available at http://www.unep.org/civil_society/recommendations/index2.asp.
xi Djibouti: o Réseau Ensemble pour le Développement Durable du District d'Arta (E.D.D.A.) / Network Together for the Sustainable development of the District of Arta (E.D.D.A.) Ghana: o Kumasi Civil Society Group (KUSOG); o Young Leaders Forum (YLF) and Youth development Foundation (YDF) Kenya: o Sustainable Development Initiatives Center (SDIC) o Centre For Rural Development (CRD) o Professor Eric Odada of the University of Nairobi o East African Wildlife Society o Center for natural Resource management, Advocacy and Marketing (CREAM) Nigeria: o Develop Africa Nigeria Somalia: o Somali Human Rights Association (SOHRA) o Somaliland: Environment Protection Organization (EPO) South Africa: o NiMBLE - Nelson Mandela Bay Local Environmentalists Uganda: o Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Environment Concerns in Uganda (SAFE) o Uganda Environmental Education Foundation (UEEF). Rwanda: o African Foundation (FARMAPU-INTER & CECOTRAP-RCOGL)
Asia and the Pacific: Australia: o Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane. India: o Chet Narayan Pathak, Dy. General Manager (Quality & Environment) of Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd. Japan: o Ginowan City Government (in Okinawa Prefecture) o Okinawa Environmental Network o Association to Protect Northernmost Dugong o Mr. Kenichi Moriyama o Dr. Yoshio Okada o Ms. Kaori Sunagawa o Professor Hideo Nagano of Hosei University
Philippines: o Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) o Alliance for Bases Clean-up & People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up Republic of Korea (South Korea): o Green Korea United
xii Depleted Uranium Concerns: International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) o Grassroots Actions for Peace, Concord, Mass., USA o Community Concerned about NL, Colonie, N.Y o The Belgian Coalition “Stop Uranium Weapons!” o Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE) & NO DU Hiroshima Project
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the crucial support of those that contributed to our translation work and offered key guidance. We would like to extent a special thanks to Binta Boly, Eliza Meeker, and Laurel Nugent for their help with our French translation; Maria Hernandez-Torrales, Blas Fonaledas, and Peter Gill for providing key Spanish support; Camille Dalmacio, Chih Yao Sun, and Elaine Ting for Chinese language support. We also could not have done this project without the advice of Professor Stephen Dycus, who offered guidance and critical insight into environmental aspects of military activities, and Professor Bettsy Baker of Vermont Law School (VLS), who provided guidance and insight into aspects of the project relevant to advancing international law. We would also like to thank Lori Dubreuil of VLS for her IT support. We should also express our appreciation for support from the VLS International Law Society, especially, from Shelby Kammeyer, Debra Doby, and Tamara Toles.
MREC February 2008
Kaori Sunagawa (Co-chair), Weston Watts, Jr. (Co-chair), Peter Gill (Co-founder), Maria Hernandez-Torrales, Anna Skubikowski, Jessica Scott, Kaitlin Roy
The Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns (MREC) Vermont Law School International Law Society
Disclaimer: This publication conveys the views of the student author and other students involved in this project. Vermont Law School does not endorse or oppose any particular view on this matter. This publication should not be construed as the school's endorsement of, or opposition to, any particular view on this subject.
xiii
The Commonwealth of Australia
"Australia: A CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments" by Kim Stewart (Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane)
Peace Convergence, Friends of the Earth Brisbane Kim Stewart PO Box 5702, West End, Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia 4100 07 3846 5793 (FoE Office) 07 3846 4791 [email protected] http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au http://www.peaceconvergence.com
UNEP Asia-Pcific Meeting Topics ------
(a) A national environmental policy for the military/defence sector;
The Peace Convergence/Friends of the Earth Brisbane are concerned that the regular use of toxic materials and dangerous processes by the military everywhere are rarely addressed.
Frequently these toxins and processes are used in sensitive areas like protected areas, or where they affect people. People and animals alike have a right to a safe and clean environment.
Not only are communities and environments being contaminated by known environmental hazards like depleted uranium and low frequency sonar, and, but everyday munitions and their maintainence include an array of toxic materials and heavy metals including: perchlorate, phosporus, lead, tungsten and others.
In Australia, it is possible for the government to waiver the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment on military activites – granting them a license to pollute in effect. No independent assessment of what goes on in military training areas is conducted or if it is, it is not publically available information.
2
With respect to Australia's biggest, the Shoalwater bay Military Training Area (SWBTA) it is our understanding that no water, soil or air testing has ever been released and the local community's water supply is within the live training area. There are numerous environmental treaties including RAMSAR, CAMBA, JAMBA to which Australia is signatory that come into play in the SWBTA and they are at risk. And the training area part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where sonar and pollution endanger migrating whales and green turtles.
However, these issues are in play wherever military activity of any kind occurs.
(c) The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development;
To Friends of the Earth the idea that the military can ever be 'sustainable' is anathema. We submit that that war and war games are incompatible with environmental protection and that these activies are not only unconscionable, but should never be carried out in protected areas or near any human habitation. We submit that the Australian government has an obligation to do better on these issues.
3 Friends of the Earth Brisbane PO Box 5702 West End QLD 4101
www.brisbane.foe.org.au
November 13, 2006
Dear Sirs,
Please find below a summary of our comments on the Public Environment Report prepared by Maunsell/AECOM on the environmental impact of the Talisman Sabre joint war games 2007. A more comprehensive submission is attached.
While we appreciate the effort gone to by the department to consider the environmental effects of joint war games in our region we feel that it is fatally flawed. Any kind of military activities in the Great Barrier Reef marine park should be disallowed, it is not compatible with sustainability or environmental protection.
The Shoalwater Bay and Coral sea regions should be no-go zones for military or any other industrial activities because:
• Shoalwater Bay and Corio Bay are Ramsar listed habitats for waterfowl – meaning they are of vital importance for the world, not just QLD – it is Australia's duty to protect these areas from any development as signatories to the Ramsar and other conventions • Shoalwater seagrass meadows form one of the remaining food habitats for the endangered dugong – the use of sonar , turbulence and potential toxic spills put dugongs at risk; • Shoal water Bay is absolutely vital breeding habitat for the endangered Green Turtle Chelonia mydas: it has the highest concentration in the world of this declining species, this is their premier breeding habitat; • The reef and other relatively undisturbed marine habitats are already under pressure from global warming and comprise a piece of natural heritage that should be preserved at any cost; • Military games present too many and varied risks to both habitat and the animals that depend on it: the potential for accidents involving toxic chemicals used in munitions or flares for instance; • The nuclear risk has not been adequately assessed, we feel that the presence of DU munitions – deemed illegal by the UN – also puts the ADF in a perilous moral situation for tolerating it; a larger nuclear-based accident could be catastrophic for humans and wildlife alike – it is our understanding that no nuclear preparedness has be considered by this assessment, nor has it been deemed nuclear by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – we believe this is a wrong assessment;
4 • The record of the U.S. military with regards to environmental contamination is abysmal; • The intentional introduction of toxic materials such a s phosphorus marine markers, seawater ballast containing introduced species and the intentional disposal of ship-board waste at sea are likely events that should not be tolerated in a World Heritage listed marine park, nor in the important Shoalwater bay which rightly should be part of the GBRMP area; • The region is one of economic importance to tourism in QLD. The existence of war games does not enhance tourism use. Indeed, military presence brings with it increases in crime, assault, public drunkenness and unreported sexual assaults on women; • The increasing human population – increased military presence will lead inevitably to increased conflict of land and sea use. Many local inhabitants want to see the Shoalwater region better protected and do not want increased military activities in their region – their opinions should be of great importance in decision-making.
Recommendations summary:
The above factors contribute to a recommendation that the TS07 joint war games not go ahead in the Shoalwater Bay region and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The area comprising the Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area should be handed back to the people of Queensland as a national park. This action would show the good faith of the ADF with regards to their environmental credentials.
We also submit that the track record of the U.S. DoD calls into question any joint activities anywhere in Australia.
Regards,
Kim Stewart. BA, Bsc hons A Friends of the Earth Brisbane
5
Friends of the Earth Brisbane: Comments on the Public Environmental Assessment for the Talisman Sabre Joint U.S.-Australian war games 2007. Prepared by Kim Stewart BA, Bsc hons A [email protected]
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Justifications
2.1 International Treaties
2.2 Dugong Habitat
2.3 Green turtle habitat
2.4 Fish & other species
2.5 Other environmental pressures on the region
2.6 Record of military contamination of environment
2.6.1 Australian Defence Force
2.6.2 United States Department of Defence
2.7 Nuclear risks
2.8 Other military pollution
2.9 Needs of growing human population in region
2.10 Indigenous issues
2.11 Economic importance of region to tourism
2.12 Increased risks of war-related environmental contamination
3. Recommendations
4. References
6 1. Introduction
It is Friends of the Earths' view that the Talisman Sabre 2007 joint war games should not go ahead in the Shoalwater Bay region.
The framework of this Public Environment Report assumes that war games and military activity can be compatible with environmental preservation.
We submit that war games are incompatible with environmental protection too – and that the tendency of the military to less than full disclosure of their activities for security reasons means that we cannot make an informed assessment of what will go on.
We can, however, take into account some known quantities: • the record of past military performance, both by the ADF and U.S. • the known chemical toxicity in the environment of commonly used munitions • the known effects on the environment of commonly used military vehicles and vessels both nuclear and non-nuclear • recent experiences in the region during and post military exercises • the existence of treaties for the protection of the environment including the Ramsar convention, the Japanese Australian Migratory Birds Agreement, the China Australia Migratory Birds Agreement • and legal mechanisms including the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 • flaws in the EPBCA 1999 that mean that even if the military abide by existing laws, they may still be damaging sensitive habitat due to exclusions and limitations of the so-called 'key' environmental legislation for Australia. • The increased likelihood of Australian involvement in U.S. led wars as a result of increased “interoperability”
Our submission is based on those assumptions. “Interoperability” has been the catch-cry of those in the ADF and government who seek to justify more U.S.- Australian joint war games. This begs the question: “Do we expect to be involved in more U.S. wars?” and “Is it in our strategic interest?”. Do we want to align ourselves with environmental pariahs and equip our defence forces with offensive and polluting weapons? Most importantly for this environmental assessment, we should ask if we want polluting weapons and military equipment used on Australian territory. SWBTA = Shoalwater Bay Training Area
7 2. Justifications
2.1 International Treaties
The Shoalwater Bay/Corio Bay area adjacent to the SWBTA is a Ramsar listed habitat for waterfowl – meaning it is of vital importance for the world, not just Queensland or Australia. It is Australia's duty to protect these areas from any development as signatories to the Ramsar convention.
The Ramsar convention protects wetland of international significance for their environmental benefits accrued to clean water. Certainly in the case of the Shoalwater region from Waterpark Creek arises the water catchment for the town of Yeppoon.
Twenty-five bird species protected by the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and listed under the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) also visit the area.
It is arguable that the military zone should have been included in the Shoalwater/Corio Bay Ramsar listing. The environmental affects of toxic chemicals in land, sea and air do not respect artificial boundaries.
We are very concerned that the importance of international treaties on the environment that exist are not taken seriously in the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.2 Dugong habitat
Shoalwater seagrass meadows form one of the remaining food habitats for the endangered dugong – the use of sonar , turbulence and potential toxic spills put dugongs at risk.
The dugong Dugong dugon is suffering from population decline in many parts of its range. It is found in greater numbers in Australian waters than anywhere else in the world. Dugong numbers halved in the decade between 1990 and 2000. There are currently about 4000 dugongs in Australian waters, which is where they are concentrated.. Shoalwater Bay is important dugong habitats in Queensland due to its large north facing aspect making it an ideal site for seagrass to grow.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority cite “Seagrass loss was a major cause of death of dugongs in Hervey Bay in 1992 following a flood. However, in the Shoalwater Bay area where dugong numbers have declined in recent years, studies since 1995 have shown that there has not been a major loss of seagrass since the 1980s.” Could military activity be the differing factor in Shoal water dugong decline?
8 The UN 2002 Report on Dugong recommends that remaining dugong habitats in Australia be protected. Dugong are already under pressure, hence their endangered status, from habitat loss and accidental death by boating collisions and in fishing nets.
In 2003 the U.S. DoD were taken to court by environmentalists in Okinawa, Japan for the expansion plans for the U.S. base there onto a nearby reef which would threaten the Okinawan dugong population. The U.S. DoD wanted to landfill coral reef and build a military base with 2,600m runway, aircraft hangers, large fuel storage tanks and many other facilities. Only court action and the adverse publicity it occasioned forced them to withdraw. Is this the action of a responsible environmentally sensitive organisation?
Sonar
Importantly for the SWBTA and TS07 is the use of active sonar in the oceans near the bay. Sonar is known to effect cetaceans, and dugongs also respond to sonar. Sonar was thought responsible for the deaths of whales and dolphins worldwide, the loud noises frightening the animals, causing brain hemorrhages and 'the bends'.
The American Cetacean Society (ACS) says, “The U.S. Navy, in developing and testing its SURTASS-LFA (Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor System -- Low-Frequency Active, called "LFA" for short) sonar system, was caught bypassing domestic environmental laws and taken to court by environmental groups”.
ACS says the U.S. nave have the capacity to ensonify 80% of the world's oceans. Dr Marsha Green, for the Ocean Mammal Institute says that, “low -frequency (LFAS) and mid -frequency can have a source level of 240 db, which is one trillion times louder than the sounds whales have been shown to avoid.”
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority cite, “detonations of explosives, the use of live munitions and the use of active sonar and other acoustic devices” as threats to marine life in the area.
Sonar and ocean noise has also been found to affect fish, injuring or killing them by vibrating their swim bladders, reducing catches and affecting the viability of eggs.
The Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report says that naval sonar will be used “well off coast outside of migratory paths of cetaceans” (p34). We contend that LFA sonar can travel hundred of kilometres underwater and is affected by water depth, so don't see that the above proposition is credible.
We are very concerned that the importance of protecting this declining species has not been taken seriously, despite the admirable things said about dugongs by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
9 2.3 Green turtle habitat
Shoal water Bay is absolutely vital breeding habitat for the endangered Green Turtle Chelonia mydas: it has the highest concentration in the world of this declining species, this is their premier breeding habitat. The population of Green turtles is thought to be declining worldwide.
Turtles are sensitive to sonar emissions undersea and could be susceptible to naval use of sonar in the same way as cetaceans and dugong.
A former U.S. DoD military dump sites in the Pacific are listed as a threat to green sea turtles there by the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle.
We are very concerned that the importance of protecting the Shoalwater population of Green Turtles is not being taken seriously, despite the admirable things said about Green turtles by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.4 Fish refugia & other species
In November 2006 the British journal Science published a report on the state of the world's fisheries that indicates if we do not protect fish habitats and restrain fishing, fish stocks will collapse by 2048.
Shoalwater Bay is home to many species of fish and its protected situation and extensive mangrove ecosystem makes it an excellent fish refugia and breeding habitat. The seagrass meadows on which dugongs totally depend, are also the breeding place for economically important species such as rock lobsters Panulirus cygnus, blue swimmer crab Portunus pelagicus and 20 species of prawns. Other endangered species such as the logger head turtle also visit Shoalwater Bay. In fact the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report lists 38 endangered and vulnerable species in Shoalwater Bay alone, and over 100 endangered and vulnerable species in the combined training areas proposed for use in TS07.
We are very concerned that the protection of declining fish stocks and the fate of other species that use Shoalwater Bay and other locations for TS07 are not being taken seriously, despite the admirable things said about them by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.5 Other environmental pressures on the region
The reef and other relatively undisturbed marine habitats are already under pressure from global warming and comprise a piece of natural heritage that should be preserved at any cost.
10 U.S. Military vehicles and operations are known to be a source of significant greenhouse gas emissions. One of their most commonly used vehicles, the Humvee, is notorious for its fuel consumption and emissions. The U.S. DoD have sought blanket exemption from the U.S. Clean Air Act and the U.S. Solid Waste Disposal Act amongst others mentioned below. These are not the actions of responsible environmental stewardship.
2.6 Record of military contamination of environment
2.6.1 Australian Defence Force
The ADF have a fairly innocuous environmental record, however, the ADF have practised sea-dumping of war related pollutants including mustard gas and the radioactive hulls of ships used in the British nuclear tests.
As they have been practicing in the Shoalwater Bay region for some time, it is likely that contaminants and unexploded ordnance are already in the soil, especially in the Dismal sector where live bombing occurs.
The ADF have been less than responsive to the needs of the local people living near the SWBTA. These people are exposed to low flying aircraft, military convoys passing through their towns and vibrations and noise associated with live firing and bombing contributing to a stressful environment to live int. In one instance they have been told the military have “no sympathy” for them.
A eyewitness account by local fisherman Ronny Toon who has worked in the Shoalwater Bay area of over 20 years indicates that he has seen extensive damage to mangroves as a result of the use of white phosphorus, used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes . He was told, upon inquiry, by Senator Robert Hill that it was due to drought. This he judged to be a very inadequate assessment not based on the evidence, in his experience.
In addition, local residents are concerned about potential groundwater pollution from explosives in the water catchment for Waterpark Creek, part of the water source for the town of Yeppoon. Perchlorate commonly used in rocket fuel has been detected in many groundwater sites where the U.S. forces have practices bombing in both the U.S. and worldwide.
It is true that the land around Shoalwater Bay would have been more severely degraded had the military not repossessed in 1965 it from the cattle farmers that have degraded the surrounding area. However, other factors are now coming into play, not the least the importance of the area as a wildlife refugia in a world increasingly underpressure from global warming, and the growth of human habitation in the area.
2.6.2 United States Department of Defence
The record of the U.S. military with regards to environmental contamination is abysmal, and yet we propose to let them use one of our most environmentally sensitive areas.
11
The U.S. DoD have been described as the world's biggest industrial polluters, given the toxic legacy that their bases and facilities have created worldwide. Project Censored estimates that “the U.S. military generates 750,000 tons of toxic waste material annually, more than the five largest chemical companies in the U.S. combined. This pollution occurs globally as the U.S. maintains bases in dozens countries.” The U.S. DOD has sought exemptions from many important environmental laws in the U.S. including the Migratory Bird Treaties Act, the Wildlife Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Hardly the actions of good environmental stewards.
Perhaps the worst cases of U.S. Miltary pollution offshore would be the cases of Vieques, Puerto Rico and Clarkson Air Base in the Phillipines. In Vieques Depleted Uranium was used extensively, leading to birth defects and high rates of leukemia. Perchlorate contaminated the water table and ghost nets set adrift by massive naval vessels continue to devastate the fisheries. At Clarkson Air Base, the Phillipines government used the land to house victims of the Pinatabu eruptions because they did not know the extent of the contamination, resulting in illness and birth defect affecting hundreds of people.
The Military Toxics Project says of Vieques:
Since 1940, the U.S. Navy has used three-quarters of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico for bombardment, munitions disposal, and other activities. There is strong evidence that heavy metals and other munitions toxins move in the air from the bombing range to the civilian areas. The toxic explosive compound RDX was found in drinking water supplies in civilian areas in the late 1970s. In 2000, excessive levels of mercury were found in the hair and fingernails of 45% of Vieques residents tested. Vegetables and plants growing in civilian areas are highly contaminated with lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. From 1985-1989, Vieques children aged 0-9 were 117% more likely to contract cancer than children of the same age on the main island of Puerto Rico. Children aged 10-19 were 256% more likely to contract cancer. A 2001 study found that Vieques residents are 73% more likely to suffer from heart disease than residents of the main island, 64% more likely to develop hypertension, 58% more likely to have diabetes, and 18% more likely to be diagnosed with asthma.
Both Vieques and Clarkson Air Base are now closed down and the full effects of their contamination can only be assessed after the military have vacated the premises.
No compensation has been offered to these communities devastated by U.S.DoD toxins.
Moreover, the U.S. DoD is reluctant to compensate even U.S. citizens for environmental pollution. One study has found that the U.S. DoD is even polluting the national food supply.
There are about 140 superfund listed U.S. military sites. The Military Toxics Project estimates contaminated site number in the several thousands in the U.S.. The U.S. Navy has estimated it would cost them U.S.$33b just to clean up the contaminated navy sites.
12 Contaminants on those sites include buried munitions, unexploded ordnances, spilled oil, fuel and solvents, toxic explosives compounds including TNT and perchlorate and heavy metals including lead and tungsten. In a stunning double standard, depleted uranium is not permitted to be used on U.S. testing ranges.
These kinds of actions call into question the role of defence, who exists to protect citizens, not harm them. ADF collusion with them, including increased use of the same kind of weapons that the U.S. Forces have used to poison their own people, does not reflect well on the reputation of Australia's defence forces.
Much of the pollution is the result of day to day maintenance and training like that which will occur during the TS07 war games.
We are very concerned that the importance of the environmental record of the U.S. DoD is not being considered. We feel they are irresponsible global citizens and put the Shoalwater region at risk. There is no mention of the U.S. DoD's poor environmental record in the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.7 Nuclear risks
A larger nuclear-based accident could be catastrophic for humans and wildlife alike – it is our understanding that no nuclear preparedness has be considered by this assessment, nor has it been deemed nuclear by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – we believe this is a wrong assessment.
Nuclear powered vessels carrying nuclear weapons including depleted uranium were used in the TS05 joint war games. It is likely that the same will happen for TS07, yet this does not trigger the EPBCA according the the Department of the Environment.
If this is the case, then the EPBCA is flawed because the presence of nuclear vessels carrying nuclear weapons does pose a nuclear risk. In Tokyo, Japan 2006 radiation was detected in the waters around nuclear powered submarine, the U.S. Honolulu, although the U.S. navy denies this and maintains they have a good record.
Some Japanese ports see the risk of nuclear accident from visiting U.S. warships so great that they hold nuclear leak drills to test their preparedness.
Indeed, the 1989 Senate Standing committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade inquiry into Nuclear powered ships visiting Australia found that risk assessment based on past record of accidents could not be used as a predictor of future accidents. In other words, it was a clear case of using the precautionary principle because of the clear risk associated with an accident.
In any case, if the military choose to go by their record on accidents we can only say it is inadequate and probably understated due to military security. There have been at least 10 serious peacetime accidents
13 involving U.S. nuclear submarines on the public record. As recently as March 2005 a U.S. nuclear sub was involved in an undersea crash that killed crew members.
A witness to the 1989 Senate inquiry found that the paucity of reported accidents involving nuclear submarines was probably due to, “tight secrecy surrounding sensitive military information” and “it would take blind faith to believe that disaster and near disasters as yet undisclosed, had not occurred in NPW reactors” (p 135). In fact, media outlets site incidents in the many hundreds.
The Brisbane Port Authority does not disclose its state of preparedness for a nuclear based accident and there seems to be no such plan for the Shoalwater region. The state of preparedness of other ports, although having management plans, do not detail what kind of training or protection will be available for emergency service workers. It is my understanding that SES workers in the Stannage Bay region, who are one of the first to be called to a nuclear or any other type of emergency at Shoalwater Bay, have not been trained in nuclear response and are in fact all volunteers.
We are very concerned that the importance of emergency planning in case of nuclear or other large incident has not been taken seriously by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.8 Other military pollution
We content that contrary to the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report, all military action and munitions involve chemicals.
Some of the chemicals that have been released into the Shoalwater Bay area in the past by military activities include: intentional introduction of toxic materials such as red phosphorus marine markers, seawater ballast containing introduced species and the intentional disposal of ship-board waste at sea are likely events that should not be tolerated in a World Heritage listed marine park, nor in the important Shoalwater bay;
The proposal for TS07 includes the possible use of new weapons (PER p 75). There is no way that an environmental assessment can be complete without knowing what effect these untested weapons may have.
Perchlorate
Perchlorate, the primary ingredient in rocket fuel, is the chemical causing the most concern worldwide with regards to the U.S. DoD's operations. It has been found contaminating groundwater in 20 U.S. states as a result of its use at rocket test sites, military bases, and perchlorate-production plants. It has been linked to thyroid problems, birth defects and newborn development. A recent study has found perchlorate is even contaminating the U.S. food supply and that 'safe' level standards are inadequate.
The people of Byfield and Yeppoon are concerned that perchlorate may be leaking into their water supply
14 because the live firing area in the Dismal sector at SWBTA is part of the catchment for the Yeppoon water supply though Waterpark Creek. They have not be successful in getting local authorities to test the water. It is incumbent on the military to take action on their concerns.
White Phosphorus
White Phosphorus was found responsible for the contamination of the estuarine environment at Eagle River Flats near Fort Richardson base, Alaska, U.S.A. The fishing grounds of local Alaskans was destroyed and thousands of waterbirds killed, “every year for almost two decades” according tot he Military Toxic Project. They also say unexploded ordnance “may exist in, on, and/or under up to 2 million acres of lands and waters outside the current boundaries of the base.”
A eyewitness account by a local fisherman indicates that white phosphorus has been used at SWBTA, which is adjacent to the Ramsar listed Shoalwater/Corio Bay wetlands.
Phosphorus markers
Marine markers are reputed to have washed ashore in Yeppoon near the SWBTA on two occassions in the months after the TS05 games. The marine markers were reported in the media to be red phosphorus, MK58 type.
Eyewitnesses say the ADF was slow to respond to the presence of the unexploded marker in a populated area. However, there was a fast response from the PR department, which led to misinformation being told the media, who reported the marker disposed of prematurely.
The presence of potentially explosive and dangerous military equipment on a populated beach is intolerable to the local population and presents a clear risk, especially to vehicles that drive on that beach. The marker also increases the mental stress to people living in the area.
Ballast
The Maunsell PER says it is likely that ballast water will be expelled at non-defence ports. Ballast water is a known mechanism for the transfer of exotic species into Australian waters.
This risk is not peculiar to military vessels however, but it compound the number of risks being introduced by the presence of U.S. vessels in environmentally sensitive areas.
15
Marine debris
After TS05 games, shipboard generated domestic waste was found washed ashore on the Sunshine coast at Mudjimba and on the Sunshine Coast.
Apparently it is the policy of the U.S. navy to dispose of their waste in this manner, and the bag was accompanied by a letter that said as much. The waste included plastic debris and paper.
Entanglement in marine debris can restrict an animals movement, causing starvation, bodily infections, ampute limbs and drown marine creatures. The Australian Department of Environment and Heritage lists the Green Turtle as one species particularly vulnerable to the dangers of marine debris.
Harmful marine debris’ has been listed as a key threatening process under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Disposing of plastics at sea is totally prohibited by the International Convention. Despite this, the EPBCA excludes “marine debris resulting from the legal disposal of garbage at sea”, which we presume includes the U.S Navy.
Friends of the Earth fails to see how legally disposed of garbage could be any less threatening to sea creatures than non-legally disposed of garbage and condemns yet another flaw in the legislation.
Due to the failure of legislation, it is incumbent on the military to end this threatening process.
The Maunsell PER states that it is almost certain that there will be, “Inadvertent release of solid materials (non- waste) such as equipment into the sea during anchoring within ports. (p 82) and that military personnel will inappropriately dispose of wastes.
Plane crash
On their return journey from participation in maneuvers in Australian waters in January 2006 a U.S. FA-18 Hornet strike fighter plane crashed in the ocean 200kim SE of Brisbane. No attempt was made to retrieve the $37m aircraft and the public was not made aware of the potential environmental contaminants contained within that ship.
We are very concerned that the dangers of chemical pollutants used in everyday military activities have not been taken seriously by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
16 2.9 Needs of growing human population in region
The increasing human population in the Capricorn region will lead inevitably to increased conflict of land and sea use with the military. Many local inhabitants want to see the Shoalwater region better protected and do not want increased military activities in their region – their opinions should be of great importance in decision-making.
Instances of conflict in recent months include: the washing ashore of phosphorus marine markers (Bangalee Beach, 2006) and naval garbage, an incident where helicopter gunships menaced a family yachting in Shoalwater Bay (July 2006) and incidents of stress caused by increased military activity in the adjacent towns of Byfield and Yeppoon. Byfield residents have long been forced to tolerate the seismic events associated with bombing runs in the nearby Dismal sector of the SWBTA.
In one of the latter instances, when a local residents complain of noise from low flying helicopters was told by a ADF spokesperson that he had “no sympathy” for people who live near military facilities. This does not represent good PR to say the least, and demonstrates the increasing tension between military uses and civilian uses of the area.
The incident involving a yachting family is a particularly disturbing one. Children were made hysterical by the menacing nature of the helicopter gunship in question and the family forced to leave safe waters in bad weather. The army, although apologising to the family, has refused to provide safe harbour for boats caught in bad weather.
In addition, there have been concerns that the drinking water of Yeppoon may be endangered by weapons use in the Dismal sector, as it forms part of the water catchment for the town and runs into Waterpark Creek. Of particular concern is perchlorate which I have discussed above.
Sexual assault
In addtion, anecdotal reports indicate to us that there is a significant increase in sexual assaults, drink spiking, crime and public drunkenness in the area where troops particpating in war games recreate. It is known that incidents of sexual and interpersonal violence is a problem within the troops. In 2005 there were 2, 374 sexual assaults in the U.S involving military personnel. Punative action was taken in less than a quarter of these cases. Researchers estimate as many at 67,000 women veterans, 29 percent of those who visted U.S. Veterans Affairs clinics say they experienced sexual assault in the military. The amount of assaults in the ADF is not made public. The amount of sexual assaults on civilians is unknown.
It is our understanding that rapes and sexual are more often than not, unreported. The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs says only 20% of women report, other studies have found evenless report. Thus these figures
17 could easily be ten times larger. Substantially more effort should be made to protect women and to reign in the behaviour of troops. We should not be exposing women to this kind of threat.
We are very concerned that the importance of protecting the needs of the human population have not been addressed in the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
2.10 Indigenous issues
The land on which the SWBTA is sited in the traditional land of the Durrumbal people.
Despite claims that efforts have been made to consult with indigenous people, we feel that this effort has been inadequate. We had no trouble talking to them by phone, while during the inquiry in the SWBTA expansion the ADF claimed they were uncontactable.
2.11 Economic importance of region to tourism
In 2005 Access Economics estimated the total economic contribution of tourism, commercial fishing, and cultural and recreational activity of the Great Barrier Reef at over $3.5 billion per annum. They did not even attempt to estimate the ecosystem service that the Great Barrier Reef provides (mitigating pollution, providing spawning habitat for fisheries, absorbing carbon, etc) because these costs are incalcuable.
The Capricorn region is of much greater economic value as a tourist destination than as a military one. Unlike the military, genuine tourists do not necessarily increase the crime and sexual assault rate like that associated with military everywhere, nor do they blow things up.
Considering the other pressures on the natural environment, non-destructive uses such as scuba diving and photography should be encouraged in preference to war games.
We are very concerned that the importance of the region for tourism has not been taken seriously by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report. It is simply incompatible with war games.
2.12 Increased risks of war-related environmental contamination
The increased involvement of the ADF in U.S. led wars will be one inevitable outcome of increasing joint war games with the U.S. The devastating environmental impact of wars anywhere should not be overlooked.
The environmental legacy of two gulf wars has included air, water and land contamination by depleted uranium, contamination from the oil well fires and oil spills, vehicle emissions, heavy metal contamination from missiles, dispersal of chemicals and other toxins from bombing of domestic buildings and disturbance of the desert areas by military activities. Not to mention and acts of violence and other traumatic events affecting the human
18 population during invasion and occupation. The effects have included increased cancers in humans, decline in fish and shrimp stocks in the gulf and water contamination hampering recovery efforts. Human beings in the region still suffer post-traumatic stress syndrome from both the environmental contamination and the interpersonal violence they were exposed to. The first gulf war is estimated to have effected the health of over 20,000 residents of nearby Saudi Arabia. While in Iran “black rain” was siad to have resulted from oil fires. Iraq is reputed to have experienced a ten fold increase in birth deformities as a result of the use of Depleted Uranium. U.S. troops claim similar effects from exposures.
Project Censored cites a report on Iraq of the United Nations Environmental Program [UNEP]'s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit “noted that the heavy Pentagon bombing and the movement of large numbers of Pentagon military vehicles and troops in Iraq "further degraded natural and agricultural ecosystems."
The UNEP Post-Conflict Assessment Unit report also observed that the Pentagon's intensive use of Depleted Uranium [DU] weapons. Significant levels of radioactive contamination were found at four sites in Baghdad in May 2003, by Christian Science Monitor reporter Scott Peterson (CSM, 5/15/03). Much of this radioactive contamination was likely produced by the DU bullets fired into the center of Baghdad at the Iraqi Ministry of Planning by the Pentagon's A-10 Warhog aircraft, Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles. According to the Monitor, Pentagon figures indicate that about 250,000 DU bullets were fired by A-10 Warhog aircraft in March and April 2003, leaving an estimated additional 75 tons of DU in Iraq, as a result of the Pentagon's attack.
Local air pollution and soil contamination in Iraq also increased, as a result of the recent war. The Pentagon's bombing of Baghdad, for instance, ignited fires which toxic, black smoke that contained dangerous chemicals, which caused harm to Iraqi children and to Iraqi adults with respiratory problems, and further polluted Iraqi ecosystems. (Project Censored 2004)
The World conservation union (IUCN) says that in the first gulf war alone an estimated 6-8 million barrels of oil were split, 600 oil wells set on fire. Arguably any involvement in preparation for war is preparation for environmental degradation. Any pretense to environmental sustainability of war and practice for war is spurious in this light.
In addition, DU has been declared illegal by the United Nations and the continued use of it should not be tolerated in any of Australia's allied countries.
We are very concerned that the importance of engaging with countries who defy UN rules on weapons that cause widespread non-target human damage on an ongoing basis has been entirely ignored by the Maunsell TS07 Public Environment Report.
3. Recommendations
The Shoalwater Bay region should have been incorporated into the Great Barrier Reef Marine park long ago. The increased threats to endangered species and habitat loss makes the region more important than ever. While
19 the area may have been protected from the ravages of cattle farming by the 40 years it has been under military governance, that use of the area is no longer appropriate.
The increasing use of the area for military maneuvers must end now. It behooves the Australian Defence Force to cease training in the area, to hand it back to the people of Australia and the world, and to bow out gracefully from the area.
Peace is an important precursor to environmental sustainability and social justice. We therefore believe that rather than practicing for war, Australia should be investing in peaceful resolutions to conflict at home and overseas.
4. References
Access Economics. 2005. Measuring the Economic and Financial Value of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2006. “U.S. jet crashes off Queensland” 30 January 2006
Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2006. “Military marker washes up pon Queensland beach” http://www.abc.net.au/capricornia/stories/s1688942.htm
Australian Government. Department of Environment and Heritage “Harmful Marine Debris” http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/marine-debris.html
Associated Press 2006. “U.S. Navy denies radiation leak from nuclear submarine off Tokyo” http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/05/asia/AS_GEN_Japan_U.S._Nuclear.php
Barnett, A. 2003. “Army Shells Pose Cancer Risk in Iraq”, UK Observer, December 14. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1106672,00.html
Davidson, K 2006. Australia doesn't need an army built for American needs” The Age, October 5 http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-doesnt-need-an-army-built-for-american- needs/2006/10/04/1159641390666.html
Dennehy, K 2006. “Black Hawk scare prompts rethink on safety”, in Cruising Helmsman, November 2006.Pg 7.
Edwards, R. 2004. “WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq” Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/40096
Queensland Government 2003. Disaster Management Act. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2003/03AC091.pdf
20
Environmental News Service. 2005. “UN Denial of Billions in Gulf War Health Compensation Denounced” http://www.ens- newswire.com/ens/jul2005/2005-07-25-01.asp
Queensland Government, 2004 “Nuclear powered warship visits to the Port of Brisbane” http://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/publications/pdf/BNE_nuclear_warship_brochure.pdf
Queensland Government, 2004 “Nuclear powered warship visits to the Port of Gladstone” http://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/publications/pdf/NPW_Visits_Gladstone.pdf
Environmental Working Group 2006. Thyroid Threat: CDC Study Shows Proposed Rocket Fuel Standards Inadequate to Protect Baby http://www.ewg.org/
Global Security 2006. “White Phosphorus” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, “Threats to Marine Wildlife” http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/natural_values/threatened_species/threats#Defence%20Activity
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, “Shorebirds” Gumoo Woojabudee section fact sheets http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/1958/shorebirds.pdf
Green, M 2001. “Why the Navy's Conclusions about the Safety of LFAS are Scientifically Flawed” Materials Presented by AWI at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission on July 24, 200. Ocean Mammal Institute. http://www.awionline.org/whales/Noise/flawedconclusions.htm
Green, M 2005. “Acoustic Impacts on Marine Life” Ocean Mammal Institute http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/pdfs/Acoustic- Impacts-on-Marine-Life.pdf
Greenpeace 2000 “Kursk Nuclear Submarine Accident: Possible Environmental Impacts” http://archive.greenpeace.org/nuclear/waste/kursk.pdf
Kirby, A. 2003. “Sonar 'may cause whale deaths'” BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3173942.stm
Knickerbocker, B 2003. “Military gets break from environmental rules,” Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1124/p02s02-usmi.html
Lievore, D. 2003. “Non-reporting and Hidden Recording of Sexual Assault: An International Literature Review” Australian Institute of Criminology for the Commonwealth Office of the Status of Women http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/reports/2003-06-review.pdf
21 McCauley, R.D., et. al. 2003. “High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears.” J. Acoustic Society Am. 113 (1): 638-642 http://www.awionline.org/whales/Noise/IONC/Docs/McCauley.pdf
Military Toxics Project 2001 “Munitions and Ranges” http://www.miltoxproj.org/munitions_and_ranges.htm
Plenty 2006 “Bush and the Environment” http://plentymag.com/features/2006/11/bush_and_the_environment.php
Price, A. et al. The 1991 Gulf War: Environmental Assessments of IUCN and Collaborators ,World Conservation Union (IUCN) http://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pdf/gulfwar.pdf
Project Censored 2004. “#15 U.S. Military's War on the Earth“http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/15.html
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands http://www.ramsar.org/
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1998/981201e.pdf
Sea Turtle Restoration Project, 2003. “Lawsuit filed to Save Okinawan Dugong from Extinction” http://www.seaturtles.org/press_release2.cfm?pressID=178
Senate Standing committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade. 1989. “Visits to Australia by nuclear powered ships” http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/nuclear_warship_visits/report.pdf
Tessier, M 2006. “Sexual Assault Pervasive in Military, Experts Say” http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=1273 Townsville/Thuringowa Local Disaster Management Group 2005. “Townsville and Thuringowa Local Disaster Management Plan” http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/wwwdocs/emergency/TPL_00%20Townsville- Thuringowa%20Local%20Disaster%20Management%20Group/01%20Local%20Disaster%20Management%20Plan.pdf
UNESCO. 1998. Report on the State of Conservation of Great Barrier Reef, Australian National Periodic Report, Section II
United Nations Environment Programme 2001. Agenda 21 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
United Nations 2002. Report on Dugong http://www.unep.org/dewa/Docs/DUGONG.pdf
U.S.A Today 2004. “Pollution cleanups pit Pentagon against regulators” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-14-cover-pollution_x.htm
22 U.S. Department of Defence, 2006. Defenselink, “DoD Working to Prevent Sexual Assaults” 21 May, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/d20060316SexualAssaultReport.pdf U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Sexual Assault against Females” A National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet. http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/specific/fs_female_sex_assault.html
White, B. 2005. “Low Frequency Sound Hurts Fish and Fisheries”, Animal Welfare Institute, http://www.awionline.org/whales/Noise/Why_Sound_Hurts_Fish_and_Fisheries.htm
23
24
25 National Peace Convergence & Shalwater Wilderness Awareness Group Provided by Steve Bishopric Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group ,spokesman/researcher. Emial : [email protected] URL : www.shoalwaterbay.org
(Source : Peace Convergence 2007, Yeppoon, 18-24 June 2007) Why the Peace Convergence Serious public concern has resulted in a “National Peace Convergence” in Central Queensland during TS07 from 18 to 24 June 2007. National and international support is strong. Increasing numbers or scientists, environmentalist, sociologists, business leaders and politicians are realising what Australia will lose sponsoring the USA military’s ambitions in our region. Peace Convergence participants come from a broad cross-section of our Australian society – cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, life experiences, livelihoods and professions are just some of the differences – but our concern about the Talisman Sabre exercise (its costs and potential risks) has brought us together. Some of those issues are: • the potential health risks of possible contamination from live-fire training to local residents, Indigenous peoples, Australian and US soldiers, and the wider public; • the risk to the environment, specifically the threat to endangered species and wilderness; • the social impacts (actual and potential) of militarism both locally and nationally. • mounting militarism within Australia and Australia’s role in the increasing militarisation of our Pacific region and world. The Shoalwater Issues Shoalwater Bay (SWB), 70 km north of Rockhampton, is a biologically diverse and beautiful coastal treasure of 400,000 hectors, including beaches, harbours and coral islands. It is a pristine nature, as a result of geographic isolation and, in the past, only limited defence use. SWB is difficult to access and virtually unvisited by the local population who until recently believed the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) provided the best care taking option. Fishermen, yachtsmen, ADF and National Park staff recognise the significance of this unique region. Public sentiment changed when, in 2005, the Australia Government entered agreements with the USA providing long-term access and joint use of Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA). This agreement ties Australia to the rapid military build in the Pacific, particularly in Guam, a US territory to our north. The “Talisman Saber “2007 (TS07) exercise is a result as part of the Australian – USA Joint Combined Training Centre. SWB is one of the US Pentagon’s largest and most important training and bombing ranges in the Asia-Pacific region. There has not been disclosure of these agreements or weaponry to be used in Australia.
26 Research by the Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group (SWAG), into the history of USA military training and bases in foreign countries reveals an appalling environmental, economic, social and health legacy. The TS07 War Games are the largest joint Australia-USA exercises conducted in Australia, and vital to the USA’s regional dominance through the Pacific Command in Hawaii, linked to bases in Alaska. Guam the major forward base lacks the landmass for combined air, sea and land training. SWB is USA’s principal joint training area with Guam’s airspace for training extending south to SWB in Australia. Environmental legislation has been altered, removing the usual need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) for any activity the ADF deem unnecessary. The EIS is replaced by Public Environmental Reports (PER), commissioned, financed, reviewed and released by the military. The public input and consultation process is controlled by the military. Steve Bishopric Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group
Military Risks to Capricornia’s Water Catchment Yeppoon’s water catchment is in SWBTA and seriously omitted in the incompetent PER. An ADF public relations campaign has started and residents are being told of the huge benefits of “military tourism “. Half the Capricorn Coast’s water catchment is inside the Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) in the Corridor, Freshwater and Dismal Sectors that have been used extensively for live firing exercises into and near the catchment area, according to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry.
The catchment adjoins the Mt Hummock Sector, used for high explosive and high impact air bombardment and army mortar and artillery. This includes the latest generation Smart bombs and Laser Guided Missiles and is less than 10 km from the water catchment. Typical exercises involve invasion at Freshwater Beach (8km from Byfield National Park) and fighting through the Dismal Sector to Mt Hummock.
Raymond and Townshend Islands, located 25 km from the catchment, are high impact sites used for Air Force and Naval bombardment, with toxic chemicals being released. The water catchment is vulnerable to airborne fall out including from remobilisation of past heavy metal contaminants. Samuel Hill Camp is the most used facility in SWBTA, has the highest rainfall in central Queensland and is located about 1km from Tea Tree Creek and Northern Sandy Creeks, which flow into Waterpark Creek, Livingstone’s water supply.
The US forces and ADF have not provided detailed information on weapons use in TS07or what residues will result from the use of conventional or new weapons containing dangerous heavy metals and carcinogens.
Nuclear powered submarines and nuclear-armed USA vessels will be exercising in SWBTA. The USA has permission to transport DU on Australian land and sea, according Australian Parliament Hansard.
Pollution and fallout from live firing or accidents mean Livingstone Shire’s once pristine water supply could be permanently lost. Steve Bishopric Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group (see Map, next page)
27 28 * This report wss submitted by Mr. Steve Bishopric, spokesman/researcher of the Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group. Contact : Emial : [email protected], URL : www.shoalwaterbay.org
Military Expansion Explained: The Australia-Guam Connection
Dr Zohl dé Ishtar Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Queensland www.uq.edu.au/acpacs
Abstract:
Focusing on the Australian-United States biennial Talisman Sabre 2007 military exercise, this article sets out to discuss Australia’s role in the increasing militarisation of the north-west Pacific which has followed the 11 September 2001 (“9/11”) attack on the US. As US concern over China and (to a lesser extent) Russia increases, the US has increasingly turned its attention away from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The US-claimed Chamorro island of Guam (Guåhan) has become the western-most linchpin in a new strategy which operates out of the Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, and includes Alaska and the US continent. As the US consolidates its forces on what it claims as its own soil (despite the prior claim of the Indigenous Chamorro community), Guam is facing a doubling of the military troops, and a massive increase in the ships, submarines and air craft stationed there. Tied to this expansion, Australia is experiencing its own parallel increase in militarisation. The Australian and US governments have restructured their formal alliance explicitly tying Australia to Guam. The US requires Australia’s unique training grounds for the troops and military machinery they have or intend to homebase in Guam. Shoalwater Bay and other Australian military bases provide training grounds for air craft and ocean vessels based in, on rotation to, or transiting through Guam. Talisman Sabre is only one of many exercises that the US carries out in the Pacific-Indian Ocean region, including in Australia, but it makes an essential contribution in the US training and development of its conventional and nuclear military forces. The price of this militarisation is the withholding of the inalienable right of the Indigenous peoples to self-determination, economic hegemony, violence against women and children, and devastating impacts on the health of humans, animals and environments alike.
Introduction
In June 2007 Australia and the United States will engage in the largest military exercise ever held in Australia. Talisman Sabre is just one of a growing number of exercises which increasingly bind Australia inextricably into the US military build-up currently sweeping across the north-west Pacific Ocean. This article analyses the Australian-US alliance, and the escalating militarism in the region. It argues that this expansion, anchored on Guam (known in the Indigenous Chamorro tongue as Guåhan), makes Australia a vital and necessary training ground for the US troops and weapons systems homebased in, rotated to, or transiting Guam from bases on continental US.
29 The Talisman Sabre exercise, while involving Australian military facilities across the continent, is focused primarily on the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in northern Queensland. This area contains both a World Heritage Listed Area and protected zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine National Park. A 450,000 hectares region, one quarter of which is marine area, it is equivalent in size to the Australian Capital Territory and four times the size of Singapore. All sectors of the Australian Defence Force conduct exercises there all year round, inviting countries such as the US, Singapore, New Zealand, Britain and Japan to join them on a regular basis.
The militarisation of the north-west Pacific is anchored around the small island of Guam east of the Philippines. The majority of US troops, planes, ships and submarines which engage in Australian-hosted military exercises such as Talisman Sabre are either homebased in Guam, are rotated to Guam, or transit through Guam from bases in Hawaii, Alaska and the US continent. Australia has become an unofficial extension of the US air and naval forces operating out of Guam.
The Australian Department of Defence describes Shoalwater Bay Training Area as “Australia’s most premier training ground”,1 but for the US Pacific Command it is “the primary training venue for [its] Commander Seventh Fleet as a Combined Task Force” in the region.2 The Seventh Fleet is homebased in Guam, to Australia’s north. According to the Strategic Policy Institute at the Australian National University, Guam is directly linked to Shoalwater: “The more aircraft they base on Guam the more important it is for them to have access to the kind of large continental training areas Australia can provide”.3
As the US anticipates the need to counter potential tensions with China and Russia, the US war-fighting policy has changed over the past decade with the north-west Pacific theatre gaining heightened strategic value. The US Pentagon now considers the Pacific to be strategically more important than the Atlantic, and has shifted the predominant focus of its nuclear arsenal accordingly.4
It is in this context that Australia has engaged in an alliance of gargantuan proportions not yet fully comprehended by its citizens. The alliance implicates Australia in the US military development which demands a heavy toll on all peoples, but particularly women, children, and the Indigenous of the region. Lack of political control, economic hegemony and related poverty, infrastructure collapse, violence against women and girls, and environmental degradation and ill-health are among the major consequences. Australia can no longer pretend isolation in a world where planes can fly from the military base in Guam within hours to drop bombs on the pristine waters, mudflats and waterways, sand dunes and forests of Shoalwater Bay with its fragile populations of endangered dugong and turtle. Australia has become a major player in the dangerous narrative which is US militarisation.
1 Australian Department of Defence. 2007. Australian Department of Defence Website. www.defence.gov.au Accessed 21 April 2007 2 US Pacific Command. 2007. US Pacific Command Website. www.pacom.mil Accessed 20 April 2007 3 Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 2007. Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australian National University Website. www.aspi.org.au Accessed 20 April 2007 4 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 1998. Nuclear Files. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website. www.nuclearfiles.org Accessed 21 April 2007.; Federation of American Scientists. 2006. Britain’s Next Nuclear Era. Strategic Security Blog, December 7. Federation of American Scientists Website. www.fas.org Accessed 12 December 2006).
30
Locating Shoalwater within the US Nuclear Arsenal
Locating Shoalwater within the US military must start with an analysis of the world’s nuclear arsenals, because the US military is a nuclear force – in that many of its aircraft and ocean-going vessels are nuclear powered and/or have the capacity to carry and deploy nuclear weapons. This is not to suggest that nuclear weapons are currently being deployed at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area during Talisman Sabre 2007, certainly they are not being detonated there. But, citing reasons of national security, the US and Australian militaries refuse to provide information on what weapons systems are being trained-with during its exercises. Nonetheless, because the US military is a nuclear force – indeed the world’s leading nuclear force – it would be reasonable to assume that Talisman Sabre may (in part) be about training troops to use such weapons. If this was so, this would implicate Australia in the development and use of nuclear weapons, and this contribution to global security or insecurity (depending on your point of view) is surely something that Australians need to consider. As Talisman Sabre is one of Australia’s leading training grounds with the US military it would seem appropriate for concerned citizens of Yeppoon and Rockhampton (and indeed Australia as a whole) to be aware of their government and military’s potential role in the development and use of nuclear weapons.
The US is a nuclear force. In 2007 there are 27,215 nuclear warheads in arsenals globally, 2000 of which are on high alert, meaning that they are targeted and ready to launch within minutes. The US currently has 10,000 of the global nuclear arsenal. Seven other countries also have nuclear warheads: Russia (16,000), China (400), France (500), Israel (200), Britain (185), India (40), Pakistan (40). The world is currently watching to see whether North Korea and Iran should be added to that list. The US has less nuclear warheads than Russia, but they are much more powerful and effective. The combined explosive yield of all these weapons is equivalent to about 200,000 times the explosive yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima.5
In 1998 there were 31,000 nuclear warheads globally, of which 13,000 were deployed and 4,600 were on high alert.6 So, there been some effort to decommission the global nuclear stockpile. But while the total number of nuclear weapons is 6 per cent lower than at the peak of the Cold War (1987-88), there has been a sharp overall increase since 1998. The US had begun to consolidate its nuclear weapons between 1992 and 1997, withdrawing them from ten states and numerous European bases. In 1997, however, the decommissioning impetus started to slow down. During the 1990s, the US decommissioned 1000 to 1500 nuclear warheads annually, this compares to less than 100 annually in the mid-2000s. In2004, the US decided to cut its stockpile to 6,000 warheads, but warhead life-extension and rebuild have priority so it will take a long time to retire the decommissioned warheads. Since the end of the Cold War, 16 years ago, the US has only withdrawn its weapons from three states and one European country – Greece. On 7 December 2006, Britain announced that it was extending its nuclear weapons program to 2050, claiming that this was entirely in keeping with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as its nuclear arsenal was smaller than it had been during the Cold War and
5 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 1998. Nuclear Files. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website. www.nuclearfiles.org Accessed 21 April 2007. 6 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 1998. Nuclear Files. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website. www.nuclearfiles.org Accessed 21 April 2007.
31 the Treaty does not give a date when nuclear disarmament had to be accomplished.7 Given this history, any fair analysis of the US military’s arsenal would have to deduce that nuclear weapons continue to play a big role in US military activities.
Only 28 per cent of the US nuclear arsenal has been moved to separate storage facilities. The US stores its nuclear arsenal at 12 locations in the US continent and Hawaii, and in six locations in European countries: it does not currently store nuclear weapons in the north-west Pacific or in Asia. However, two-third of all US nuclear warheads are used by operational ballistic missiles on ships, submarines and aircraft – and these weapon platforms are all active in the Asia and Pacific regions.
The US conducts regular military training at the Australian Department of Defence’s Joint Combined Training Centre which is a major training ground for the US military operating in or through the north-west Pacific. Given that the US is a nuclear force with a large portion of its forces using nuclear powered and/or nuclear weapons capable aircraft and ocean vessels, there is a high probability that at least some of the weapons platforms involved in the Talisman Sabre training will be nuclear capable. This is not to suggest that nuclear warheads are used at Shoalwater – they are not – but it does suggest that there is a high likelihood that Shoalwater Bay will be used for training US troops in the use of nuclear weapons in the battlefield.
Placing the Pacific inside the US Military
The military expansion in the north-west Pacific involves Australia by virtue of its contribution of Shoalwater and the Talisman Sabre exercise to the US war effort. Shoalwater Bay Training Area is one of several military facilities which Australia provides to the US, including Delamere Air Weapons Range and Bradshaw military base in the Northern Territory, and Lancelin Training Area in Western Australia.
Over the past decade, the US military has undergone a policy shift which makes the north-west Pacific one of the most important strategic arenas in the world. The Pentagon has abandoned its old policy of keeping an even balance between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Now, the US is focusing its attention on eastern Asia, with China as the main concern in the jigsaw which is Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan and India.
Determined to ensure its dominance of the region should confrontation with China occur, the US wants to keep its forces as close to the action as possible – but preferably on its own soil (or what it considers to be its own soil). It is not that the US is withdrawing from the current countries where they currently hold military bases (e.g. Okinawa, South Korea, the Philippines), but the US Pentagon would prefer to have the major focus of their forces on US-controlled land. Having sovereignty over the soil on which they base their forces, makes the US military more flexible because it frees it from host-country political considerations. The US military is manoeuvring so that it will increasingly operate according to a “Pacific Strategic Triangle” concept which links Guam, Hawaii and Alaska – all of which are US territories.8 The
7 Federation of American Scientists. 2006. Britain’s Next Nuclear Era. Strategic Security Blog, December 7. Federation of American Scientists Website. www.fas.org Accessed 12 December 2006) 8 US Pacific Command. 2007. US Pacific Command Website. www.pacom.mil Accessed 20 April 2007; Caryl, Christine..2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26.
32 Pentagon’s perspective is that, within the US’s ‘Global War on Terror’, “Guam offers proximity and valued status as an American territory. ... [because] the military does not need to secure permission to engage in operations from the island – a concern, particularly during crises for forces utilizing operating platforms in non-U.S. territories”.9 (The Indigenous peoples in each of these three locations actively dispute the US claim to their ancestral lands, but the military is a tough opponent.)
Leading this decisive push is the Pacific Command (PACOM) headquartered on the island of O’ahu in Hawaii (or Ka Pai’aina). Headquartered at Camp Smith, PACOM provides a unified command to about 300,000 military personnel from Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, one third of which are forward deployed – meaning they are based closer to the Asian continent than Hawaii – in Guam, Japan (including Okinawa), and South Korea.
PACOM is responsible for US military operations for over 50 per cent of the world’s surface. This is an area of 260,000,000 square kilometres stretching from the west coast of the Americas to the east coast of Africa, from the Artic to the Antarctic. This means that PACOM covers nearly 60 per cent of the world’s population, consisting of 43 countries, 20 territories and possessions, and 10 US territories. The PACOM area is responsible for 35 per cent of US global trade (compared to 19 per cent with the European Union, 20 per cent with Canada, and 18 per cent with Latin America). Asia and Pacific nations, not including the US, account for 34 per cent of the Gross World Product, comparing with the US which accounts for 21 per cent. In addition, the PACOM region contains the world’s six largest armed forces – 1) the People’s Republic of China, 2) USA, 3) Russia, 4) India, 5) North Korea, 6) South Korea.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT), as PACOM’s Naval element, is headquartered at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. The world's largest naval command, PACFLT controls more than 213,000 Sailors, Marines, and civilians, approximately 190 ships, about 1,400 Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, and 35 shore installations. PACFLT makes approximately 700 port visits throughout the Pacific region each year – and this includes regular visits to Australian ports. PACFLT coordinates shore support activities throughout the Pacific from through six naval commands, including San Diego, Seattle, and Pearl Harbour.10
PACFLT’s Seventh Fleet is based in Guam, South Korea, and Japan and is responsible for operations and exercises from the west of Hawaii to the east coast of Africa. In 2006, 2,300 of the US’s 10,000 nuclear warheads were based at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, in Bangor, Washington State on the western shores of the Pacific. This is the highest concentration of nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. Half of these warheads are on board ballistic-missile submarines patrolling the Pacific Ocean. In addition, a further 1,700 nuclear warheads are deployed on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling in the Pacific and Atlantic. Three, soon to be six, of these submarines are based in Guam.
PACOM also has air forces based throughout the north-western Pacific – again in South Korea, and Japan (including Okinawa), and Guam. Andersen Air Force Base in Guam is home to a Navy helicopter squadron and hosts rotating
9 Whitman, Frank. 2006. Fortress Pacific. Guam’s Military Build-up is Just Beginning. Pacific Magazine, July/August: 27-28. www.pacificmagazine.net Accessed 10 November 2006. 10 US Pacific Command. 2007. US Pacific Command Website. www.pacom.mil Accessed 20 April 2007.
33 deployments of Air Force bombers and tankers from throughout the Pacific and from the US continent.11 Andersen’s 36th Wing’s official mission statement is to "[p]rovide a U.S.-based lethal warfighting platform for the employment, deployment, reception, and throughput of air and space forces in the Asia-Pacific Region".12
Guam is the Hub of US Military Expansionism
Guam (the Chamorro island of Guåhan) is the hub of the US military expansion in the north-west Pacific: “a hub for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and strike operations”13 providing support for US aircraft and ocean vessels plying the region. The most strategically positioned large island in the north-west Pacific, it lies only four hours flying time off northern Australia. Draw a line east of Manila in the Philippines and another south from Tokyo, Japan, and the lines will cross near Guam. Guam is the nexus between Japan (including Okinawa), Indonesia and the Philippines, all of which are approximately 1500 nautical miles – i.e. three hours flying time or two to three days journey by ship. Strategically worrisome China and Korea are only a little further away. Guam straddles the world’s most important sea lanes, including the Strait of Malacca, through which 50 per cent of the world’s oil passes on its way to the US.14
Despite the century-long objection of the Indigenous Chamorro peoples, the US claims Guam as a piece of military real estate in the North-west Pacific. Guam is priceless to the US military. A war-prize for the US following the Spanish- American War ending in 1898, Guam is being returned to military prominence as the linchpin of Washington’s new Asia strategy. While the world’s media is directing our attention to the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine) the US Pentagon is quietly fortifying the North-west Pacific against potential conflict with China and/or Russia.
Guam has the misfortune of being only 2400 kilometres from the strategically critical Asian shoreline, with all the unique characteristic of being a largish size island in this prime location. Mountainous at one end, and flat woodlands at the other, Guam has the terrain to accommodate a large airfield, while on the sheltered side of the island is one of the Pacific’s largest and deepest harbours. Accordingly, Guam is considered by Pentagon officials and military advisors to be the US military’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” – as described by Brig. Gen Douglas H. Owens, commanding officer of Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base.15
In July 1995, under the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the Clinton Administration had begun slowly closing some of its facilities on Guam. But the terrorist attack on the World Towers in New York on 11 September 2001 changed that. Thereafter the Pentagon, under Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, adopted a “lily-pad” strategy of creating a
11 Burgess, Richard R. 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007. 12 Andersen Air Force Base. 2007. Andersen Air Force Base Website. www.andersen.af.mil Accessed 20 April 2007. 13 Burgess, Richard R. 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007. 14 Rear Adm. Charles Leidig, U.S. Navy Commander, Guam, cited by Caryl, Christine.2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26. 15 Caryl, Christine.2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26.
34 global network of jumping-off places from which they could stage rapid military responses. Within this scenario Guam has been positioned as the Pentagon’s “tip of the spear”.16
Although only 7 miles wide and 30 miles long, two-thirds of this small island is currently under US military control, housing an array of military facilities. There two bases here which particularly concern Australia: Andersen Air Force Base and Naval Base Guam at Apra Harbour. Both are about to experience a massive influx of personnel and machinery.
In 2002, in the aftermath of September 11, the Pentagon started returning the massive B-52s Stratofortress aircraft to Andersen Air Force Base. With twin airstrips two-miles long (a legacy of World War Two), Andersen provides an ideal location for the US’s Global Strike Force which will involve rotating 48 F-22 and F-15E fighter jets, state-of-the-art B-1 supersonic strike aircraft, B-2s “flying wing” Stealth bombers – all rotated to Guam from US bases in the continent and Alaska. In addition, there will be ten Global Hawk unmanned spy planes homebased in Guam.17
In September 2006, the US Pacific Command (PACOM) released its military development plan for Guam in which it identified the locations and scope of its military build-up. Most significantly, the US military intends to – and has in some cases already commenced on – developing a Marines Corp base and training area; extending Andersen Air Force Base; refurbishing Naval Base Guam; and building an Army base at Radio Barrigada for a Patriot Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) task force. The BDM facility, expected to be constructed by 2012, will give the Army the capacity to intercept and shoot down incoming missiles aimed at the critical military assets on Guam.18
The Naval Base Guam on Apra Harbour, it already homeports three nuclear-powered Los-Angeles-class fast-attack submarines, with more scheduled by 2008. These include Trident submarines which, while left over from the Cold War, are currently being upgraded with a new generation of Trident II missiles.19 Naval Base Guam is to be modified to enhance its Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN) transient operational capability. The US Navy currently has five of its eleven aircraft carriers in the Pacific, and intends to bring this to six by 2010. The Pentagon was considering homeporting the sixth aircraft carrier (the Carl Vinson) in Guam, but recently decided to send it to their much better resourced base in San Diego, again by 2010. The Pentagon plans to have 60 per cent of its Navy’s global fleet in the Pacific arena. Transiting them through Guam, places them closer to the projected deployment zones in eastern Asia and the Middle East, cutting down on response times.
The US-Guam-Australia Alliance
16 Caryl, Christine.2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26. 17 Caryl, Christine.2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26. 18 Burgess, Richard R. 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007. 19 Caryl, Christine.2007. America’s Unsinkable Fleet. Why the US Military is pouring forces into a remote West Pacific Island. Newsweek International. February 26.
35 Australia plays an increasing role in the militarisation of the north-west Pacific and by this means is specifically tied to Guam. This involvement is through a formal Australian-US military alliance backed by the ANZUS treaty and informed by a series of Australian-US Defence Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) which have been held annually since 1985.20
The key outcome of the AUSMIN 2004 meeting was to establish the Australian-United States Joint Combined Training Centre (JCTC) in which Shoalwater Bay plays a major role. The AUSMIN meeting in 2005 signed a Memorandum of Understanding which agreed (among other things) to upgrade the JCTC at Shoalwater Bay to support the Talisman Sabre exercises. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) grants the US access to not only Shoalwater Bay but also to the Delamere Air Weapons Range south-west of Katherine, Bradshaw Training Base and the Royal Australian Air Force Base in Darwin, all in the Northern Territory, and Lancelin in Western Australia, as well as to other military and civilian facilities across the continent. Many of these facilities were involved in Talisman Sabre 2005 and will be involved in Talisman Sabre 2007.
AUSMIN’s announced purpose was to foster closer cooperation in intelligence matters and improve joint training and interoperability of their military forces, including in missile defence research. Both countries acknowledged the growing importance of confronting contemporary security challenges, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism and pandemic disease. Access to Australian facilities would provide the US with a quick military deployment capability in the region. This links Australian facilities to US bases, particularly Guam and the US Pacific War Fighting Centre in Hawaii, through high-technology communications. It allows the US to train through a regular program of visits to Australia by its high-status air craft and ocean vessels and to engage in combined training with the Australian Defence Force.
The AUSMIN Memorandum of Understanding makes specific reference to Guam which they specifically link with the Talisman Sabre exercises. To quote the MoU: the US is “rebalancing its force presence in the Asia-Pacific region, including through the rotation of US strategic bomber aircraft through Guam”.21 These aircraft are either those homebased at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, or transited through Guam on rotation from other bases in the United States.22 The US is developing a Global Strike Force on Guam and it needs the unique facilities only Australia can provide in the region to train them.
Thus, the AUSMIN agreements have located Shoalwater Bay (and other places such as Delamere, Bradshaw, Lancelin) directly within the training parameters of the US forces on Guam. This is particularly but not limited to the air craft currently or soon to be based at or transiting through Andersen Air Force Base. As evidenced by an increasing array of US military exercises within Australian borders, Australia is for all intents and purposes now located within Guam’s military air space.
20 Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2005. 2005 Australian-United States Consultations, Joint Communique. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Website. www.dfat.gov.au , Accessed 15 April 2007. 21 Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2005. 2005 Australian-United States Consultations, Joint Communique. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Website. www.dfat.gov.au , Accessed 15 April 2007. 22 Anderson, Andy. 2005. Talking the Talk. Defence. Australian Department of Defence, November/December. www.defence.gov.au Accessed 14 April 2007.
36
While some bombing and targeting training is carried out on Guam (e.g. urban bombing raids) and some training is conducted in the even smaller islands of the Northern Marianas to Guam’s north, the US military recognises “Shoalwater Bay is the only place in Australia where air, land and sea forces can engage in joint, live-fire training exercises”.23 Indeed, Shoalwater Training Area, Lancelin Training Area, and Delamere Air Weapons Range are unique locations in the western Pacific for the US to conduct training exercises.
The US Pentagon rates Australia highly for its ability to provide training arenas for its troops. As the commander of the US 7th Fleet, Vice Admiral Archie Clemins said in 1995 in reference to the Lancelin Defence Training Area in Western Australia (where the US can conduct ship to shore and air to ground bombing):
“You have to have places to drop bombs, you have to have places to shoot live weapons, places to fly planes over that make noise, places where you can actually test and exercise your capabilities. I think Australia in the future is going to be one of the places we'd like to exercise with the Australians, as well as with the US Navy. You now have some of the finest ranges in the Western Pacific which we cannot get anywhere else.”24
Talisman Sabre is Only One of Many Exercises
Talisman Sabre is a core element of Australia’s role in the military expansion across the north-west Pacific. It is a biennial exercise designed to develop and strengthen interoperationality between the Australian and US’ militaries. Its espoused purpose is to build regional security by combining and complementing our forces with those of our regional partners and the US. The Talisman Sabre exercise is not limited to Shoalwater Bay. It includes Delamere near Katherine and Bradshaw near Darwin, an array of civilian facilities in cities up and down the coast, and stretches into the Coral, Timor and Tasman Seas. It involves US air, land and naval forces ultimately commanded by PACOM in Hawaii.
Talisman Sabre 2005 was the biggest military exercise ever held in Australia. It provided a valuable opportunity for more than 6,000 Royal Australian Air Force, Navy and Army to train with 11,000 US personnel from their Army, Navy, Marine and Special Forces units. Merging Tandem Thrust, Kingfisher and Crocodile exercises, Talisman Sabre 2005 opened the US-Australian alliance to a new era. According to Australian Department of Defence statements, Talisman Sabre 2007 is expected to engage at least 7500 Australian and 9000 US personnel, 20 Australian and 10 US ships (including a carrier Battle group), and 25 Australian and 100 US air craft – numbers which may fluctuate “according to operational requirements throughout the exercise”.25 The key sites for Talisman Sabre 2007 are Shoalwater Bay, Townville and Bradshaw Field Training Areas. Support sites used for staging and minor exercises include airports in Queensland,
23 Isom, Charles A. Journalist 2nd Class. 2005. Environmental Concerns a top priority during Talisman Saber ’05. US Navy Website, June 25. www.7fnavy.mil Accessed 13 April 2007. 24 Global Security. 2007. Lancelin Defence Training Area. Global Security Website. www.globalsecurity.org Accessed 19 April 2007. 25 Australian Department of Defence Policy Division. 2007. Exercise Talisman Sabre. Australian Government Department of Defence Website. www.defence.gov.au Accessed 10 May 2007.
37 including civilian airports in Brisbane and Rockhampton, and the Royal Australian Air Force base in Townsville; and port facilities in Brisbane, Gladstone and Alma ports, and the exercise extends into the Tasman and Timor Seas.26
Although it plays a core role in Australia’s contribution to US military expansion across the north-west Pacific, Talisman Sabre is only one of many exercises – some large, other small – which implicate and embed Australia into the Pacific Command agenda. In 2005-2006 alone PACOM organised and/or hosted 1,700 exercises and other activities engaging a vast conglomeration of foreign military forces throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions – all developing their interoperability under the Pentagon’s umbrella.27 Through Talisman, Shoalwater provides a primary training ground for the US Seventh Fleet on a short warning, power projection, forcible entry scenario.
Another regional exercise involving Australia is RIMPAC (the Rim of the Pacific), a large scale multinational power projection/sea control exercise involving participants from the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Chile and Britain.
Then there are exercises in which Australia is involved but merely as spectator. Take for example, Valiant Shield in June 2006 which, as the largest Pacific exercise since the Vietnam era, was promoted as a show of force to deter North Korea from test-firing its new Taepodong-2 Missile. This massive exercise, in June 2006, brought together three Carrier Strike Groups for the first time – the USS Kitty Hawk, the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Abraham Lincoln. This totalled 20,000 troops, 300 aircraft, and 28 vessels under PACOM command. The exercise took place off Guam, and involved submarines came from Naval Base Guam and the 36th Wing from Andersen Air Force Base. More than 40 countries went along as observers. It was the first time that China’s Communist regime had been invited and attended such an event. Other observing countries were Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia – and Australia.28
In July 2006, immediately following the exercise the Guam-based nuclear-capable submarine the USS City of Corpus Christi visited Brisbane, but the more significant event following Valiant Shield was the first deployment of a B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber on the continent of Australia. Called “Green Lightning” this exercise involved two B-2s in conducting bombing sorties to Delamere Air Weapons Range and a B-2 Engine Running Crew Change at RAAF Darwin. This was the first time a B-2 had landed on Australian soil. The B-2 aircrafts, pilots and support personnel were from Whiteman Air Force Base in Whiteman, Missouri (currently based in Guam); the Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron (EARS) came from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. The rotational bomber presence in Guam provides “integrated training opportunities” through “working with our Australian allies”. According to Lt. Col. Bill Eldridge, who was the aircraft commander on the B-2 that landed at RAAF Darwin on 27 July and was part of the Engine Running Crew Change, said that, “Sharing training facilities with the Australians greatly enhances our ability to simulate combat conditions”. The
26 Australian Department of Defence Policy Division. 2007. Exercise Talisman Sabre. Australian Government Department of Defence Website. www.defence.gov.au Accessed 10 May 2007. 27 US Pacific Command. 2007. US Pacific Command Website. www.pacom.mil Accessed 20 April 2007. 28 US Pacific Command. 2007. US Pacific Command Website. www.pacom.mil Accessed 20 April 2007.
38 Royal Australian Air Force had earlier joined in B-2 exercises during the Red Flat Exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.29
On 9 April 2007, B-52 Stratofortress bombers flew from Andersen Air Force Base to Delamere Air Weapons Range in a Green Lightning exercise which involved a 12-hour round flight. The B-52s were accompanied by a KC-135 tanker for support. The aircraft landed at Royal Australian Air Force Base Darwin. While over Delamere they deployed six BDU-50 (Bomb Dummy Unit) inert bombs. They were escorted by Royal Australian Air Force Hornets. The B-52s were deployed from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, to Andersen in Guam – maintaining PACOM’s continuous bomber presence in the north-west Pacific.30
This was the third Green Lightning exercise which involved Guam’s Andersen-based aircraft. The others were in July (mentioned above) and October 2006.31 As one of the few overland target ranges in the Pacific theatre, Delamere provides a vast airspace which allows for a wide range of manoeuvres not possible in other fields – and certainly not available in Guam.32
Following the Talisman Sabre exercise PACOM plans to repeat the Valiant Shield exercise. This time, the US military claims, will be bigger than last year. It will include the world’s biggest anti-terrorism exercise, called TopOff4 (Top Officers), underscoring Guam’s increasing importance to the US Pentagon. Again the “wargames” will only include US troops but other countries, including Australia, have been invited to observe.33
Land Bases or Lily-pads?
Since “September 11”, the US strategy has moved away from siting land bases in foreign countries to developing jumping-off sites for its troops at bases provided by the host nations. This is ex-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld’s “lily-pad” strategy. These in-host-country facilities will service expanded military bases in territories which the US considers to be its own. For the north-west Pacific this means Guam and Hawaii, and further afield but still in the northern Pacific is Alaska. This re-structuring has changed the appearance of the US presence in the Pacific.
The US is restructuring its bases in Okinawa (in Japan) and South Korea and relocating some of its troops to Guam. However, the relocation of troops to Guam is only a part of the US’s reorientation of its forces and infrastructure in its
29 Canfield, Mikal (Tech, Sgt., Kenney Headquarters Public Affairs). 2007. B-2 Completes First Deployment to Australia, Pacific Air Forces. Pacific Air Force Website, www.pacaf.af.mil Accessed 18 April 2007 30 Canfeld, Mikal (Tech. Sgt., Kenney Headquarters Public Affairs). 2006 (28 August). “Whiteman B-2s Complete Successful Andersen Deployment”. Andersen Air Force Base Website www.andersen.af.mil Accessed 17 April 2007.; Nicholson, Brendan. 2006. Australia: US Bombers to Practice in NT. The Age, 23 July. 31 Perrien, Don (Senior Master Sgt). 2007. Andersen b-52s Participate in Exercise. Andersen Air Force Base Website: April 9. www.andersen.af.mil Accessed 14 April 2007. 32 Roob, Aaron (Mass Communications Specialist 3rd Class), 2007. “Air Wing Super Hornets star in Australian air show”. Andersen Air Force Base Website: April 9. www.andersen.af.mil Accessed 14 April 2007. 33 Pacific Daily News. 2007. Valiant Shield to Return to Region. Pacific Daily News, April 11. www.quampdn.com Accessed 14 April 2007.
39 Pacific theatre. The US military involvement in both Okinawa and South Korea will continue, but as Rapid Deployment Forces operating out of bases maintained by the Japanese and South Korean governments respectively. In addition, the Pentagon is stepping up joint-exercises with these host countries, both within and outside of their borders. This replicates the Joint Combined Training Centre in Australia (which includes but is not limited to Shoalwater) and the co-joined Australian-US exercises (such as Talisman Sabre).
For example, in South Korea, while the US agreed in 2004 to the closure of 34 US military bases on Korean soil and the phased withdrawal of US 12,000 troops to be completed by 2011, the US bases are being replaced by South Korean bases. By using these bases as staging grounds, the US forces will then remake themselves as a Rapid Deployment Force operating under Visiting Forces Agreements (VFA) without the problem of having to deal with local protests or the expenses incurred by having to maintain bases on foreign soil.
Similarly, the US is ensuring that it maintains a continuing and obvious presence in Japan, particularly Okinawa. The Japanese government has recently conducted a marine survey for the relocation of the Futema Air Station to an area near Camp Schwab in Nago City.34 We see here a pattern of the US military bases continuing, albeit in the guise of being “not bases”. On 13 February 2007, US forces conducted large-scale parachute drop training exercises into the waters near Camp Schwab – for the first time in eight years. The parachuters were from the amphibious assault ship Essex. Eleven amphibious vehicles landed and crossed a public road in Ginoza village, with gun-pointing US soldiers lying on their stomachs by the side of the road as Japanese citizens drove along it.35 The US military presence is said to provide 5.3 per cent of Okinawa’s gross income, but 77 per cent of contracts for goods and services to the military have gone off island to companies in the Japanese main islands.36
As for the Philippines, although the US bases were removed from there in 1991 as a result of unified citizenship protests pressuring the Philippines’ Senate to terminate its treaty with the US, September 11 led the US to renew its military presence there also. In 1999 the Philippines’ government signed a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the US – one of many which the Pentagon has engineered throughout the region wherever the US military is active. These agreements allow the US aircraft carriers, destroyers and nuclear armed submarines to enter these countries, as well as (in some cases) stockpile military armaments there. In 2005, 1000 US Marines from Okinawa were deployed to the Philippines to be stationed in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao for the purpose of training and engaging in armed conflict with the Philippines’ forces in a war against the Moro National Liberation Front.37
34 The Okinawa Times. 2007. Govt to Have a Marine Survey off Henoko. The Okinawa Times. March 14. www.japan-press.co.jp Accessed 17 April 2007. 35 Akahata. 2007. US Forces Conduct Large-scale Exercises in Okinawa. February 14. www.japan-press.co.jp Accessed 17 April 2007. 36 The Japan Times. 2007. Okinawa Lifted by Forces’ Spending. The Japan Times., March 9. www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070309a8.html. Accessed 17 April 2007. 37 Simbulan, Ronald. 2005. Rearranging the Infrastructure for US Military Intervention in the Philippines and the Asia-Pacific: Resistance and Solidarity. Presented at the International Peace Meeting, Tokyo, Japan, October 22, 2005. In Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition. Bulletin. Issue no. 10. Spring: 6-8.
40 In comparison to these “lily-pads” – such as Okinawa, South Korea, the Philippines – are the US bases on terrain which the US considers its own territory and therefore claims the liberty to build up as much as it wants without the bother of having to deal with host governments: the US “Pacific Strategic Triangle” links Guam with Alaska and Hawaii.
Hawaii (or to use the Indigenous name, Ka Pai’aina) is the headquarters of the US Pacific Command (PACOM) responsible for US military operations over half the earth. The small island of O’ahu, on which PACOM is headquartered, has 25 per cent of its land under military control – much of the remainder of the land is under tourism or plantations, and the Kanaka Maoli (Indigenous Hawaiians) are a minority in their ancestral land. Every sector of the military is present in Hawaii, including Ballistic Missile Defence and Space Warfare Technologies. Because the US considers Hawaii to be its own, there is little prospect of the US military withdrawing from there. Rather, since September 11, the Hawaiian facilities have been considerably expanded. This includes the training of various forces. The Army resumed training at Makua Valley, the Marines conduct jungle warfare training at Waikane and practice urban warfare training at Waimanalo. Communication and command facilities have been extended in places like Mahaka Ridge, and at the NASA military space program on the sacred mountain of Mauna Kea.38 The Navy has created an Office for Missile Defense Operations to take command of all “testing and deployment” of naval missile defence systems. With these systems and outfitted with Aegis destroyers homeported in Japan, the Navy can situate its vessels 100 kilometres off the coast of North Korea or China and shoot down missiles headed for the United States while still in their boost-stage.39
Then there is the spectrum of scattered Micronesian countries (those lying north of the equator) which until recently (1979 through 1994) were US colonies and many of which continue to play significant military roles. The US Military Sealift Command stations three Maritime Prepositioning Force ships off the coast of Saipan, the capital island of the Northern Marianas. Prepositioning ships contain all the equipment and supplies needed in battle which can be deployed at short notice to any field of war where they meet with incoming troops. Also in the Northern Marianas are small Tinian (from where the Enola Gay flew to bomb Hiroshima), Rota and Farallon de Medinilla islands all of which are used as bombing ranges by the US military. Farallon de Medinilla, an uninhabited 200-acre island leased to the US in 1976 for 100 years, is the Pacific Fleet’s only US-controlled range available for live-fire training for forward-deployed naval forces.40
The Marshall Islands has the most unenviable role of being the main site of US nuclear testing detonations. In the 1940s and 1950s the US detonated 67 thermonuclear tests on the small islands of Bikini and Enewetak, exploding a force which amounted to 7200 Hiroshima bombs. This was “an average of more than 1.6 Hiroshima bombs per day for the 12-year nuclear testing program”, according to Dr Neal Palafox of the University of Hawaii’s John A. Burns School of Medicine.41 The Marshallese have paid the highest price of the US nuclear arsenal, suffering radioactive related illnesses
38 Maclellan, Nic. 2005. Australia and the Pacific Islands in US global forces re-alignment. Peace Frontier Seminar, Tokyo Shigoto Foundation Building, 11 March. Unpublished speech. 39 MissileThreat.Com. 2007. Aegis-Ship Based BMD. Missile Threat. www.missilethreat.com Accessed 3 May 2007. 40 Burgess, 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007 41 Casas,, Gemma. 2006. Expert Notes Rise of Cancer in Pacific. Spending is Down near Former Nuclear Test Sites with High Rate of Diseases. Star Bulletin. Vol 11, Issue 284. October 11. www.starbulletin.com Accessed 13 October 2006.
41 as a result of over 67 nuclear tests.42 The young republic’s Kwajalein Atoll is the target zone in a network of military facilities webbed across the northern Pacific (involving Hawaii, Wake Island (in the northern Marshalls), and Vandenburg Air Force Base in California) which is central to the US’s development of missile delivery systems and space warfare technology.43 Kwajalein is the “gem in the crown”, according to Lieutenant-General John Costello, head of the US Army’s Space and Missile Defence Command: It is the “singular place where all the capabilities exist to gauge the success or failure of missile defence systems”.44
Then there is Palau (or Belau) which created the world’s first constitution to contain a nuclear free clause and whose women stood up to the Pentagon for 15 long years until the US, through a covert pressure, was able to push through a Compact of Free Association agreement which gives it the right to take any land or harbour that it wants, for any military purpose including nuclear, within 60 days notification. The US has not yet actioned its option, but it is important to remain vigilant for the harbour is regularly visited by warships and submarines operating in the north-west Pacific.45
Australia’s Role in the US Presence
Australia’s role in the overall development of increasing militarisation clearly identifies the US military activities at Shoalwater Bay as fitting within the wider spectrum of US “lily-pad” launching zones in foreign countries. Evident are the full continuum of conventional and nuclear weapons systems, and the full gamut of US military forces (army, navy, air, marine, space) including their command, intelligence and support facilities. All of these elements are not necessarily represented at Shoalwater Bay and they don’t need to be, for the Talisman Sabre exercise at Shoalwater correlates with military developments in South Korea, in Japan (including Okinawa), in Hawaii – and most directly, in Guam.
Shoalwater is militarily linked with Guam, as are several other major Australian military bases including Delamere and Bradshaw. Many of the aircraft, warships and submarines which visit Australia, to engage in exercises of which Talisman Sabre is only one example, are homebased in, rotated to or transited through Guam. The Australian-US Memorandum of Understanding makes this connection explicit should we ever doubt it. This not so welcome intrusion has increased over the past years, such that exercises are now occurring all year long, touching on many facilities across Australia’s vast continent. Guam is in Australia’s backyard. Guam is intrinsically linked with Australia; Australia linked with Guam.
42 dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1994. Daughters of the Pacific. Spinifex Press, Melbourne.; dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1998. Pacific Women Speak Out for Independence and Denuclearisation. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa), The Disarmament and Security Centre (Aotearoa), Pacific Connections (Australia), Christchurch. 43 dé Ishtar, Zohl. 2003. Poisoned Lives, Contaminated Lands: Marshall Islanders Are Paying a High Price for the US Nuclear Arsenal. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Vol 2, Issue 1, Fall/Winter: 287-307.; dé Ishtar, 2004. Nuclear Nightmares on Marshall Islands – Poisoned Lives, Contaminated Lands. Pacific Ecologist, Issues 7 & 8, Autumn-Winter: 74-81.; Johnson, Giff. 1984. Collision Course at Kwajalein. Marshall Islanders in the Shadow of the Bomb. Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, Hawaii. 44 Marshall Islands Journal, 1998. “Kwaj is the ‘gem’”, Marshall Islands Journal, November 13.; Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007. Missile Defence, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, 2007 Report. www.missilethreat.com Accessed 3 May 2007. 45 dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1994. Daughters of the Pacific. Spinifex Press: Melbourne.; dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1998. Pacific Women Speak Out for Independence and Denuclearisation. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa), The Disarmament and Security Centre (Aotearoa), Pacific Connections (Australia), Christchurch.
42
The question of whether the US intends to stage a permanent base in Australia is of vast importance to many Australians. The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) repeatedly assures an anxious public that the US has no plans of permanently basing US troops at Shoalwater, or at any other military base. Given the US’s preference for “lily-pad” facilities in the region this may well be the case. But, at this moment the debate is being used as smoke-screen fostered to divert attention, and energy, away from the real issue, which is that Shoalwater-Delamere-Bradshaw (and all the other connected facilities) fit neatly into the US’s overall strategy for the region: the Pacific is becoming the US’s military centre-piece and Australia is its training ground.
With war-platform technology which can fly from Guam to Australia in a matter of hours it is questionable whether the US troops need to have a permanent presence in Australia. The US military can access Australia readily and regularly does so, from its bases in Guam. There is a possibility that the Australian government might eventually allow the US to stage a support facility for their planes in Darwin: justified on the basis that the B-2 Stealth bombers used in bombing practice at Delamere Air Weapons Range require hangers and other infrastructure support because they cannot be stored in the open. But as they regularly land during their exercises to conduct on-ground services it may be a matter of mere semantics whether the US already has proxy bases at Bradshaw and Darwin. There is a precedence for US bases in Australia. The DoD has long lost the debate about the US involvement in such bases as Pine Gap, a globally vital Command, Control, Coordination and Intelligence (C3I) base near Alice Springs; and the recently announced base near Geraldton in Western Australia will only repeat that structure.46
Ultimately, therefore, while the Australian and US governments regularly claim that the US does not have bases in Australia (conveniently ignoring US control over the facilities at Pine Gap, and soon to be Geraldton, as well as its regular use of training areas peppered around the continent), this option cannot be ruled out. In a climate where the Australian government has continually failed to furnish the public with any decisive, independent (and thus reliable) information on the visiting US forces or on the weapon systems they have or can be expected to use during Talisman Sabre, the Australian public still remains to be convinced.
The Australian Department of Defence (International Policy Division) claims that:
“Australia’s strategic alliance with the US is a national asset, resulting in major strategic, political and economic benefits, as well as Australia’s defence and intelligence capabilities, including in relation to terrorism, of which exercises such as TS07 is a critical part.”47
The increasing US military activity within Australian borders positions Australia as a collaborator in the increasing militarisation occurring in our region. Australia’s citizens need to ask themselves whether they concur with this analysis of the extent to which Australia benefits from the Australian-US alliance. Australians need to assess the current level of US military activities in Australia and across the north-west Pacific and ask themselves whether this might not implicate
46 Nicholson, Brendan. 2007. US Gets Military Base in Western Australia. The Australian. February 15. 47 Australian Department of Defence Policy Division. 2007. Exercise Talisman Sabre. Australian Government Department of Defence Website. www.defence.gov.au Accessed 10 May 2007.
43 us in something which is not in our nation’s best interest. We need to engage in a discussion about whether and, if so, to what extent we are prepared to allow US troops and weapon machinery to use our facilities, water ways, and air space. This requires an in-depth look at Australia’s contribution to the militarisation of the north-west Pacific, with all its impacts (and potential impacts).
Impact: Guam’s Indigenous Chamorro and US Political Control
The US military build-up sweeping across the north-west Pacific is causing concern to many residents in all of the countries involved but the increasing militarisation threatens Guam in a way which is too often overlooked. Guam’s political status is being held hostage by the US’s military ambitions: the Indigenous Chamorro peoples are being systematically disenfranchised under a continuing colonialism. Since the US claimed Guam from the Spanish in 1898, it has anchored its military strategy around its aspiration to make Guam the hub of its forward position close to the Asian continent. The result has been that the US has been holding Guam’s Indigenous Chamorro peoples hostage to its military ambitions for over 60 years. The Chamorro of Guam have been denied their inalienable political right to an act of self- determination.
From 1898, the US Naval governed Guam: Guam was under military rule. Then in 1946, the US listed Guam on the United Nations’ List of Non-Self Governing Territory by and becoming its “administering power”. In 1950, the US unilaterally signed what is known as the Organic Act which both granted Guam’s residents US citizenship (long desired by an element of Guam’s community) and promised the Indigenous Chamorro peoples the right to an act of self- determine regarding their political status. The Act guaranteed that this right to self-determination would be reserved for Chamorro.
Although under the United Nations, the US became Guam’s administering power and while this did not make Guam a US territory nonetheless it enabled the US to behave as if it has full control over the island. This because the United Nations has, as yet, failed to uphold its commitment in this the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The UN struggled on while the US, for its part, failed to uphold its obligations under either the UN or the 1950 Organic Act. Almost immediately, the US set about incrementally changing and redefining the Organic Act creating a situation which has bound the small island to the US ever more tightly as the years have progressed.
Granting US citizenship to the residents of Guam seems like a good thing until one realises that while the people of Guam (including the Chamorro) are American citizens they do not have the right to vote in Congress or to elect the US President. They are, in fact, US citizens without the rights enshrined in the American Constitution.
Guam is described by Washington as being an “Unincorporated Territory”, a status which sounds beneficial until one realises that the “unincorporated” aspect of that title means that Guam is a non-entity within the parameters of the US, for no such designation exists within the context of the US constitution.
With control over Guam’s immigration, the US has increased that portion of the Guam population most likely to vote in elections for local governments which favour the US military presence. The pending influx of military personnel will increase that percentage yet again. Those who wish to see the inalienable rights of the Indigenous peoples honoured
44 consider that the US wants to maintain perpetual control over Guam as a valuable piece of military real estate in the north- west Pacific. With each increase in the military population the US has added one more hurdle for the Chamorro people to overcome to secure their rightful act of self determination under international law.
If the planned military expansion in Guam goes ahead then Guam’s 160,000 residents will experience a population explosion expanding it by about 35,000 strong. This will include 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents being relocated there from Okinawa – with the remainder being construction and service workers from the Philippines. This will more than double the current military presence (now 12,000 troops and their dependents) on the island. The abrupt population increase, expected to start in 2008 and culminate in 2014, will put intense pressure on Guam’s infrastructure – and with a large portion of its population already living in poverty, many of which are Chamorro, local citizenship-based resistance is growing.
One thing is certain, however: the Chamorro peoples have consistently striven to regain the political control over their ancestral lands and waters since the arrival of Europeans on their shore in 1668 and they are not yet prepared to give up that struggle: their lives and their future depend on its success. The youthful Chamorro diaspora is awakening, strengthening the Indigenous spirit of resistance. On 4 and 5 October 2006, a delegation of young Chamorro stood before the United Nations’ Special Political and Decolonisation Committee and demanded they “hold the United States accountable, as Guam’s administering power, to its moral and legal responsibilities to ensure the ... right to self- determination of the native Chamoru people” and put an end to the “massive US military build-up [which] hinders the right of Chamorus to decolonization and violates the human rights of all people from Guam”.48 Chamorro cultural activists charge that:
The sum effect of US cultural hegemony and militarism is to permanently deny Chamoru people our long and uphill struggle for self-determination. The military build-up we speak of today, and the scheduled relocation of tens of thousands of additional US military personnel, is the latest act of negligence and abuse on the part of the US as the official Administering Power of Guam.49
Impact: Violence Against Women and Children
We have seen how the US military has the unfortunate ability to impact negatively on nations and peoples as a whole. I want to turn now to a more intimate field, to show how increasing militarisation impacts on families, on communities. There is a heavy price which comes with this military expansion, and women and children bear the larger burden. As Takazato Suzuyo from the Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence group writes:
48 Aguon, Julian, Hope Alvarez Cristobal, Kerri-Ann Naputi Borja, Victoria-Lola Leon Guerrero, Sabina Flores Perez, Tiffany Rose Naputi Lacsado, and Fanai Castro. 2006. Hita Guåhan! Chamoru Testimonies to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonization Committee, 2006. Unpublished document. October. 49 Lacsado, Tiffany Naputi. 2006. The Sacred Centre. Hita Guåhan! Chamoru Testimonies to the United Nations Special Political and Decolonization Committee, 2006. Unpublished document. October: 15.
45 “Combat and sexual violence are essentially tied together. Soldiers who return from combat to bases buy sex as an alternative to violence. ... Rape is warfare against women. Rape occurs at the very first stage of military occupation”.50
On 16 March 2007, the Japanese Defence Facilities Administration Agency informed the Japanese House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that soldiers and civilian workers of US forces in Japan had committed 1,270 crimes and accidents in FY2006 as of the end of January (the Japanese fiscal year starts in April and ends in March). While 90per cent of those cases were traffic accidents, some were serious crimes including violence against and sexual assault of Okinawan women and children. Indeed, there have been more than 4,790 acts of military violence against civilian women in the 34 years since the US handed Okinawa back to Japanese rule. This includes hundreds of rapes and rape-murders: many of these by the same Marine force which will be relocated to Guam.51
Okinawan women have experienced sexual abuse at the hands of US military personnel since the Korean War in the 1940s and 1950s. The sex industry thrived. There were two to four reports of women being raped and killed each year. In one case, a 6-year old girl was abducted, raped and killed by a US soldier, who was never tried in a Japanese court. In 1995, a 12-year old girl was gang-raped by three US soldiers in Okinawa. The outraged Okinawan people demanded the closure of the US bases there, shaking the foundation of the US-Japanese alliance. When the US Admiral Mackie, Commander of the Asia-Pacific arena, remarked, “Those soldiers [who raped the girl] were stupid. They could have gotten a woman for the money they rented a car” he was displaying the deep roots of sexual exploitation during war. In November 2005, four US Marines based in Okinawa participating in a US-Philippines exercise in the Philippines visited a bar and raped a Filipino woman. They were brought before the Philippines court but were protected by the US-Philippines Visiting Forces Agreement: one was found guilty and sentenced to 20-40 years imprisonment, but the others went free and returned to Okinawa.52
Understandable, then, is the speculation that Japan’s preparedness to pay two-thirds of the total US$15 billion estimate required for the relocation of its troops to Guam is an indication of Japan’s desire to see the US troops leave Okinawa, or rather for them to be seen to be leaving Okinawa. Not withstanding the US’s commitment to its “Triangular” strategy (land basing in Guam-Hawaii-Alaska), the limited relocation of the Okinawa-based Marines to Guam is driven not by any strategic ambition on behalf of the US military, it is an attempt by the Japanese and US governments to reduce social tension and environmental impact of large numbers of US troops and aircraft on Okinawa’s small island.53 The US would not relocate some of its troops from Okinawa if it did not have to. The relocation moves the US forces a worrisome 1000 miles further away from the Asian continent and thus from potential flashpoints such as Korea and the Taiwanese Straits
50 Takazato Suzuyo. 2007. From Militarized Security to Security for Women and Children. International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, March 5-9 2007, Quito, Ecuador. 51 Takazato Suzuyo. 2007. From Militarized Security to Security for Women and Children. International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, March 5-9 2007, Quito, Ecuador. 52 Takazato Suzuyo. 2007. From Militarized Security to Security for Women and Children. International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, March 5-9 2007, Quito, Ecuador. 53 Burgess, 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007.
46 where they might be needed, thus significantly extending their response time.54This is another reason for the importance of Guam in the overall increasing militarisation of the region. Not only is Guam relatively close to Asia (compared to Hawaii, for example), but because Guam is a US territory this frees the US government from having to negotiate the right to remain there.
The US military’s violence against women and children has been repeated in South Korea. In January 2007, in South Korea, a 67 year old woman was raped by a US soldier and hospitalised. In 1992, a 26 year old woman was raped and brutally killed by US military personnel. Strong protests across Korea forced the US to hand the rapist to the Korean authorities where he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Takazato argues that the victims are invariably blamed for the violence, while the individual soldiers are held responsible, and the military alliance which is the violence-producing structure goes unexamined.55 Nonetheless, as with Okinawa, this violence has resulted in the US military having to withdraw their troops from South Korea also. Herein we have the logic behind the “lily-pad” strategy: put your troops in and pull them out fast and protect them and the Pentagon behind a series of agreements.
Within this historical context it is not unexpected that many citizens of Australia are concerned about how the increasing militarisation at places such as Shoalwater Bay might impact on women and children. The Australian section of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom expressed this concern in a submission to the Australian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in 2006. They wrote:
“The training facility [i.e. the Joint Combined Training Centre, which includes Shoalwater Bay] will see the introduction of many hundreds of US, New Zealand and Singaporean personnel from Navy, Army, Air and Special Forces units who will be looking for Rest and Recreation and it is expected that this would result in harassment and assault of local women, and the introduction of prostitution to the quiet country town [Yeppoon]. Just as with other Status of Force Agreements which the US has obtained from countries such as Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan/Okinawa, crimes committed by military personnel from a visiting participating country will not be dealt with in Australia by Australian courts.56
Similar concerns are also held by residents of Guam who have identified impacts including:
Increased levels of crime (anticipated higher rates of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault due to increased military population, and higher rates of property crime in civilian population with increased poverty, and drug use if/when unemployment and wage depression increases.) ... Other military base communities have experienced
54 Burgess, 2007. Guam’s Return to Prominence. Sea Power. January 25. www.military.com Accessed 20 April 2007 55 Takazato Suzuyo. 2007. From Militarized Security to Security for Women and Children. International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases, March 5-9 2007, Quito, Ecuador. 56 WILPF Australia. 2006. Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works from the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Australian Section) Inc. Unpublished report. Submission prepared by Mary Ziesak for Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Australian Section) Inc. July.
47 heightened levels of racism during build-ups as conflicts of interest between military and local populations get racialized.57
Impact: Environmental Degradation and Contamination
Then there is the vexed issue of the environment. In this era of heightened awareness of human impact on the earth, and growing fear about global warming caused by industrialisation, it is would be unrealistic if citizens were not concerned about the impact of militarisation on our living world. Military activity has an undeniable historical link with health damage and environmental devastation. Whole societies are already suffering from the effects of militarisation that many of us fear as a threat to the future, and which the majority of us ignore at our peril.58
At Shoalwater Bay, the Australian and US governments and their militaries insist that the safety of the environment is one of its primary considerations and that Talisman Sabre is being conducted in accordance with approved environmental rules, guidelines and audits. Acknowledging the biodiversity teeming within Shoalwater Bay and the concerns of the Australian populace, they stress that their troops have received special training on the unique environment. However, according to Australian Army Col. Mike Goodyer, “balancing the cultural and environmental concerns of the Australian populous with the need to train military forces is paramount” because “Shoalwater Bay is the only place in Australia where air, land and sea forces can engage in joint, live-fire training exercises”.59
The Talisman Sabre exercise has been considered by the Minister for Environment and Heritage under the provisions of Australia’s domestic environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and has been found to be appropriate. An Exercise Environmental Monitoring Group has been established to monitor compliance with stringent exercise environmental protection instructions. A Public Environmental Report into the Shoalwater Bay Training Area and the Talisman Sabre exercise has been conducted which, while it has raised many questions, has been accepted by the various authorities acting on behalf of their constituencies.
Yet there is reason for growing local and national concern about the environmental costs of using Shoalwater for military target practice. In regard to the Public Environmental Report (PER) prepared by Maunsell/AECOM on behalf of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) there had been inadequate communication and consultancy with the Australian public, government bodies and non-government organisations: this despite its titles reference to the “public”. Nor had the local group of concerned citizens (Shoalwater Bay Wilderness Awareness Group) been supplied with requested copies of the Statement of Environment and Heritage Principles which had been signed by the US government and the ADF in November 2005.
57 Lutz, Catherine (Watson Institute for International Studies) and Hope Cristobal (Chamorro Studies Association), 2007. Environmental Impact Statement for Military Build-up on Guam. Unpublished paper. March 19. 58 dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1994. Daughters of the Pacific. Spinifex Press, Melbourne.; dé Ishtar, Zohl. 1998. Pacific Women Speak Out for Independence and Denuclearisation. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa), The Disarmament and Security Centre (Aotearoa), Pacific Connections (Australia), Christchurch. 59 Isom, Charles A. Journalist 2nd Class. 2005. Environmental Concerns a top priority during Talisman Saber ’05. US Navy Website, June 25. www.7fnavy.mil Accessed 13 April 2007.
48
Studying the Public Environment Review, the Shoalwater Bay Wilderness Awareness Group found that there had been serious omissions.60 Of major concern was that the military’s environmental interest had not extended to its actual or potential impact on the local water supply: regarded as amongst Queenland’s cleanest water supply, being sand dune fed. Similarly absent was any reference to the risks of air, sea or creek born contaminants to the local town of Yeppoon. This when Samuel Hill, the ADF’s principle facility, is located on the banks of two creeks, when live artillery firing and ground exercises are conducted in this same area, and where the high explosive target area (Mt Hummock) is only 10 km from the water catchment area. There is a high risk of contaminants being released into the atmosphere and wind blown for 1000s of kilometres. Any contamination of the water supply would have rebounding effects on the entire mid-north coast of Queensland, and extend to impacting the Great Barrier Reef wildlife.
Another major risk that SWAG brought to public attention was the US use of nuclear powered submarines in the exercise, as any accident would result in widespread radioactive contamination. There are not civilian plans to deal with radioactive pollution which may occur from reactor leaks or failure. SWAG also notes that, “in the absence of assurances to the contrary” it is likely that the attending US air craft carriers would be carrying nuclear weapons, and again this carries the risk of accidents or failures leading to emergencies far beyond the scope of local services to deal with. The ADF’s PER stated that the Talisman Sabre 2007 exercise would involve training in experimental weapons but did not elaborate on what they might be.
SWAG called for “a cancellation of the TS07 and all future exercises with the US forces”, and the declaration of the training area as a National Park. Echoing this warning, the Brisbane chapter of the international Friends of the Earth emphasized that, “Any kind of military activities in the Great Barrier Reef marine park should be disallowed, [as] it is not compatible with sustainability or environmental protection”.61 They had found the PER to be “fatally flawed” and that it had ignored the significance of the Shoalwater Bay and Coral sea regions which should, it stressed, be “no-go zones for military and any other industrial activities”.
The Friends of the Earth (FOE) criticism hinged on the impact of the military exercises on the unique wildlife of the region such as the endangered dugong and green turtle which are effected by the naval use of sonar, resulting turbulence and potential toxic spills. FOE is particularly concerned about the US use of the region, particularly since its environmental record evidences contamination of training areas such as at Vieques in Puerto Rico, and Clark Air Base in the Philippines. US naval use of the small island of Vieques for bomb-target practice, munitions disposal and other activities since 1940 had resulted in heavy metals and toxins entering the local drinking water in civilian areas in the late 1970s, so that from 1985 through 1989 children aged 10-19 were 256per cent more likely, and those aged 0-9 years 117per cent more likely, to contract cancer than children on the main island of Puerto Rico.
Like SWAG, FOE is also concerned about the nuclear risks posed by US nuclear powered and potentially nuclear weapons carrying vessels entering the area. It points out that the mere presence of nuclear powered vessels poses a
60 Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group. 2006. Response to: Talisman Sabre 07 Public Environment Report and Requests for Information. Presented to Yeppoon Public Meeting on Public Environment Report. Unpublished. 61 Friends of the Earth. 2006. Letter to Maunsell Australia from Friends of the Earth Brisbane, November 13. Unpublished.
49 radioactive risk. In 2006, radiation was detected in the water around a nuclear power submarine harboured in Tokyo, Japan. In March 2005 a US nuclear submarine was involved in an undersea crash that killed crew members – one of at least 10 serious peacetime accidents involving US nuclear submarines which are recorded in public documents. (It is possible that there are more which are not publicly announced.)
These two responses to the Australian Defence Force’s Public Environmental Report are only the tip of the iceberg of the citizenship concern increasingly responding to a trail of military misadventures around the world. Place Shoalwater’s Public Environmental Report into a wider regional perspective and one begins to see how the argument that the military has the environment in its best interests becomes very shaky ground indeed.
In Guam, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/Strike) Capability at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam (DEIS) was released in 2006. The US’s not-for-profit environmental legal company EarthJustice responded to this report by highlighting the failure of the DEIS to satisfy the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They challenged the Andersen DEIS on several main points, one of which was that it contained no analysis of potential impacts associated with the “training range and airspace utilization” despite the DEIS ‘s own assertion that there may be environmental impacts. The DEIS had, they said, failed to characterize the number or type of required training sorties or even the ranges or airspaces that would be affected.62
Significantly, for Australians, the Andersen Air Force Base’s training airspace under question extends to Australia – specifically to Shoalwater and Delamere, but also to Lancelin in Western Australia and Bradshaw in the Northern Territory and other facilities. This is the same air space that will be actively used during the Talisman Sabre exercises.
The US Air Force’s excuse that it was yet to determine the specifics of its training was rejected by EarthJustice on the basis that this did not relieve it of its obligation under NEPA to analyse “reasonably foreseeable” impacts. EarthJustice argued that “Obviously, the Air Force would not establish an ISR/Strike capability at Andersen unless it could adequately train the fighter and bomber crews who would be deployed there” so it must have some understanding of the parameters of that training. Noting that the Air Force had already assigned contracts to construction companies, EarthJustice reminded the Air Force that NEPA’s basic purpose was to “insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken” and “to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences”.63
There were many points of contention raised by EarthJustice but the environmental point is important to us. EarthJustice charged the US Air Force with having failed to discuss “cumulative impacts ... on the environment which had resulted or
62 Henkin, David Lane (Staff Attorney for Earth Justice). 2006. Letter to Scott Whittaker, Environmental Flight Chief, US Air Force, re Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/Strike) Capability at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, April 2006. Earth Justice Website. www.earthjustice.org Accessed 19 April 2007. 63 Henkin, David Lane (Staff Attorney for Earth Justice). 2006. Letter to Scott Whittaker, Environmental Flight Chief, US Air Force, re Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/Strike) Capability at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, April 2006. Earth Justice Website. www.earthjustice.org Accessed 19 April 2007.
50 would result from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions” beyond making generalised statements and thus failed to inform “either the Air Force’s decision-making or the public’s understanding”. EarthJustice included the impact on humans within the spectrum of environmental impacts and noted local citizen concerns such as the impact of increased militarisation on traffic, land use, housing, schools, etc. These issues had not been included in the DEIS.
And then there was the point of Cultural Resources. EarthJustice noted that the DEIS had not adequately considered the impact on local cultural resources, particularly Indigenous heritage. The Air Force had, it said, viewed its ISR/Strike project in isolation because it had not yet surveyed all of its project areas for cultural resources and had no idea what it would encounter.
Finally, the DEIS had not considered a reasonable range of alternatives to pursuing its interests in Guam. The Air Force had not, for example, considered housing some of its ISR/Strike aircraft and related infrastructure on Saipan in the nearby Northern Marianas or on Wake Island (a US missile development base in the northern Marshall Islands) rather than at Andersen, although this could reduce the amount of construction and population increase necessary, thereby limiting the severity of the buildup’s impact on Guam. Nor had it adequately considered the “No Action” alternative.64
This last point is particularly pertinent, given that in October 2006 the San Francisco 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found, on behalf of EarthJustice, that a military base in Hawaii (PACOM headquarters) had violated environmental laws when it failed to consider alternatives for establishing the Stryker Combat Brigade in those islands. (A Stryker is an eight- wheeled all wheel drive, armored combat vehicle (ACV) which carries an anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), i.e. it is a vehicle-borne weapon system which is used to move infantry to and on the battlefield.) The Court ruled that the “Army must cease all Stryker-related activities, including construction and Stryker training until the court can rule on what activities, if any, will be allowed while a supplementary environmental impact statement is prepared.” The US Army responded by challenging the meaning of the court’s ruling, not least because it was worried that the public hearings involved in the supplementary could take several years. The ruling put in limbo 28 construction projects at Schofield Barracks and the Big Island’s Pokakuloa Training Area, worth US$693 million. Also at stake was the money spent in taking 328 Stryker combat vehicles to Hawaii and retraining the soldiers in the 25th Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team. In total the cost of a single Stryker brigade is US$1.5 billion – the US Army has seven of them. The court found that, “The Army violated NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) by not considering alternatives that include transformation of the 2nd Brigade outside of Hawaii” – such as Alaska and Washington which also have Stryker units. The US Army had hoped to send the 2nd Brigade Stryker Combat Unit Team into war duty by May 2007. This has clearly been delayed.65
Perhaps alarmed by these unexpected developments in Hawaii, in March 2007, the US Department of the Navy responded by conducting an environmental impact study in Guam in April 2007. Local Guam residents have noted and anticipated
64 Henkin, David Lane (Staff Attorney for Earth Justice). 2006. Letter to Scott Whittaker, Environmental Flight Chief, US Air Force, re Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/Strike) Capability at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, April 2006. Earth Justice Website. www.earthjustice.org Accessed 19 April 2007. 65 Earth Justice. 2006. Court of Appeals Orders Army To Stop Stryker Conversion In Hawai'i. Earth Justice Website. www.earthjustice.org Accessed 14 April 2007.
51 limitations within the inquiry, not least being that (as had occurred in Hawaii) the EIS had come after the US Navy had already contracted several companies to begin construction expected to start in two years. The Navy has promised that it will not proceed with the construction until the EIS is completed and signed off but this is within the same week that a summit of the political leaders of neighbouring Micronesian nations gathered in Guam to discuss potential financial and fiscal benefits for them when the military buildup continues.66 In other words, the US assumes the military buildup in Guam is considered a fait accompli. The US military attitude seems to be that it simply has to go through the motions, the pretence, that democracy is operating as it should.
In Guam, local residents are concerned about environmental issues such as: military toxins on land, sea and air; increased radioactive exposures if certain weapons systems are stored and used in training; increased noise pollution from military jets and land vehicles; reduced local food supply quality and quantity as a result of air and water pollution; increased levels of hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal and potential for diversion, dumping or leaks; and “increased potential for missile and other attacks on Guam military assets particularly with the arrival of BMD [Ballistic Missile Defence], as an operational missile defense is very plausibly a first target (as well as being illegal under the 1972 ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] treaty”.67 Local concern in Guam is informed by a history of being the US’s major base in the north-western Pacific since 1898.
The US military doesn’t have a clean slate when it comes to environmental and health protection in Guam. Recently, University of Guam professor Dr Luis Szyfres identified that Guam’s environment may be causing diseases affecting local residents due to the US military using Guam’s small Cocos Island as a toxic dumpsite more than fifty years ago. In 1946, the Naval Station Guam was built on Cocos Island on the southern tip of the island and was used for the decontamination of US ships returning from service in the US nuclear test detonations in the Marshall Islands. During the Vietnam War, chemical agents including Agent Orange was stored at Cocos. In 1968, military waste, including substances stored in 55 gallon drums, was disposed of into Cocos’ lagoon. Later the US military blew holes in the outer reef to improve water circulation in an effort to clean the lagoon of contaminants. While the dump is not longer operating, evaporation and wind have dispersed the toxic chemicals all over Guam. Dr Szyfres referred to a Government of Guam report which showed that, in comparison to the continental US, residents of Guam suffered from many diseases which were in epidemic proportions and that death rates were higher. This included nasopharyngeal cancer, which is 1,999per cent higher in Guam; cervical cancer, 65per cent higher; uterine cancer, 55per cent higher; depression/suicides, 67per cent; liver cancer, 41per cent; diabetes, 150per cent; Ischemic heart disease, 15per cent; and kidney failure, 12per cent. Many other diseases were also recorded in extreme numbers. He cited studies by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which presented concrete evidence that the soil and groundwater of Guam contains toxic chemicals, and that concentrations of the toxic chemicals are above their own acceptable levels.68
66 Crisostomo, David V. 2007. Feds Seek Local Input on Marine Relocation. Pacific Daily News, 17 March. 67 Lutz, Catherine (Watson Institute for International Studies) and Hope Cristobal (Chamorro Studies Association), 2007. Environmental Impact Statement for Military Build-up on Guam. Unpublished paper. March 19. 68 Cagurangan, Mar-Vic. 2007. Szyfres: Guam Residents Live in “Toxic Dumpsite” Variety News.
52 Given this history it can be hardly surprising that many people in Guam don’t completely trust the US government nor its military. That is the same US military which claims to have the wellbeing and protection of the pristine Shoalwater Bay as its priority. And then, on top of that, Australia has its own problems with trusting the environmental record of its own military.
Take for example the issue about whether Depleted Uranium weapons (DU) have ever been used or are ever going to be used at Shoalwater Bay. According to the Federal parliamentary document the Hansard (February 2003), Depleted Uranium weapons were used in Australia by the Royal Australian Navy which expended 43,000 DU rounds between 1981 to 1990 when the supply was used up. The Department of Defence (DoD) informs us, in the Hansard, that the Navy stopped using DU weapons due to “occupational health and safety reasons”69 but it fails to inform the public of where they were used. Given that the US acknowledges that it has DU weapons in its arsenal and that they have been and are being used in the Iraq and Afghanistan, is it any wonder that Australians might be worried?
In a situation where the Australian Department of Defence is unable or unwilling to provide information about the use of such weapons at Shoalwater it would be irresponsible if concerned citizens didn’t ask questions of our government. Insufficient documentation has been made available to the public about when or where these weapons were expended in the past, and no concise answers have been given to the questions about whether they would be used by military training during the Talisman Sabre exercises, with the public left with no way of knowing whether their communities might be affected. In this context, it is understandable that responsible community members, many with children and families, are going to continue to be worried while their questions go unanswered. To acquiesce and accept the government and military’s silence under these circumstances would be to fail in our responsibility as citizens living within a democratic society. Democracy is premised on the right to make an informed decision based on adequate and appropriate information. If that information is not provided then democracy is betrayed.
Impact: Australia’s Contribution to the US Nuclear Arsenal
Ultimately, Australia must recognise its contribution to the militarisation of the north-west Pacific, and that involvement supports the development and maintenance of nuclear capable troops, weapons delivery systems and logistical forces.
Locating Shoalwater within the US military must start with an analysis of the world’s nuclear arsenals, because the US military is a nuclear force – in that many of its aircraft and ocean-going vessels are nuclear powered and/or have the capacity to carry and deploy nuclear weapons. This is not to suggest that nuclear weapons are currently being deployed at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area during Talisman Sabre 2007, certainly they are not being detonated there. But, citing reasons of national security, the US and Australian militaries refuse to provide information on what weapons systems are being trained-with during its exercises. Nonetheless, the US military is a nuclear force – indeed the world’s leading nuclear force – and Talisman Sabre, as one of the leading military training grounds in the north-west Pacific, may (in part) be about training troops to use such weapons. If this was so, this would implicate Australia in the development and use of nuclear weapons.
69 Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. 2003. Additional Estimates 2002-2003. February. Answers to Questions on notice from Department of Defence. Q:W21. www.aph.gov.au Accessed 17 April 2007.
53
In 2007 there are 27,215 nuclear warheads in arsenals globally, 2000 of which are on high alert, meaning that they are targeted and ready to launch within minutes. The US currently has 10,000 of the global nuclear arsenal. Seven other countries also have nuclear warheads: Russia (16,000), China (400), France (500), Israel (200), Britain (185), India (40), Pakistan (40). The world is currently watching to see whether North Korea and Iran should be added to that list. The US has less nuclear warheads than Russia, but they are much more powerful and effective. The combined explosive yield of all these weapons is equivalent to about 200,000 times the explosive yield of the bomb used on Hiroshima.70
There been some effort to decommission the global nuclear stockpile: in 1998 there were 31,000 nuclear warheads globally, of which 13,000 were deployed and 4,600 were on high alert.71 But while the total number of nuclear weapons is 6 per cent lower than at the peak of the Cold War (1987-88), there has been a sharp overall increase since 1998. The US had begun to consolidate its nuclear weapons between 1992 and 1997, withdrawing them from ten states and numerous European bases. In 1997, however, the decommissioning impetus started to slow down. During the 1990s, the US decommissioned 1000 to 1500 nuclear warheads annually, this compares to less than 100 annually in the mid-2000s. In2004, the US decided to cut its stockpile to 6,000 warheads, but warhead life-extension and rebuild have priority so it will take a long time to retire the decommissioned warheads. Since the end of the Cold War, 16 years ago, the US has only withdrawn its weapons from three states and one European country. On 7 December 2006, Britain announced that it was extending its nuclear weapons program to 2050, claiming that this was entirely in keeping with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as its nuclear arsenal was smaller than it had been during the Cold War and the Treaty does not give a date when nuclear disarmament had to be accomplished.72 Nuclear weapons continue to play a big role in US military activities.
Only 28 per cent of the US nuclear arsenal has been moved to separate storage facilities. The US stores its nuclear arsenal at 12 locations in the US continent and Hawaii, and in six locations in European countries: it does not currently store nuclear weapons in the north-west Pacific or in Asia. However, two-third of all US nuclear warheads are used by operational ballistic missiles on ships, submarines and aircraft – and these weapon platforms are all active in the Asia and Pacific regions.
The US conducts regular military training at the Australian Department of Defence’s Joint Combined Training Centre which is a major training ground for the US military operating in or through the north-west Pacific. Given that the US is a nuclear force with a large portion of its forces using nuclear powered and/or nuclear weapons capable aircraft and ocean
70 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 1998. Nuclear Files. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website. www.nuclearfiles.org Accessed 21 April 2007. 71 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. 1998. Nuclear Files. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website. www.nuclearfiles.org Accessed 21 April 2007. 72 Federation of American Scientists. 2006. Britain’s Next Nuclear Era. Strategic Security Blog, December 7. Federation of American Scientists Website. www.fas.org Accessed 12 December 2006)
54 vessels, there is a high probability that at least some of the weapons platforms involved in the Talisman Sabre training will be nuclear capable. This is not to suggest that nuclear warheads are used at Shoalwater – they are not – but it does suggest that there is a high likelihood that Shoalwater Bay will be used for training US troops in the use of nuclear weapons in the battlefield.
Conclusion
This paper has placed Shoalwater Bay and its role in the Talisman Sabre exercises firmly into the increasing militarisation of the north-west Pacific. By engaging in shared military exercises with the US, Australia has become an active partner in the reorganisation and increase of US forces across the region – a force which is predominantly, and thus alarmingly, nuclear. A core provider of training facilities for the US forces and the testing of their weapon-delivery platforms (including but not limited to air craft and ocean vessels), Australia is implicated and complicit in the US preparation for war.
Australia’s willingness to host US military exercises (even if under our own banner) sanctions and enables the increasing militarisation of the lands and waters of our northern neighbours, particularly Guam. The military build-up on Guam is concurrent with the development of the Joint Combined Training Centre at Shoalwater and with the increasing array of co-joined exercises deemed to develop Australian-US operability of troops and weapons systems. Indeed, Talisman Sabre and other exercises are a vital aspect of the Guam build-up: the US troops need training and Australia provides that avenue. With the US progressively shifting its permanent bases to what it claims as its own soil (Guam, Hawaii, Alaska) Australia has become just one more “lily-pad” in the Pentagon’s collection throughout Asia and the Pacific.
With militarisation comes the threat of extensive environmental damage, the violation of human and political rights, violence against women and children, over-taxing on limited social and physical infrastructure particularly in communities where poverty is already too common, the destruction of habits for endangered species and the diminishing of wilderness areas, toxic and radioactive contamination, challenges to health and well-being including rising levels of cancers particularly among children, and the eradication of whole ways of life particularly among Indigenous peoples. The list goes on. In every location where militarism occurs the risks are real, and it is women and children who pay the highest price.
Through its partnership with the US, Australia has tied itself inextricably to the military expansion in Guam, and through Guam to similar developments in Japan (including Okinawa), South Korea, the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska and the US continent. This connection is made most explicit in the formal agreement between Australia and the US which instigated the Joint Combined Training Centre of which the Shoalwater Bay Training Area and the Talisman Sabre exercises are a part. The Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Australia specifically refers to the need for the planes, ships and submarines based in Guam, or rotated to Guam from the Hawaii or the US continent, to have access to training facilities which only Australia can provide.
Talisman Sabre implicates Australia in the increasing militarisation in the north-west Pacific, particularly of Guam. If Guam is the “tip of the spear” then Australia’s role is to prepare the hand that throws the spear. Australian citizens must ask whether they are willing to acquiesce to that enforced role.
55 ------This paper is based on a public talk given by Dr Zohl dé Ishtar hosted by Shoalwater Wilderness Awareness Group at the Keppel Bay Sailing Club, Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia on 19 April 2007. It is presented here in recognition and honouring of the Indigenous Chamoru peoples of Guåhan (Guam) in the belief that the day will come when they will regain political control over their ancestral and spiritual homelands and waters. © Zohl dé Ishtar, 2007. This article may be copied in full or part for purposes of educating the public as long as the source is cited in full. as the source is cited in full.
56
The Republic of India
56 India: The Environment and Military Policy and Strategy
Chet Narayan Pathak Dy. General Manager (Quality & Environment), Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd. Garhwa Road,P.O. Rehla - 822124, Dist. Palamau, Jharkhand (India). Tel No. 91- 6584-262221/488/211 FAX No. 91- 6584-262205, E-mail : [email protected]
Due to growing worldwide awareness and feeling about the health and vitality of the environment compels us to think about the very strong relationship amongst physical, societal, environmental and national security. At present the whole world is finding them in the valley of death if proper care for protecting the environment is not taken on top priority basis.
The present suggestions for framing Indian Military policy are:
1. Consider the environmental consequences of war in the strategic planning for force deployment.
2. Consider to include the least environmental affecting strategy in all force activities including those at the time of war and post war to heal the environmental losses.
3. Include the losses in air, water, solid waste, sound, forest, soil binding plants, birds, animals, all creatures and land and top priority should be given.
4. Very heavy penalty for destroying the whole environment including flora and fauna should be imposed on those countries utilizing the weapons and destroying them. For estimating the losses a team of top Environmentalist at each regional level must be set by UNEP to assess the losses and that assessment must be accepted to each country.
5. Uses of Nuclear, Biological and chemical weapons must be fully banned and taken under the custody of a high level scientist team under UNO who will try to find out the possibility of its utilization.
6. Treaties, Conventions and International agreements should serve to provide a strong foundation to guarantee ethical environmental actions during war as well as after war. 7. Comprehensive principles, policies and strategies related to Military activities should be frame which must include: Political, Strategic, Economic, Societal and Ethical.
57
The Republic of the Philippines
58 "Philippines: A CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental norms by Military Establishments" by Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE)
ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Name of Organization: Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) Office Address: 26 Matulungin Street, Barangay Central, Quezon City, Philippines 1101 Email Address: [email protected] Phone number: 9209099, 924-8756 (telefax) Contact Person: Mr. Clemente Bautista, Jr., National Coordinator Contact Number: +63922.844.9787 Website: www.kalikasan.org
Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE) is a Philippine-based network of non- government organizations (NGOs), grassroots organizations, and environmental advocates. Kalikasan is the Tagalog (the national language of the Philippines) term for 'nature'.
Acting as a nationwide campaign center on a broad spectrum of environmental concerns since its founding on November 25, 1997, Kalikasan PNE places primacy on addressing environmental issues from the perspective of advancing the welfare of the grassroots-level populace foremost. Kalikasan PNE believes that the struggle for the environment is the struggle for the people's welfare, and frames its campaigns, advocacy, education, and international network initiatives accordingly. Currently, one of our major advocacies is the campaign against mining liberalization and projects of transnational corporations (TNCs) in the Philippine mining sector. Since 1999, Kalikasan PNE has played a direct role in campaigns against large-scale TNC mining projects by Canada's Placer Dome-Marcopper (Marinduque), Australia's Lafayette Mining Limited (Rapu-Rapu island, Albay), Philex and Maricalum Mining (Negros Island), Xstrata Mining Project (South Cotabato), and Oxiana and Oceana Gold (Nueva Vizcaya), to name a few. At the national level, our mining campaign aims to strengthen national and local opposition to the existing mining liberalization policy of the Philippine Government, particularly working for a repeal of Republic Act 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and a halt to the Mining Revitalization Program of the Arroyo administration.
Comments pertaining to section (a) on 'A national environmental policy for the military/defense sector';
A. The ongoing practice of state-sanctioned military and police deployments in areas with private mining interests should be questioned and discontinued. More mining projects and military deployments in mining-affected areas, particularly in Mindanao, yield even more negative impacts on the Philippine's tarnished and spotty human and civil rights record.
59 Among our observations is the worsening human/civil rights situation in light of the Philippine government's renewed drive to "develop" the mining industry through a policy of liberalization and entry of foreign mining investments and projects supported by state security in the form of increased military or police deployments.
Nearly half a million hectares of land have been approved for large scale mining operations by foreign mining companies and their local counterparts since the implementation of the Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) and the passage of the Minerals Action Plan (MAP) under Pres. Arroyo's Executive Order 270. According to data from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Philippine government has approved approved 28 exploration permits (EPs) covering a total of 89,828.76 hectares of land nationwide (as of 04-20- 07), 229 Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) covering a total of 373,201 hectares and 2 Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs) covering 51,919 hectares of land nationwide (as of 10-30-06). Over 2,000 applications for mining permits are pending.
The presence of local military detachments and police checkpoints is observed in mining-affected areas, including Rapu-Rapu island (Lafayette Mining) in Albay, Masbate island (Filminera), Marinduque island (Marcopper), Zamboanga del Norte (TVI), South Cotabato (XStrata), Mt. Diwalwal, Palawan (Rio Tuba), Mindoro Oriental (Crew Minerals), Nueva Vizcaya (Climax Arimco/Oxiana), Abra, Batangas, Zambales, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur.
The Arroyo administration has identified 24 Priority Mining Projects of Philippine government which encompass a total of 176,000 hectares, mostly in the Cordillera Region, Southern Mindanao Region and Caraga Region. In addition to private security personnel and para-military forces, military and police deployments have been observed in these Priority Mining sites, notably the Tampakan Copper Project (31,600 has.) in South Cotabato, Amacan Copper Project (27,058 has) in Compostela Valley, Nonoc Nickel Project (25,000 has) in Surigao del Norte, Rapu-Rapu island in Albay, Didipio Copper Project (21,465 has.) in Nueva Vizcaya, and Pujada Nickel Project (11,799 has) in Davao Oriental.
This trend is alarming since mining-affected communities are increasingly vulnerable to human and civil rights violations by state and private armed security forces.
Of the 886 victims of extrajudicial killings documented by Philippine human rights organization KARAPATAN from January l 2001 to July 2007, Kalikasan PNE identified 17 victims as being active in local campaigns against mining projects in their respective communities.
There is also the issue of displacement caused by military operations in mining areas. Since November 1, 2007, massive and mining-related military operations in the hinterland villages of Surigao Del Sur have displaced more than 1,500 Manobo lumads and 12 lumad communities. Educational activities in the area have grinded to a halt. The military operations were reportedly intended to protect mining explorations and Chinese-owned mining corporations around the AndapValley Complex, the second largest coal deposit in the country. Lumad and peasant communities from the the municipalities of Tago, Cagwait, Marihatag, San Agustin, Lianga and
60 San Miguel, as well as Church groups, non-government organizations, and civic sectors are actively opposing the mining operations.
The rise in incidence of HRVs related to mining and military operations has been affirmed by independent observers and the Philippine Catholic Church hierarchy.
In 1998, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), the official organization of the Filipino Catholic episcopacy, issued a statement of concern on the Mining Act of 1995, stating that the "adverse social impact on the affected communities will far outweigh the gains promised by mining" and that "the implementation of the Mining Act will certainly destroy both the environment and people and lead to national unrest ". On 29 January 2006, when the CBCP released a second official Statement on Mining Concerns affirming that an "increasing number of mining affected communities, Christians and non-Christians alike, are subjected to human rights violations and economic deprivations."
In July 2006, Clare Short MP, House of Commons and former UK Secretary of State for Overseas Development, visited the Philippines and led a fact-finding team (FFT) to assess reports of corruption, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation associated with planned and current mining operations. The report issued by the FFT identified human rights and "militarized commerce" among its areas of concern. "Mining in these conflict areas has led to significant increases in militarization and an associated escalation of human rights abuses,", the FFT report noted. "The global trend of increasing human rights violations associated with mining security and militarization is evident in the Philippines," the report observed.
It also cited the observations of Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen during a country visit in 2003 that the "militarization of indigenous areas is a grave human rights problem".
B. The Philippine government's continuous accomodation of foreign military bases and/or joint military exercises with foreign troops, particularly from the United States, has resulted in environmental degradation, negative health impacts for the community, and violations of Constitutional rights on protection of ecological resources.
US military bases have been in operation in the Philippines since the first decade of the 20th century when the Philippines came under direct colonial rule of the US. During World War II, these military bases in the Philippines were among the major outposts of the US in the Asia-Pacific region. The bases remained under US management until 1991, when. the Military Bases Agreement expired and the Philippine Senate responded to widespread calls by most sectors of society to reject the proposal to renew it.
The US base facilities have been liable for toxic waste contamination. The documentation of toxic waste contamination in the former US military bases in the Philippines has begun at around the time of the base pull
61 out in 1991. Studies focused on the Clark Air Base in Pampanga and the Subic Naval Base in Zambales, these being the largest of such installations in the Asia Pacific region. Numerous reports and studies, and countless first-hand accounts from the affected people and concerned experts, organizations, even legislators, have attested to the presence of toxic and hazardous wastes from the former U.S. military base in Clark Field.
Subic Naval Base, which housed storage facilities for oil, ammunitions and explosives, used to cover 14,800 hectares of land area, with 11,000 hectares located along the coast of Subic Bay. The various operations in the naval base produced different contaminants such as toxic solvents and ammunition wastes, resulting in adverse health ailments among Filipinos exposed to these contaminants.
An example of this would be the fact that 1,000 former workers at the Subic Naval Base Ship Repair Facility have been suffering from asbestosis. This disease is associated with lung cancers and increased susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis. It is caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. When asbestos was definitively linked to lung cancer in the 1960s, its use as insulator was discontinued. However, in the Subic Naval Base, its use was still continued. Asbestos insulators were only later replaced. Workers were not informed of this occupational hazard.
The Clark Field Air Base, which covered more than 50,000 hectares, was the site of various military exercises and staging point of strategic airlifts of the US military in the region. Reports in the area noted the release of hazardous wastes such as solvents and PCBs. The latter were once used in transformers in the base areas. PCBs are also known as persistent organic pollutants. They persist in the soil and may contaminate groundwater and concentrate in the food chain. They are suspected human carcinogens, causing tumors and cancers in experimental animals.
The U.S. military deliberately violated both local and international standards on environmental protocols. In as early as 1992, no less than the U.S. General Accounting Office in its report-- Military Bases Closure: US Financial Obligation to the Philippines, accounted for the storage tanks and fire-fighting training facilities that do not comply with US Standards, emitting untreated pollutants in the air, heavy metals directly drained in the bay or buried in the landfill, and toxic chemicals that directly go into the soil and water table. In 1997, Weston International Consulting Firm, in its Environmental Baseline Study and Soil and Water Baseline Study at Clark, revealed that there are eight (8) sites within Clark that are contaminated with either or a combination of oil and petroleum lubricants, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and lead, and that there are some water production wells that registered levels of arsenic and dieldrin above the Philippine National Standard.
The surmounting evidences of deleterious wastes left by the U.S. military should have seriously alarmed the Philippine government and prompted it to take immediate action to have the US Government rehabilitate and compensate the base areas at the onset. The non-containment of the toxic materials in the vicinity of Clark and other U.S. military bases has put the neighboring people and the affected environment in a very catastrophic situation.
62
The number of deaths and incidence of severe illnesses among the people residing in the vicinity of Clark Field, has proven that the toxic and hazardous wastes are continuously damaging the environment and the people. The non-compliance of the U.S. government in its own U.S. environmental policy through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, has placed the affected Filipino people to a severe life-threatening situation, the Philippine soil, air and water to a state of environmental desolation, and the U.S. government to a greater liability of cleaning-up the toxics, rehabilitating the damaged environment and indemnifying all victims.
Nothing, however, has been done to remedy this. The known victims of toxic and hazardous wastes were not immediately treated and given proper medical attention. The Philippine government has to date failed to secure just compensation, clean-up and rehabilitation from the U.S. government.
This historical records by the US military of toxic waste contamination in Philippine military facilities furthermore violates provisions in the Philippine Constitution guaranteeing a balanced and healthful ecology under Section 16, Article II (“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”). It also runs counter to Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration On The Human Environment affirms both the sovereign right of states to exploit their own resources “pursuant to their own environmental policies” and their responsibility “to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
Despite such experiences with toxic waste contamination found in US military bases, the Philippine government has continued to accommodate US military troops in the country after the bases pull-out through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
The VFA is a bilateral agreement between the governments of the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America which allows U.S. military forces to conduct joint exercises and other military activities within the Philippines. It gives U.S. military and civilian personnel unhampered access to Philippine territory, including the enjoyment of special rights and privileges. There will be minimal restrictions on the entry and exit of U.S. ships and aircraft. Philippine authorities cannot inspect U.S. ships and facilities even for quarantine purposes. U.S. civilian and military personnel covered by the VFA are exempted from passport and visa requirements, driving permits and vehicle registration. They will have access to at least 22 Phil. ports as well as airstrips and other landing facilities. The GRP practically surrenders its jurisdiction over crimes committed by American personnel in the Philippines. The free and unhampered access to Phil. territory that the VFA gives to U.S. military and civilian, plus their extra special rights and privileges have the effects of again making the Philippines one big U.S. military facility, with no assurance of environmental safety nor justice.
63 PHILIPPINE REPORT ON THE CONTAMINATION OF FORMER U.S. MILITARY BASES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Prepared by Myrla Baldonado, President, Alliance for Bases Clean-up, Executive Director,
People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up
The toxic legacy of the former U.S. military bases in the Philippines takes heavy toll on people and environment. Prior to their closure in 1992, the Clark Air Force Base and Subic Naval Base served as the most valuable overseas military facilities of the U.S. for intervention on the Asia Pacific and the Middle East. Leaving behind contaminated sites within 185,709 combined acres of land and water reservations of aforesaid U.S. bases without the benefit of clean, now translates to environmental damage and cases of toxic-related illness affecting communities, most specially children.
Despite the non-provision by the U.S. Department of Defense, in violation of its own guidance, of the complete copies of reports on the environmental status of Clark and Subic to the Philippine government, there is a preponderance of evidence that the former bases are severely contaminated and would have warranted a comprehensive investigation and clean-up if they were situated in the U.S.
Contamination is acknowledged by both the U.S. and the Philippine governments ini documents such as the U.S. General Accounting Office Report of 1992, which has “identified contaminated sites and facilities that would not be in compliance with U.S. environmental standards” with an approximate clean-up cost of Superfund proportions, the incomplete U.S. Department of Defense’s Drawdown reports that confirmed several known contaminated sites in both Clark and Subic. (Bloom Report); the studies by U.S. consulting firms commissioned by the Philippine government that raised serious concern on ground water at Clark due to the soil testing that yielding positive results for many contaminants at high levels (Weston) and the imminent endangerment to human health and environment at Subic (Woodward Clyde/Clearwater Revival Co.), the Philippine Department of Health’s finding on high levels of lead in the blood of children and pregnant women from evacuation areas at the former Clark motor pool CABCOM, and the Philippine Commission on Human Rights’ finding unusual concentration of children afflicted with cerebral palsy, congenital heart diseases, and deformities which are not common occurrences in similar poverty-stricken communities in the Philippines.
Moreover, in 1996 by Ret. Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr., a former commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Midway and Pacific Task Force admitted that industrial waste from ship repair and maintenance in the former Subic Naval Base were flushed into the ground and into the bay and that in the rush to meet requirements in waging wars, environmental issues were completely ignored.
Likewise, an independent study by Dr. Rosalie Bertell of the Canada-based International Institute of Public Health, conducted in 1998 by a health survey found an association between elevated cases of reproductive, kidney and nervous system disorders in several communities and identified contaminated sites in Clark.
64 Recently, a study conducted by the Philippine Environmental Management Bureau reported that three major rivers inside the former U.S. Subic Naval Base are polluted with high levels of chromium hexavalent or chromium 6 that could cause respiratory problems, infertility and various types of tumors. Chromium 6 was widely used in the former base operations. The rivers are a major source of water for residents in both the nearby city and the former base.
Another health study by the Philippine Department of Health released in August 2004, showed that in a random sampling, 47 out of 97 people who used to live in CABCOM, a former U.S. motor pool in Clark, have been found with high levels of arsenic and lead in their blood confirming earlier findings. Such findings are indicative of the health situation of 35,000 families dislocated by the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption who were evacuated in CABCOM.
In addition to this, from initial studies, the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up, identified 26 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) contaminated sites in Clark and Subic that would continue to damage the environment, people and wildlife, many decades after the closure of the bases. POPs are sinister type chemicals with persistent, bio-accumulative and global spread characteristics that are now the subject of banning and elimination under the Stockholm Convention, a treaty that had been negotiated and for implementation under the purview of UNEP
The NGOs led by the People’s Task Force for Bases Clean-up successfully lobbied for the ratification of the Stockholm Convention and inclusion of the POPs contamination in the former bases in the Philippine country program to see to the elimination of these chemicals under the Stockholm Convention on POPs within the purview of UNEP. These include pcb’s, aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobenze and DDT in alarming levels.
In the course of the ABC International’s global campaign, Her Royal Highness Princess Caroline as president of AMADE Mondiale (World Association of Children’s Friends), on October 26, 2004, visited 500 children in Clark and Subic whose illnesses had been linked to the toxic wastes left in the former U.S. bases. The Princess of Hanover had personally appealed in 2002 to U.S. President George W. Bush “to expedite necessary countermeasures to redress this critical and life-threatening situation and provide much-needed humanitarian aid and compensation to the victims and their families.” But the U.S. President’s subordinate simply informed Princess Caroline of the U.S. position denying responsibility without any other legal obligations to meet. In her final remarks during said visit, Princess Caroline thus stressed that “No child’s life should be needlessly riddled with pain and liabilities. No parents deserve to experience the un-natural experience of outliving their children. And no government should be allowed to ignore the situation by mere expedient of invoking legal but not necessarily moral justifications.”
Fifteen years after the U.S. withdrawal from its military bases in the Philippines, the former base workers and people residing near the contaminated sites who are affected by toxic waste, majority of whom live way below the poverty line, continue to fall victims to new burdens of deaths and illnesses and of paying high cost of diagnosis and medical expenditures. No new studies on the status of the contamination has been done amidst the aggressive re-development of the former bases as major tourist destination and into full swing industrial use without the benefit of clean-up. Exposure of construction workers, management and employees to the toxics continue to happen.
The Philippine government lacks the technical capacity, funds, expertise and the political will to determine the full scale and extent of contamination and its effects on the health and lives of its people and the environment. Even the Philippine Senate’s formation of the Philippine Task Force on Hazardous Waste in Former US Installations led by the Departments
65 of Environment and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs , and Health failed to respond due to a lack of political will on the part of Philippine executive leaders to fund it. And now, with Philippine leaders trying to keep US military aid appease the U.S. government negotiations for U.S. clean-up and assistance have stopped with no prospect of resuming.
The U.S. government maintains that the U.S.-Philippine Military Bases Agreement does not provide for clean-up responsibility despite the context that such treaty was entered into prior to the advent of environmental awareness among governments. The position that the U.S. could not act without a clause on U.S. responsibility in said agreement was belied by the fact that the U.S. provided clean-up fund for Canada and other major allies in Europe and Asia whose military agreements with the U.S. does not contain the same.
Finally, the U.S. government’s claim that the Philippines waived its right to a clean-up was rejected by a Senate Joint Committee declaring that: “Nothing in the agreement and amendments thereto authorized the U.S. to unduly pollute the territorial waters with contaminants, destroy the environment by dumping toxic wastes within the bases, and endanger lives of residents in the vicinity.”
Such denial of responsibility is contrary to customary and international law with respect to the care and diligence required of States in preventing environmental damage required of the U.S. as the state exercising authority over the former bases as well as seriously disregards Principle 1 of the Stockholm Convention which established the foundation linking human rights and environmental protection.
66
The Republic of Korea
67 Republic of Korea : CSO for the Asian-Pacific regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments" by Green Korea United
Green Korea United ( www.greenkorea.org/english/ ) #113-34 Seongbuk-2dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Korea 136-821 Tel : ++82-2-747-8500 / Fax :++ 82-2-766-4180 Contact Person : Ji-Seon Koh (Coordinator, [email protected])
1. Introduction
Since the Korean War the military has occupied a large proportion of Korean society. The military dictatorship was in power until
the early 1990s so it was difficult to bring up the issue of the military in Korea. Thus the environment problem involved with the military activity existed before 1990s but it could not be informed as a social issue.
The US Force, which consists of a large proportion of the defense of South Korea, has been stationed since 1953 and there are
35,000 troops stationed in Korea now. There have been problems involved with the environment and there have been difficulties in dealing with that issue because it is the issue of extraterritoriality. However the environmental problems of the US Army continuously became social issues and some attention has been turned to the environmental problems of the Korean Army.
2. General environment policy of the Ministry of Defense
The environment issue of the Korean troops is under the influence of the general environment law in Korea. There are some different
standards for the military facilities, but in most cases they are applied with the identical environmental law. The most serious
environment issue in Korea is the leakage of oil. There have been no sufficient oil management facilities compared to the large amount
of oil use. The most frequent problem involved with the oil is its waste and illegal dumping. Recently the separate collection policy and
the collection of the waste with local governments have been promoted. However a lot of money and effort is needed to find and
process the waste which has been illegally dumped. How to manage such an issue is an important key.
However there are no noise regulations for the noise generated at the military air base and the firing range. Military aircraft are excluded
from the influence of the general noise regulation so more than a million people are exposed to the noise of the military aircraft. The
68 Ministry of Defense has been promoting the legislation for the military air base noise but it has been delayed as it is expected to cost
more than 7 trillion won. The measure to reduce such damage is necessary.
The US Armed Forces in Korea are under the influence of SOFA but the terms of SOFA are ambiguous.
The US Armed Forces in Korea are connected to Korean law through SOFA, and it is also to comply with the overseas US Forces
environment policy and US law. Thus the Korean Government is required to supervise the US Force’s environment policy but it has not been properly done.
SOFA suggests the following.
1) The US Armed Forces in Korea are required to comply with the Korean environment law.
2) The Korean Government is required to examine the EGS of US Armed Forces in Korea periodically. However the US
Armed Forces in Korea only have the Korean environment law in mind rather than complying with it, so there is no force that
may control such an issue. There are two kinds of subordinate document of SOFA (Share of environment information and
approach process). They are; 1) the environment issue of the current base in use and 2) the environment issue of the base
which will be returned in the future.
If the internal accident of the US base in Korea may influence the external area of the base, it shall be informed to both Korean and the
US military organization within 48 hours, and the committee participated by the US Armed Forces in Korea, the Ministry of
Environment, Defense and the local governments is organized for the resolution of the accident. However the US Armed Forces in
Korea have shown passive attitude against establishing such a committee and it takes a significant length of time to investigate and
negotiate the outcome of an accident, even if agreed to form such a committee. There is a restriction to enter the base and the US Armed
Forces in Korea do not agree that there is a source of contamination in their base.
For the returned base of the US Armed Forces in Korea, the US Armed Forces in Korea shall remediate in case of Known, Imminent
and Substantial Endangerment to human health. The joint investigation of the Ministry of Environment and the US Armed Forces in
Korea has found the contamination, which exceeds the acceptable level suggested by the Korean Environment law, in 27 US bases out
of 29. However the US Armed Forces in Korea have argued that such contamination is not included in KISE, and the base has been
69 returned to Korea without any necessary purification of the contamination. The resolution of such a problem may only rely on the political negotiation between Korea and the US Government since there is no detailed standard established for KISE.
3. Case of the military environment issue in Korea
Case 1. USFK Bombing Site at Maehayngri
Maehayngri villagers are still fighting against USFK and Lockheed Martin. Continual bombing trainings have taken place there for longer than a half century and have claimed eleven lives. Maehayngri villagers are thus being killed and made sick, while their source of livelihood is being destroyed. GKU discovered that 5.37 mg/kg of arsenic, 13 times the Korean soil average, was found in the bombing range. Also, cadmium was found to be 37 times higher than average, while copper was 13 times higher and lead 145 times higher than average. It goes without saying that the land of Maehayngri is highly contaminated with heavy metals.
Case 2. Formaldehyde Leakage Accident into the Han River
Mr. McFarland, who was found to have ordered a subordinate to pour 480 bottles of formaldehyde into the Han River, was later promoted. He is still working in a mortuary building and to this day deals with formaldehyde in Yongsan Eighth U.S Army Base. GKU proposed a claim for damages to Korean people, but the U.S. Army announced they will not give up criminal jurisdiction since the accident happened during official duty. Under the current SOFA there is nothing that we can do about this kind of environmental disaster.
Case 3.The return of contaminated land
According to Korea and USA agreement of LPP(Land Partnership Plan) in 2004, about 60 U.S. military bases(including fire and bombing range) in Korea will be return to Korean government by 2011. The US military bases have been "untouchable" area both by US law and Korean law. Since 2005, 24 bases returned without cleanup. It breaks the Principle of Polluters Pays. A South Korean government found at least 26 sites were polluted beyond its environmental standards. The soil’s lead and petrochemical levels at those sites would far exceed South Korean and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency safety standards. It is expected to be 120 million dollars for remediation of 24 bases, will increase including the cost of remediation for underground water.
70 Case 4. The noise problem by aircraft There is no regulation on noise by aircraft. Even students near military airbase are suffering from noise. GKU filed lawsuit with residents in Gusan airbase and won the compensation in 2002.
Case 5. Threaten by military training
In 2007, GKU conducted the field work on threaten by military training. Most of the villages near the military training site have the environmental problem such noise, soil contamination, water contamination. Some people in the villages are suffering mental problem.
4. The effort of the Ministry of Defense
The Ministry of Defense realized the seriousness of the military environment management about five years ago and it has been
establishing the measure for such issue. It is now allocating a lot of its budget on the process of the military waste, which had been landfilled in the past.
The Ministry of Defense is facing a serious environment problem. There have been a lot of complaints to the Ministry of Defense as the safety and lives of local people have been threatened, and it has disturbed the right of the environment. However it has not established a sufficient measure to resolve such complaints, and such complaints has not been informed to the military bases in
Korea. There are cases of the environment problem between the military bases and local people as the base has not resolved such problems. In December last year, local residents of Wonpyeong firing range, located in the north of Gyeonggi-do, complained about vibration and noise and they even disturbed the military troops entering the firing range.
The effort for the areas such as the military aircraft and firing range noise, where there are no legal restrictions, is not enough. The cooperation from the Ministry of Environment and other relevant departments is needed. The Ministry of Environment and Defense
71 has formed a committee to resolve such issues since 2004, but they mainly focus on the environment issue of the US Armed Forces in Korea.
To resolve the environmental issues of the US Armed Forces in Korea, the Korean Government is required to request the revision of the environment regulation of the US Armed Forces positioned overseas as well as the revision of SOFA. The active negotiation between the Korean Ministry of Defense and the US Government is necessary to make ‘the Principle of Polluters Pays’ come true in Korea..
****************
This is a response from Mr. Kim of Green Korea United. For further information, contact Mr. Kim at [email protected].
(d) Assessments of the damage as well as the need for and feasibility of the clean-up and restoration of areas where damage to the environment has been caused by military activities.
Unique ecosystem of the DMZ under threat due to the wastewater from the Gaeseong Industrial Complex
For Immediate Release 07.27. 2007 Contact Ms. Soyoung You
- No environmental effect evaluation step included in the process of developing a large-scale industrial complex. - New regulation allows BOD of 30mg/l on the clear water with BOD 0.1mg/l
Gaeseong Industrial Complex, a symbol of reconciliation between the two Koreas, is projected to seriously contaminate the ecosystem of the DMZ as well as Sacheon and Imjin River. After analyzing the ‘Gaeseong Industrial Complex environmental protection plan,’ (co-written by Korea Land Corporation and Hyundai Asan corp.) and ‘Gaeseong Industrial Complex waster water plan report,’ Green Korea United (GKU) concluded that the currently installed terminal wastewater treatment facilities are not capable of purifying indissoluble and other heavy metal contaminants.
In addition, the BOD standard that has been suggested as the discharge standard is set at least 30 times higher than the current Sacheon water quality, which would lead to unavoidable contamination of the wetlands of the western part of the DMZ, Sacheon, Imjin River and the estuary of the Han River, the only region in South Korea where nature is
72 preserved as it is due to the region’s inaccessibility rising from political situation. Gaeseong Industrial Complex, the two Koreas’ joint project, plans to develop heavy and chemical industrial and industrial engineering complex of area 65.7km2 and population half a million and the first construction stage of area 3.28km2 is in progress currently.
Large scale development planunder progress without environmental effect evaluation. Because of thespecial status of the South and North Economic Cooperation in Korea, a large scale development is currently in progress without the pre-construction environmental examination and environmental effect evaluation procedures to minimize the project’s environmental impacts. This is due to the virtual absence of legislative and institutional regulations regarding the environmental impacts of the South-North Economic Cooperation in Korea.
Current terminal wastewater treatment facilities incapable of purifying wastewater’s heavy metal and indissoluble materials.
One of the most prominent aspects of Gaeseong Industrial Complex’s environmental problem is the degradation of water quality. A significant number of businesses involved such as fiber, dyeing and leather enterprises release excessive amount of contaminants. Wastewater from assembling metal products also contain toxic materials such as heavy metal and cyanogens. Although the first stage of Gaeseong Industrial Complex development plan’s terminal wastewater treatment facilities are scheduled to begin purifying 15,000 ton of wastewater from July, the treatment plans for wastewater from dyeing factories, leather and metal gilding industries have been excluded, which shifts the responsibility of purifying the metallic and indissoluble material on occupant businesses, as the Korea regulation states.
Nevertheless, it is not only difficult for incoming business enterprises that come to Gaeseong Industrial Complex for inexpensive production costs to spend enough funds for adequate treatment equipments, but the probability of their supplying funds for huge costs of transportation for chemicals released during the entire purifying process is also low. Thus, there is a high probability that metallic and indissoluble materials will be released after simple dilution, instead of being purified thoroughly.
Contamination of Sacheon Rive due to the wastewater treatment plant’s discharge quality and discharge quantity are self- evident.
The core problem of wastewater discharge lies on the quality standards of the discharged water and the quantity of the discharged water. Before the construction of the industrial complex, the water quality of Sacheon River where all the
73 discharged water flow into was between BOD 0.1~1.0mg/l, which has earned it the prime I a class under South Korea’s stream water quality standard.
However, the new wastewater treatment facilities’ discharge water quality standard that incoming businesses in charge of maintaining environmental quality proposed and the two Koreas agreed upon allows BOD of up to 30mg/l. Allowing discharge of 30mg/l of wastewater will lead to 30~300times of BOD contamination on pure Sacheon River. In addition, although the measured flux of Sacheon River, which is the only stream where wastewater can be discharged, is 2.3m3/sec, the inflowing discharge quantity from the wastewater treatment plant from the first stage of Gaeseong Industrial Complex is 0.35m3/sec, which constitutes 15% of Sacheon River’s total discharge quantity.
Because of such large amount and high concentration of discharged water, even the first stage of the development of Gaeseong Industrial Complex will have a serious impact on the streams, and the validity of the project regarding the entire 65.7km2 of Industrial Complex will need to be reexamined.
Damage done to the wetlands of the DMZ due to the wastewater from Gaeseong Industrial Complex inevitable. The water quality problem of Gaeseong Industrial Complex does not end with Sacheon River. The water system of Gaeseong Industrial Complex flows from Sambong Creek-Sacheon River-Imjin River- Han River estuary to Northern Kyunggi Bay. Regions around Sacheon River, which has been free from human interference for 54 years, is an international ecological treasure house which penetrates the DMZ’s western wetlands. In addition, Imjin River and Han River are water sources indispensable to Kyunggi Province and north-western regions of the Great Seoul Area. The heart of the problem lies at the fact that Sacheon River is the only stream that receives Gaeseong Industrial Complex’s discharged wastewater.
Thus, when pollutants are released from Gaeseong Industrial Complex, contamination of all water systems from Sacheon River, Imjin River through to northern Kyunggi Bay is inevitable. This means destruction of ecological systems in the western wetlands of the DMZ and will also influence the fishing industry around Kanghwa Island area. The seriousness of the problem arises from the fact that once polluted, the recovery of the DMZ, Imjin River and the joint waters of the northern Kyunggi bay is impossible due to the anti-personnel mine problems and political sensitivity.
The government’s ambiguous stance towards the DMZ. Conservation of the DMZ is in international interest, as the DMZ is the only wetlands in the world’s temperate region that developed for half a century free from human interference. Former President Daejoong Kim and President Roh also
74 valued the DMZ’s unique and rich ecosystem and suggested a special kind of conservation policies to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry has already declared the DMZ as ‘natural reservation area’ under the Natural Environment Conservation Act and Kangwon Province and Kyunggi Province are already publicizing and commercializing the DMZ area.
Nevertheless, closer examination of the actual conservation activities around the DMZ and the Civilian Passage Restriction Line reveals that although the DMZ ‘s western wetlands of international worth is facing a threat of destruction, Ministry of Environment, which holds the primary responsibility and Ministry of National Unification, which is leading the conservation projects, have remained indifferent towards the situation. Neglecting these current pollution problems has high potential of inciting further social controversy in the future and this will have a negative influence on the South and North Cooperation.
Gaeseong Industrial Complex should prioritize ecological conservation of the DMZ and the Korean peninsula. -Gaeseong Industrial Complex currently uses the emission allowance standards of the environmental protection plan that enterprise partners Hyundai Asan corp. and Korea Land Corporation drafted and the two Koreas agreed upon. Under the abnormal operating system where the environmental overseer accepts the proposed standards of the business enterprises that should be the subjects of environmental regulations, the conservational value of the DMZ is not being considered at all. In order to conserve the DMZ and minimize environmental pollution, GKU sees following implantation as being necessary:
-Development of strict standards for the water quality of the discharged water from the terminal wastewater treatment facilities. -Governmental aid for the operating and maintenance costs of the purifying processes and the smooth operation of wastewater treatment facilities -Execution of environmental effect evaluation of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex and Sacheon River region that exceeds or is equal to domestic standards. -Development of a detailed plan for long term monitoring of the contaminant releases from the incoming businesses.
In the long term, the government and business enterprises should block environmental degradation arising from economic developments that disregard the environmental impacts and minimize the negative environmental degradation in North Korea. In conclusion, the government should adopt policies to conserve North Korea’s environment and to guarantee sustainable development of the two Koreas.
75
Japan
76
Environmental issues regarding US Marine Corps Futenma Air Station
Ginowan City Government, Okinawa Prefecture, JAPAN Military base liaison section, TEL 81-98-893-4411 (ext. 310) FAX 81-98-892-7022 Address:1-1-1 Nodake. Ginowan City, Okinawa, 901-2710, Japan Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.city.ginowan.okinawa.jp/
1. Noise Pollution Caused by MCAS Futenma’s Operations Because the United States Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma sits in the very center of the heavily populated Ginowan City, its citizens have long suffered from noise pollution resulting from military air operations including touch-and-gos, very low altitude flights and circular training flights. The Ginowan City Government has received residents’ complaints about unbearable aircraft noise and other disturbances caused by their operations. The City Government received 109 complaints in JFY 2005, 160 in JFY 2006, and 162 only for nine months in JFY 2007. Every time such a complaint is filed with the City, it makes a formal protest to the US Marine Corps on Okinawa and demands an immediate stop to these training flights over residential areas. There has been not a single response from the Marine Corps to the residents’ complaints so far.
14 (Wed.) September 2005 21:42, Futenma helicopters fly and generate excessive noises even after 9:00 p.m. these days. My one-year-old baby covers his eyes and ears with his tiny hands out of fear.Our everyday life is a torture. I?fm almost beside myself with anger.
4 (Fr.)November 2005 14:20 The Futenma aircraft noise is a torture. Why are jet planes and carriers flying every day? Our city is not within US military facility. The sky over the city is not their training space.
77 2. MCAS Futenma Master Plan Collecting military-related information is an effort the City Government has continued in order to resolve problems arising from Futenma operations. The City obtained and analyzed the MCAS Futenma Master Plan issued by Department of the Navy Pacific Division in June, 1992, and revealed serious problems.
The Master Plan indicates that the US military follows US safety standards, stating “Airfield clear zones have been established at MCAS Futenma on either side of the runway centerline, and beyond the ends of the runway, to preclude vertical obstructions for arriving and departing aircraft.” It disregards, however, the fact that Futenma Daini Elementary School and citizens’ houses are within the clear zones. According to the US standards, the clear zones must be clear, which is not the case at MCAS Futenma. The City strongly condemns the Marine Corps for presenting documentation loaded with falsified facts that give the appearance of operating within the US safety standards.
The City points out that these irregularities in the Master Plan clearly show that MCAS Futenma is deficient in meeting the air safety standards. Therefore the City strongly urges both US and Japanese Governments to close MCAS Futenma immediately to secure safety for the citizens of Ginowan.
78 3. US Marine Helicopter Crash at the Okinawa International University On August 13, 2004, a U.S. Marine large transportation helicopter, CH-53D, crashed into the head building of the Okinawa International University (OIU) and exploded into flames. The OIU is adjacent to MCAS Futenma. This crash caused enormous damage to the OIU and the surrounding community when debris and detached helicopter parts smashed into the neighborhood, eventually paralyzing the functions of the University. Although the three crew members were wounded, miraculously, there were no injuries to university students, employees and citizens only due to the fact that the University was on summer break and should it have occurred earlier, there certainly would have been more injuries and possibly fatalities. This was the worst helicopter accident involving the community since Okinawa’s reversion to Japan.
The Ginowan City Government strongly condemned the crash and made an official protest to both US and Japanese Governments and the US military. Even though this crash occurred outside of MCAS Futenma, the Marine Corps sealed off the crash site and refused Japanese Police, Ginowan Fire Department and the University to conduct an on-site investigation, which was most significant and a rightful action for the local authorities in order to secure safety for the public and to ease citizens’ anxiety. As a result of that, the City Government had to confront many difficulties in a recovery process from damage caused by the crash.
The Marine Corps claimed that their response was justifiable under the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement, but the Ginowan City Government, as well as many experts, believes that their conduct was a violation of the sovereignty of Japan and such a situation is abnormal and unacceptable. With no regard to residents’ anxiety, the Marine Corps soon resumed flights of the same type of helicopters, breaking the top commander’s promise to ground the CH-53Ds until they could find out the cause of the crash. This provides evidence the Marine Corps operates in a manner that shows no respect to citizens and it’s clearly violation of the spirit of cooperation that it should be nurturing in case of emergency.
79 4. Aircraft Emission and Noxious Smell Residents who live in the community adjacent to MCAS Futenma have long suffered from unbearable gas emissions and a noxious smell coming from Futenma aircraft. Especially in winter when wind blows from the north, damage from the emissions to Maehara and Ojana districts is very serious. Because the ground level of most areas surrounding Futenma base is lower than the base, after fixed-wing-aircraft, such as KC130s, or helicopters run their engines for adjustment for hours, gas emissions from the base long remain in the residential areas. Residents have filed complaints about the aircraft emissions with the City Government. For instance, a mother says that even though she shuts all windows of her house, gas emissions come inside of the house, which make her worry about her one- year-old son’s health: A lady expresses her concerns that the gas might have a harmful effect on her unborn baby. There are also many complaints about the unbearable and pungent smell of the gas.
80 Noise pollution and low frequent noise pollution around US Kadena Air Force Base By Okinawa Environmental Network Contact Information Affiliation or Organization: Okinawa Environmental Network Contact Person(s): Kaori Sunagawa Mailing Address: 401 Kumoji Apartment, 3-29-41 Kumoji, Naha, Okinawa, Country: Japan Zip code: 900-0015 Phone: +81-98-861-1101 Fax: +81-98-861-1101 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Website: http://homepage1.nifty.com/okikan/en
About our Organization • Introduction: Okinawa Environmental Network (OEN) is an Environmental NGO based in Okinawa, Japan. OEN was established in 1997 and has about 500 members in Japan.
• Purpose: "dealing with issues concerning environment and peace, and supporting activities for peace and environment in the Ryukyu archipelago" in Japan.
• Efforts to Inform the Public: OEN issues seasonal newsletters regarding environmental problems and activities in the Ryukyu archipelago.
• Public Action: OEN’s recent activities regarding military related environmental issues:
1. Workshops: OEN held workshops on “military activities and the environment” at the Civil Society Forum during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa and at the Asia Civil Society Forum in Bangkok, Thailand in 2002. OEN also sponsored the international workshops on military activities and the environment in Okinawa in 2003 and in South Korea in 2004. 2. Impact Studies: OEN conducted a study on low frequency noise pollution from aircraft around the US Marine Corps Futenma Air Station, Okinawa, Japan. 3. Feasibility Studies: OEN conducted a feasibility study on pubic participation in the process for solving the US military related environmental issues, using a case study about lead pollution at a former skeet range on a USMC base in Okinawa from 2002 to 2003.
81 Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
I. Military sector facilities or sites of concern Site: US Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan
I. Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size:
US Kadena Air base (1,990 ha) straddles Kadena Town (881ha), Okinawa City (744ha), and Chatan town (366ha) in Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture.1 This area is in the central part of Okinawa’s main island.
2. History:
In 1943, the Imperial Japanese Army started to construct this military facility. In 1944, the Imperial Japanese Army started to use the facility for an Air base. After the Imperial Japanese Army surrendered to the US military forces during WWII in 1945, US military forces occupied and enlarged this facility by confiscating neighboring properties. The US military officially controlled this facility after 1951 under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty. Since the US government granted the Japanese government administrative rights over Okinawa in 1972, the Japanese government has provided the US Air Force with Kadena Air Base, pursuant to Article VI of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.2
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [Please describe the source of military authority over the area or what enables them to cause the impact you are concerned about – for example, it there a treaty, a law, an agreement that you are aware of that gives or gave the military the right to operate in this area] Kadena town has restricted access to the land and use of its air space around Kadena Air base. Both governments can exclusively discuss the usage and the conditions that apply to activities at Kadena Air base. The affected community cannot join in the decision making process on the environmental matter regarding US military operation in their community.
1 Article VI of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty stipulates, “For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan.” Pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty, the Japanese government provides USFJ with 37 US military facilities with 23,678.4 ha of land area that encompasses 10.4 % of Okinawa Prefecture, the most southwestern prefecture of Japan. One of these 37 US facilities is US Kadena Air Base. 2 Officially called the “Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between Japan and the United States of America,” signed on January 19, 1960. See http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
82 (a). Authority over the Land: The Japanese government provides the US Air Force with Kadena Air Base, pursuant to Article VI of Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Under the Article III-1 of the US- Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the US Air Force has exclusive authority to control this facility.3
Art. II l. (a) of the US-Japan SOFA stipulates “Agreements as to specific facilities and areas shall be concluded by the two Governments through the Joint Committee provided for in Art. XXV of this Agreement.” Based on this provision, the Japanese government explains that “the main purposes and conditions to use each [US military] facility and areas are decided under this provision4.” In other words, the two governments can exclusively discuss about the purpose and conditions of Kadena Air base through the Joint Committee provided for in Art. XXV Art.1 of this Agreement.
(b). Authority over Air Space: Moreover, the (US) Kadena radar approach control (RAPCON)5 controls air traffic, in the airspace around Kadena Town, within a radius of 50 nautical miles (92.6km) and rising to an altitude of 20,000 feet (6,096m).
(c). Authority over Sea: A sea area (48 ha) is designated as a training area for Kadena Air base6.This sea area is also restricted for use by fishermen and the public.
3 Article III-1 of SOFA grants the USFJ exclusive authority to control the US military bases designated for US military exclusive use. Article III stipulates “Within the facilities and areas, the United States may take all the measures necessary for their establishment, operation, safeguarding and control.” Agreement Under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of U.S. Armed Forces in Japan, 19th January, 1960, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/usa/sfa/pdfs/fulltext.pdf 4 The 164 session of the National Diet of Japan, House of Representatives, Answer to No.21 question, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, 7th February 2006 (author’s translation)
5 Kadena radar approach control (RAPCON) also controls traffic in the area within a 30 nautical mile （55.56 ㎞）radius of Kume
Island, an island in Okinawa Prefecture to a height of 5000 feet (1,524m). 20 airspace (95415.73 km2) around Okinawa are also designated as US military training areas See Military Base Affairs Office Executive Office of the Governor Department of General Affairs, Okinawa Prefectural Government,
“US military bases in Okinawa” digital version (Tentative Translation)” 27 (2007), available on http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/kititaisaku/DP-02.pdf On Dec. 10th, 2004, the US- Japan Joint Committee agreed that the US military will provide Japanese staff with training in order to transfer the Kadena RAPCON to Japan. Both governments plan to transfer control three years after the training.
83
4. Mission and facilities “Kadena air base has a 300 m overrun and two runways. (Runway A: 3,689 m x 91 m and Runway B: 3,689 x 61 m). It is the largest and most active US Air Force base in the Far East and is home to the 18th Wing, a subordinate of the Fifth Air Force. The 18th Wing and other units perform such tasks as aircraft maintenance, air defense, air counterattacks, air transport, support, and reconnaissance.7”
5. Operation The US Air Force conducts about 70,000 training flights per year,8 Including nighttime, low- level flying, and touch-and-go training.
6. Relationship with the Community: People in Kadena Town bear a disproportionate burden from US military facilities where 82.9% of the town (1242 ha) is exclusively used for the US military bases, including Kadena Air Base (881ha), Kadena Ammunition Storage Area (348 ha), and Army POL Depots9(13ha). An estimated 13,811 citizens10 live in the remaining area, about 17.1% of the town’s land area (262
6 29 sea area zones (54,940.62km2) in/around Okinawa prefecture are designated as U.S. Forces training areas. See Military Base Affairs Office Executive Office of the Governor Department of General Affairs, Okinawa Prefectural Government,
“US military bases and Japanese Defense Forces bases in Okinawa”(statistic material)”[Japanese], p16 (2007), available on http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/14811/statistics2007.pdf
7 Kadena Air Base Okinawa, Japan, Available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/kadena.htm This site elaborates: “The 18th Operations Group is the main force of the 18th Wing. This group includes the Air Refueling Squadron, which comprises of the E-3B Sentry aircraft, the Airborne Warning and Control Squadron, which comprises of the KC-135R aircraft, and the 12th, 44th, and 67th Fighter Squadrons each of which comprise of eighteen F-15 Eagle jet fighters. This base consists of an airport in the northwest and a residential area in the southeast. There are support facilities in the residential district such as a school, library, baseball field, golf course, movie theater, and supermarket. In the southeastern area of the runways, there is an apron where various aircraft are stored including the F-15 Eagle, HH-60 helicopter, and the HC-130 rescue plane. In the northwestern area of the runways, which is on the same side as Yara district of Kadena town, the area is used for holding the Air Force's large aircraft and is where the Navy aircraft operations facilities are located. The area is used for engine testing and is also used to hold such aircraft as the KC-135 air refueling aircraft and the P-3C antisubmarine patrol aircraft. In addition, the E-3B airborne early warning and control aircraft is located here.” 8 According to research by Okinawa Prefectural Government 9 The total land area of Kadena town is 1,504ha. US military forces exclusively use 1,242 ha of that area. See Military Base Affairs Office, Executive Office of the Governor, Department of General Affairs, Okinawa Prefectual Government US military and Japanese defense forces bases in Okinawa [statistic materials] March 2005, p 9,12,14 [Author’s translation from the Japanese]. 10 The population is as for the end of June, 2007, See Population at Kadena Town
84 ha). After WWII, the military base occupied 85% of the land in Kadena Town, with the community forced to live in the remaining area. Schools, a community center, nursery school, and residential areas remain located within the clear zone or accident potential zone. For example, it is only 2408 feet from Yara primary school to the base runway. The land use around the Kadena Air base is far from compliance with safety standards effective in the US.11
II. Peacetime Concerns: Concern: Noise pollution and low frequent noise pollution around US Kadena Air Force Base
1. Quantify the overall impact Results of sound measurements taken in 2005 confirm complaints that flights cause excessive noise in local communities around Kadena Air Base. Overall, Okinawa prefectural government documented, among 16 observation sites, the average of the measurements exceeded the Japanese Noise Pollution Standard (70 WECPNL) at 10 sites through the year. At the most severely exposed observation site this excessive noise pollution occurred 39,054 times, including 3,926 noise pollution events detected during the nighttime through the year. The highest measurements resulted in 119.4 db of noise in a neighboring local community in October of 2005. 12
2. Scope of the Impact As many as 470,000 people, or 38% of Okinawa prefecture residents are affected by the noise pollution from US bases in Okinawa13. Low frequency noise pollution from US military flight training has also been reported.
(a) Human Health impact The noise pollution has caused difficulty hearing; sleep disorders, misbehavior at the local preschool, students find it difficult to memorize information, and mothers face high rates of low birth-weight infants.14
http://www.town.kadena.okinawa.jp/kurasi2/jinkou/jinkou.html
11 Information obtained in an email from the division of US military affairs of Kadena Town.
12 The result of aircraft noise measurements in 2005 (Kadena) [Japanese], available at http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/kankyouhozen/data/base/h17/pdf/17-8.pdf
13 The Research Study Committee of Aircraft Noise Influences to Health, Summary of the Second Interim Report of the Field Study on Public Health around U.S. Bases in Okinawa, March, 1998, available at http://www.jca.apc.org/HHK/Stat.Okinawa/PH9803E.html
85
(b) Environmental Impact The environmental impact has not been reported.
(c) Economic Impact One example of economic loss from this noise pollution is the compensation to local communities filing lawsuits,15 which has amounted to about 36 million US dollars. The value of real estate around the bases is also lower than its average in Okinawa, largely because of the noise pollution.
(d) Social Impact The noise pollution disturbs daily conservation, sleep, classes in schools, and has jammed TV/radio broadcast in the neighboring communities16.
III. Legality and Access to Justice
1. Access to Justice: Japanese Special Civil Law17 allows affected communities to file lawsuits seeking compensation for the damage. Under the US Foreign Claims Act, affected person may file a lawsuit, but it may be prohibitively difficult for plaintiffs to prove the correlation between noise pollution and the damage on the local communities.
2. Cases:
14 Department of Culture and Environmental Affairs Okinawa Prefectural Government, The Report on the Aircraft Noise as a Public Health Problems in Okinawa, p.101 March 1999 Available on http://www.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/igakubu/hygiene/okinawa/report-e.pdf 15 For the details, please refer to author’s answer to III. Legality and Access to Justice, 2. case. p. 7 of this sample answer 16 The Research Study Committee of Aircraft Noise Influences to Health, Summary of the Second Interim Report of the Field Study on Public Health around U.S. Bases in Okinawa, March, 1998, available on http://www.jca.apc.org/HHK/Stat.Okinawa/PH9803E.html 17 “The Act to Provide for the Special Civil Law pertaining to the Enforcement of the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan” Section of the Special Civil Law stipulates “Japanese government has liability to compensate the damage, when due to its defect (error) of installation and operation of a facility or other object within a territory (land) where the US military forces occupy, or own, or control, when it damage any person, (this error is attributed to Japanese government,) meaning that the Japanese government damage the person due to its defect (error) of installation and operation of a facility or other object within the land where it occupies, or owns, or controls”(author’s translation)
86 On May 22nd 1998, Fukuoka High Court of the Naha Branch held that the Japanese government violated section (2) of the Special Civil Law damaging plaintiffs who live in the neighboring community, by causing noise pollution through flight training. The court ordered that the Japanese government pay JPY 1,373,000,000 (US$ 11,807,800) to 867 plaintiffs. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction that would restrict flight training. Similarly, on March 27th 2000, the Naha District Court of the Okinawa Branch held that the Japanese government violated section (2) of the Special Civil Law, damaging plaintiffs who live in the neighboring community, by causing noise pollution through flight training. The court ordered that the Japanese government pay JPY 2,802,794,610 (US $24,104,034) to 3,881 plaintiffs. Like the court in the earlier case, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction that would restrict flight training.
3. Law: Japanese Special Civil Law provides some compensation from the Japanese government to Okinawan people affected by noise pollution.
Environmental Quality Standards for Aircraft: Standards for regulating the environmental conditions of aircraft have been established. The maintenance of the standards is desirable to preserve the living environment and to contribute to protecting people's health18. According to Article 16 of the Basic Law for Environmental Pollution Control, in 1988, surrounding regions around Kadena Air base are designated for noise pollution control19. Residential areas have a low standard for acceptable noise, while other areas have higher standards. The standard value of Area category I is 70 or less in WECPNL. Area category I refer to areas used exclusively for residential purposes. Standard value of Area category II is 75 or less in WECPNL. Area category II refers to other areas where the normal living conditions shall be preserved. The noise pollution measured around Kadena Air Station has not met this environmental standard.
18 See, Environmental Quality Standards for Aircraft Noise (Latest Amendment by Environment Agency Notification No. 91 of 1993), available on http://www.env.go.jp/en/air/noise/aircraft.html. 19 See Military Base Affairs Office Executive Office of the Governor Department of General Affairs, Okinawa Prefectural
Government, “US military bases in Okinawa” digital version [Japanese] p28 (2007), available on http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/kititaisaku/DP-02.pdf
87
The Law Concerning the Improvement of the Living Environment Around Defense Facilities. This law provides measures to improve the areas around defense facilities. These measures include: financial aid for soundproofing construction for schools, hospitals, residences, etc.; compensation for moving a building; purchasing land; development of green belts, etc20.
No US law appears to have been applied thus far, though the AICUZ program, if applied here could probably reduce the harm to the community.
4. Administrative Procedure Only the US-Japan Joint Committee can discuss the noise pollution issue stemming from flight training. There is no administrative procedure for local community and local government to address this issue.
IV. Measures and evaluation Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.21
Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate, or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
20 See Quality of the environment in Japan 1995. 6. Measures for Controlling Other Substances Contributing to Air Pollution, (4) Measures for aircraft noise around defense facilities, available at http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/1995/eae240000000055.html
21 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
88 1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: 2 [Please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each measure (ex. satisfied)]: [please express the reason for your rating]
Dissatisfied: As the Japanese Court opinion showed, operation of the Kadena Air Station has still violated the Japanese Special Civil Law, although the government made several policies to address noise pollution. Therefore, the US and Japanese governments’ measures are not enough to address this issue.
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: 1
Not satisfied at all: (a) The current policy does not consistently apply standards of Japanese law22 nor (b) Consistently apply US safety standards.
(a) Japanese standards
Environmental Quality Standards for Aircraft 23: The noise pollution measured around Kadena Air Station has not met this environmental standard.
The Law Concerning the Improvement of the Living Environment Around Defense Facilities24:
22 Professor Honma explains that court opinions feature ambiguously consistent and inconsistent applications of requirements because courts provide different reasoning for cases where plaintiffs sought n injunction, banning night maneuvers. Professor Honma points out ‘One forum reasoned, because “public safety” can be sustained by means of a premise of the national defense, the necessity of national defense should be given the highest and absolute priority over any other matter’ (the judgment on 9 April 1986 of the Tokyo High Court. Hanrei Jiho, Law Case reports) Supplement number No. 1192 (15 July 1986) He also points out ‘The other forum states that (although US military is of national interest,) the administration of the state can be made up as well as defense matters are only one of many aspects in the administration of the executive branches. The importance placed on matters of defense should not be unequal to that of any other field of administration, except during wartime. (the judgment on 15 July 1987 of the Tokyo High Court. Hanrei Jiho (Law Case reports) Supplement number No. 1245 (15 October 1987).
23 For a detailed description of this standard, please see author’s answer to III. Legality and Access to Justice, 3. Law. p 9 of this sample answer.
24 For a detailed description of this law, please see author’s answer to III. Legality and Access to Justice, 3. Law. p 10 of this sample answer
89 Although this law encourages compatible use between the US military training need’s and the local people’s quality of life, noise pollution issues are still unsolved.
Airworthiness Certification Procedures Civil Aeronautics Law ensures the safety of aircraft operations by providing operation standards (Chapter VI). The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Japanese Government carries out an aircraft worthiness certification program to ensure aircraft airworthiness and environmental protection, Certification will be granted only to aircraft conforming to the relevant technical standards. The use of aircraft having no airworthiness certification is prohibited. An airworthiness certification is granted following inspection of each aircraft after confirming that it conforms to technical standards regarding safety airworthiness, noise and engine emission25. Because of their mission, this certification procedure does not apply to US military airplanes as well as Japanese Defense Forces’ airplanes26.
Law Concerning Prevention of Disturbance Arising from Aircraft Noise, etc. around Public Aerodromes: Section 3 of this law stipulates that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Japanese Government can designate arrival and departure routes of the aircraft, their timing, aeronautical methods, etc., and notifies the public about these conditions to prevent the damage by noise pollution. Unlike public aerodromes, the law does not apply to US military air stations including Kadena Air Base27.
(b) US Standards Although Aircraft and military weapons are expressly exempted from the provisions of the Noise Control Act,28 the US military forces often employ some measures to mitigate noise pollution, such as those outlined in the AICUZ (Air Installation Compatible Use Zone) program.29
25 See, Civil Aeronautics Law, available on http://www5.cao.go.jp/otodb/english/houseido/hou/lh_06120.html Full Japanese text of Civil Aeronautics Law, available on http://www.houko.com/00/01/S27/231.HTM#s8 26 As for the measures against aircraft noise around the US military bases and Japanese Defense Forces’ bases, the Japanese government explains that due to their mission, there is the limitation to mitigate or reduce of noise from engine […]”, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, Annual Report on the Environment in Japan 2006, Chapter 2 Conservation of Air Quality, (4) Measures against Aircraft Noise [Japanese] Available on http://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/h18/html/kh0602020700.html#2_2_7_1 27 See, Section 3 of Law Concerning Prevention of Disturbance Arising from Aircraft Noise, etc. around Public Aerodromes [Japanese] available on http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S42/S42HO110.html
90 When the US and Japanese governments revised the Japan Environmental Governing Standards (JEGS) in 2001, the US Forces in Japan (USFJ) removed the noise pollution control section from the JEGS. The USFJ explained why they deleted the section, stating, “the Review Committee believed that the Service regulations and program guidance for Noise were adequate to ensure protection of human health and the environment at DoD installations overseas. 30” One of the Service regulations and program guidance documents addressing Noise is the AICUZ. But the Air Force AICUZ program has not applied to Kadena Air Station. Air Force Instruction 32-7063 states “Major command civil engineer, at their discretion, may apply the AICUZ program, in whole or part, to overseas instillations according to host country agreements or specific requests.31” Kadena Air Station does not meet the US safety standard for air station operations.32 If the Japanese government specially requests and the local government agrees to cooperate in zoning, local people near the US Air force base may face reduced air pollution.33 Until then, US and Japanese governments do not consistently apply civilian or even military standards to the military in Okinawa.
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: 2
Dissatisfied: Local municipal governments including the government of Kadena town, submitted a solicitation to the Japanese government to ask the US Air Force at Kadena Air Base to conclude the
28 The Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § §4901-4918 was enacted to “promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” EPA shall publish regulation for noise levels in various settings to achieve this goal. However, “Aircraft and military weapons” 42 U.S.C.A. § 4902(3) are expressly exempted from the provisions of the act. 29 DOD Instruction 4165.57 establishes the AICUZ (Air Installation Compatible Use Zone) program which is similar to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 program for civil airports. The purposes of the AICUZ program is: (1) to promote the public health and safety through the local adoption of compatible land use controls and (2) to protect the operational capability of the air installation.
30 2006 JEGS, Chapter 1 overview 1-13 Chapter Deletion Rationale Chapter 10 - Noise (Deleted). See, https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/NAVFAC/NAVFAC_WW_PP/NAVFAC_NAVFACFE_PP/TAB34276/2006%2 0JEGS%20CHAPTER%201.PDF 31AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program Available at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/32/afi32-7063/afi32-7063.pdf 32 In his email, an officer of the division of US base affairs of the Kadena Town government explains “schools, community center, nursery school, residential areas are located within clear zone or accidental potential zone. For example, from Yara primary school to runway is 2408 feet. The land use around the Kadena Air base is far from safety standard in the US.” 33In Aviano Air Base in Italy, US Air Force use AICUZ program as base design guide.
91 agreement stipulating the usage of Kadena Air Base,34 and to remove or mitigate enormous damages caused by the operation of the base on local communities. The Japanese government refused the local government’s proposal based on Art. II l.(a) of the US- Japan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA),35 which allows representatives of the US and Japanese governments exclusive rights to decide the purpose and condition of the facility and area which are offered for US military forces’ use in Japan. Because the SOFA prevents local communities from solving military related problems, the Okinawa Prefectural Government submitted bills to revise the SOFA several times since 1995 and in 2000, which included environmental protection articles, to the both governments. But both governments have preferred operational changes to the SOFA rather than amendments to it. Therefore, cooperation with local authorities is not adequate.
4. Are you satisfied with the current opportunities for cooperation between military, government, and public stakeholders in addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: 2
Dissatisfied: There is little provision for cooperation with the public in the current US/Japan policy. The US personnel at Kadena Air Force Base also do not cooperate with local environmental non- government organizations.
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities and community? Overall Evaluation: 2
Dissatisfied: The Kadena Air Force allows local ambulances and fire trucks to run through the base, but there is its little assistance for local communities especially to address emergencies caused by the US Air Forces’ training activities.36 Rather, local community members constantly feel anxiety and fear because of the US Air Forces’ training activities.
34In 19 January 2006, a delegation of Kadena town council and the Three Parties Liaison Council, which consists of three municipalities hosting US military in the middle of Okinawa Island, submitted the solicitation to the Japanese government. See, “Town newsletter Kadena Number 425, April 2006, http://www.town.kadena.okinawa.jp/kouhou/0604/3.html 35 Art. II l.(a) of the US-Japan SOFA stipulates “Agreements as to specific facilities and areas shall be concluded by the two Governments through the Joint Committee provided for in Art. XXV of this Agreement” 36 See Kadena Town website “The agreement regarding the usage of the Kadena Air Force Base.” available at http://www.town.kadena.okinawa.jp/kurasi2/kiti/kyoutei.html
92 6. Are you satisfied with the current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: 2
Dissatisfied: As I stated answering Question 3, Art. II l.(a) of the US-Japan SOFA has excluded the local government from negotiating a solution to the noise problem with the US military. The US and Japanese governments exclude local government representatives from the decision making process when they address the most important military related environmental issues, including the noise pollution problem.
The Japanese government and the USFJ established a formal committee consisting of the Okinawa prefectural government, representatives of the Japanese government and a representative of US military forces in Okinawa to discuss US military related issues. However municipal government officials representing communities such as Kadena Town, local community leaders, and representatives of environmental groups have been excluded from this committee. Although the committee provides a venue for US military forces and the Okinawa prefectural government to develop collaborative environmental projects to create solutions such as soil erosion control, the committee is imitated to discussing problems that are not politically sensitive issues and may require the US military’s liability. For example, when the parties of the committee have different positions over an issue, only the US- Japan Joint Committee, which consists of representatives of the US and Japanese governments can deal with this issue. Moreover, the outcome from the local committee has no legally binding power. Because the SOFA prevents local communities from participating in the decision-making process to solve the military related environmental problems, the Okinawa prefectural government submitted bills to revise the SOFA with other prefectural governments hosting US military bases, which included consultation with local government to address military related issues. Despite this effort both governments have refused to amend the SOFA.
Public participation in decision-making to address the US military related environmental issue is also inadequate. The public can express their concern and methods to address issues in the Environmental Impact Assessment process only for new US military facilities where construction is sponsored by the Japanese government. Once the Japanese government offers facilities and areas to US military forces, there is no official process for public participation to address expected military related environmental problems in the communities. Therefore, local governments’ and public participation in decision making to address military related environmental issues have not been established.
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produce related to your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: 2
93
Dissatisfied: Although the Aircraft Noise Control Subcommittee (ESC) of the US-Japan Joint Committee can address US military noise pollution issues, the members of the committee and the contents of their discussions are basically classified. Information release regarding the US military related environmental issues requires approvals from the US and Japanese governments. As a result the public cannot access enough information. Kadena Air Base has released little information regarding its environmental issues. Because of the language barrier and lack of familiarity with US law, the Kadena municipal government and local communities have not requested information under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: 2
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: ______Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; (c) technologically executable
Dissatisfied: There are three major programs in place, and none are adequate because they do not respond to community needs. (1) Name of program: Land use zoning by the Japanese government Evaluation: 2 Dissatisfied (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; “Law pertaining to improvement of living environment around defense facilities” promotes establishing buffer zones, equipping neighboring residents with noise-proof windows, and subsidizes residents moving out of clear zones or potential accident zones. For example, in 2003 the Japanese government allocated about 77 million dollars to provide the affected community with equipment mitigating noise pollution. (c) technologically executable: This program has been implemented, but technical measures such as equipping neighboring residents with noise-proof windows is not effective enough to mitigate noise pollution.37
37 In the prior lawsuit, the Japanese courts held that the Japanese government violated section (2) of the Special Civil Law damaging plaintiffs who live in the neighboring community, by causing noise pollution through flight training. (For further details, see author’s
94
(2) Name of program: The Noise Reduction Initiatives 2 Dissatisfied: though the definition and evaluation of their implementation are different among stakeholders, the US and Japanese governments do not adequately respond to community needs. The US-Japan Joint Committee adopted the Noise Reduction Initiatives to mitigate noise pollution around the US Kadena Air Force base in 2003. The Noise Reduction Initiatives includes 14 measurements including limitation of night/weekend flight training operations. The US and Japanese government declared that “agreements on aircraft noise abatement countermeasures at Kadena Air Base announced by the Joint Committee in March 1996 have been implemented.38” Although both governments declared that the initiatives have been implemented, they continue to violate the Special Civil Law, according to Japanese courts that have pointed out how local communities are suffering from noise pollution. The US military forces define and evaluate implementation of the Initiative differently than the local communities. (a) a sound foundation of information; The US military’s evaluation is not based on a sound foundation of information, so that the governments have failed to mitigate noise pollution at the level which meets the local community’s needs. (For a more detailed evaluation please see, my answer to Question 10). (b) fiscally executable; (c) technologically executable:
(3) Name of program: Noise reduction baffles at Kadena Air Base Evaluation: 2.
(a) a sound foundation of information; - (b) fiscally executable: (c) technologically executable: Dissatisfied: Noise reduction baffles at the north side of Kadena Air Base were built to implement the 1996 agreement in the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO). Noise reduction baffles are 2,300m long and 5m tall. When training fighters take off and land, they fly dozens of meters above from the land, so the baffles hardly mitigate noise pollution.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates? Overall Evaluation: 4 – Japan, 3 – US
answer to III. Legality and Access to Justice, 2. Cases. p 8 of this sample answer) These holdings show the ineffectiveness of technical measures. 38 The SACO Final Report December 2, 1996, available on http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/96saco1.html
95 (i) Satisfied: The Japanese government’s efforts have been adequate Japanese Government efforts: The Japanese Defense Facilities Administration. Bureau categorizes the affected areas into three classes, according to the level of noise pollution. These three areas are designated as affected areas and can receive financial assistance to mitigate noise pollution. The Bureau provides a compatible zoning plan to regulate land use in order to mitigate noise pollution on local communities. (ii) Neutral: Measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown; the US government’s efforts are not disclosed to the public, so they are difficult to evaluate. Questionable US policy: The US military forces normally employ some measures to mitigate noise pollution, such as those within the AICUZ (Air Installation Compatible Use Zone) program.39 Air Force Instruction 32-7063 states “Major command civil engineer, at their discretion, may apply the AICUZ program, in whole or [in] part, to overseas instillations according to host country agreements or specific requests.40” The Air Force AICUZ program has not applied to Kadena Air Station. Whether the US Air Force made an inventory of noise pollution sources in and near the base is not provided to local communities. Therefore, the US government’s efforts are difficult to evaluate.
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: 2
Dissatisfied: The two programs of the Japanese government remain inadequate. (a) Land use zoning - it’s still inadequate Japanese government’s “the Law Concerning the Improvement of the Living Environment Around Defense Facilities” promotes establishing buffer zones, equipping neighboring residents with noise-proof windows, and provides a subsidy to residents who move out from clear zone or potential accident zone. Although the law encourages compatible land use, technical measures such as equipping neighboring residents with noise-proof windows have not been effective enough to mitigate noise pollution. In spite of Japanese governmental measures, the courts held that the Japanese government violated section (2) of the Special Civil Law by damaging plaintiffs living in the neighboring communities, with noise pollution from flight training.41
39 As for the explanation of AICUZ, please refer to reference 22, p 11 of this sample answer. 40 AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program Available on http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/32/afi32- 7063/afi32-7063.pdf 41 On 22 May 1998, Fukuoka Hight Court Naha Branch held that the Japanese government violated the section (2) of Special Civil Law damaging plaintiffs, who live in the neighboring community, by noise pollution from flight trainings and so on. On 27 March 2000, Naha District Court Okinawa Branch made the same decision as Fukuoka Hight Court Naha Branch did in 1998.
96
(b) The Noise Reduction Initiatives do not provide practical solutions. The US-Japan Joint Committee adopted the Noise Reduction Initiatives to mitigate noise pollution around the US Kadena Air Force base in 2003. The Noise Reduction Initiatives includes 14 measurements including limitation of night/weekend flight training operations. The US and Japanese government declared that ‘agreements on aircraft noise abatement countermeasures at Kadena Air Base announced by the Joint Committee in March 1996 have been implemented42.” Although both governments declared that the initiative has been implemented, flight training is violating the Special Civil Law (as Japanese courts pointed out) and local communities are still suffering from noise pollution. The court opinions imply that this initiative is not practical to mitigate noise pollution. The reason why this initiative is not practical is that the agreed measures are not binding. The initiative requires the commander to implement this initiative “to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the operational readiness of US forces.” This provision grants the commander discretion over how to implement the initiative. Although opinions over the implementation of this initiative are different between the governments and affected communities, both governments fail to provide any official procedure, any tribunal, or negotiation forum to develop a mutually agreeable solution to noise pollution among the stakeholders. Therefore, the Noise Reduction Initiatives is an inadequate and impractical program.
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local governments, (2) non-government organizations, and (3) citizens, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities: officials measure noise pollution and hold relevant public meetings. [What have local authorities done, or what are local authorities doing to address the problems, and what challenges do they face?] (a) In cooperation with Okinawa prefectural government, local governments near Kadena Air Base, including the Kadena town government, measure noise pollution every day and record their results. Local governments release this data to the public and request that the US Air Force take measures to mitigate noise pollution. (b) Kadena town government organizes public meeting to study the possibility for an agreement with the US military forces. Kadena town government held public meetings to develop the town’s proposal to conclude an agreement with the US Air force over mitigating noise pollution. As a result of the
42 The SACO Final Report December 2, 1996, available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/96saco1.html
97 meetings, the town government made a proposal and submitted it to the Japanese government. The Japanese government has refused to pursue its recommendation.
2. Your organization’s efforts and challenges [What has your organization done, or what is your organization doing to address the problems and what challenges do you face?]
Okinawa Environmental Network our organization conducted low frequent noise pollution surveys. The result of the survey showed there is low frequent noise pollution around the US Kadena Air Stations.
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations [What have other organizations or individuals done, or what are they doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]
The people from the affected community near Kadena Air base filed several lawsuits seeking compensation for noise pollution and demanding an injunction to reduce US military flight trainings.43
VI. Policy Recommendations: Looking back at your answers to the previous sections, including:
I. Characteristics of the Site, II. Peacetime Concerns, III. Legality and Access to Justice, IV. Measures and Evaluation, V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges
Please try to make one or more achievable recommendations related to each section.
1. Recommendation to the US and Japanese governments: [What recommendation do you have for the relevant national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
43 For further details, please refer to author’s answer to III. Legality and Access to Justice, 2. Cases. p 8 of this sample answer.
98 National security policy needs citizen support, especially local communities hosting defense facilities. USFJ should consistently apply requirements that protect the public during peacetime. I have the following recommendations to address noise pollution.
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ] (a) Recommendation to: [ ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
(1) Title of your recommendation: The authority to control areas for US military facilities should be transferred to Japan.
(a) Recommendation to: [the Japanese Government] (b) Reasons supporting for your recommendation The Japanese government should stop offering land, sea and airspace to the US military forces for exclusive use. The authority to control these land, sea and airspace areas should be transferred from the US military forces to the Japanese government. In this way Japan will have jurisdiction over these areas.
(2) Title of your recommendation: Increase communication and cooperation with stakeholders.
(a) Recommendation to: [US Forces Japan and the Japanese Government] (b) Reasons supporting for your recommendation Okinawan people expect more dialogues and consultations with stakeholders, including the local commander of the US Air Force, local government officials, other representatives of local communities, and environmental non-government organization members. Furthermore, public access to information, and public participation in the decision-making process to address the noise pollution issue would help stakeholders avoid conflicts and strained relations, and may facilitate developing meaningful solutions.
(3) Title of your recommendation: A supplementary agreement to the SOFA could address noise and other pollution.
(a) Recommendation to: [The US government and the Japanese government] (b) Reasons supporting for your recommendation The US and Japan should adopt a bilateral agreement requiring US military environmental activities. To speak more technically, agreeing on a supplementary agreement to the SOFA, including an environmental provision, will be politically easier for both governments than revising the SOFA. The SOFA is the supreme law governing the US Military Force’s activities in Japan. Without
99 changing the SOFA, any effort to develop environmental policy regarding the USFJ will be impractical.
(4) Title of your recommendation: Kadena Air Base should employ the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program to address the noise and crash problems.
(a) Recommendation to: [US Forces Japan, the Japanese government, and Kadena Town, Okinawa City, Chatan town, and other municipalities affected by US military noise pollution in Japan]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below] The USFJ should employ measures to mitigate noise pollution, such as those of the AICUZ (Air Installation Compatible Use Zone) program. Air Force Instruction 32-7063 states “Major command civil engineer, at their discretion, may apply the AICUZ program, in whole or part, to overseas instillations according to host country agreements or specific requests.44” Air Force AICUZ program has not applied to Kadena Air Station. Kadena Air Base does not meet the US safety standard for air station operations. If the Japanese government specially requests and the local government agrees to cooperate in zoning, noise pollution may be mitigated.
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [What recommendation do you have for local authorities? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
(1) Title of your recommendation: Local regulations and Japanese law should grow to handle noise pollution.
(a) Recommendation to: [Kadena Town, Okinawa City, Chatan town, and other municipalities affected by US military noise pollution in Japan]
(b) Reasons supporting for your recommendation Developing local municipal regulations to mitigate noise pollution rather than US laws may be more effective. This regulation may be a good starting point to protect local communities from noise pollution at key areas, and may lead to growth in Japanese law.
3. Recommendation to the international community: [Feel free to direct your recommendations to international organization like the UNEP and NATO, other governments or NGOs]
44 AFI 32-7063, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program Available on http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/32/afi32-7063/afi32-7063.pdf
100 (1) Title of your recommendation: [Research the different standards applying to foreign military forces stationed in host countries and correct the gap of in standards] (a) Recommendation to: [the UNEP member States] (b) Reasons for supporting your recommendation: There are several different noise pollution control standards applying to the visiting foreign military force stationed in host countries around the world. In several countries, military commanders have great discretion over how their forces implement their environmental program, including programs for noise pollution control in host nations. When noise is a problem, policy makers tend to shift the military training that causes a negative environmental impact on local communities, from the countries that have more stringent regulations to those having less stringent regulations. Even if the host nation has stringent regulations, if the host government has less political power, the host government may not be able to negotiate to improve environmental policies with visiting force representatives. This creates a disproportionate environmental burden on communities of countries that have less political power, less stringent regulations, or less economic power. Regardless of how much laws have developed in host countries, and host countries’ political power or economic power, the visiting foreign military forces should apply the most stringent regulations to their activities in host countries. To achieve this goal, I recommend that member States of the UNEP conduct research on the different standards applying to visiting foreign military in host countries and correct the gaps of different standards and the negative environmental consequence that result from them.
VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities: (1) Please attach any relevant materials (documents, articles, videos) that may support your work or help someone understand the situation in more depth, and feel free to comment on any other issues concerning military activities: The following materials would be helpful to understanding military’s environmental issues and guidelines during peacetime. (i) The International Grassroots Summit on Military Base Cleanup http://www.fpif.org/basecleanup/index.html (ii) See also the NATO CCMS Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector http://www.nato.int/ccms/general/guidemil/guide.html, also available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf (this version is missing some pages)
VIII. Additional Comment, if any: We hope that a white paper on military related environmental issues will be published every two years.
101 "Okinawan Dugong and US military base construction” by the Association to Protect Northernmost Dugong (Japan)
Association to Protect Northernmost Dugong (Japan) e-mail : [email protected] URL : http://sea-dugong.org/
(d) Assessment of the damage as well as the need for, and feasibility of, restoration of areas where military activities have caused damage to the environment.
(1) History and current status of dugong in Okinawa The Dugong was once a familiar animal along Okinawa’s coasts and an important element in the region’s history and culture. However, dues to overhunting and the war, as well as environmental damage caused by development and land-improvement, the dugong was at one time thought to be extinct in Okinawa. Okinawa is a subtropical archipelago, characterized by great biological diversity, however, since 1966, 75% of U.S. military facilities in Japan have been concentrated there. Futenma Air Base, being located in the center of a residential area, is especially dangerous and has a long record of accidents and aircraft noise. Okinawa Prefecture has long demanded that the Futenma base be transferred out of Okinawa, but in 1996 U.S. and Japanese governments agreed to relocate the Futenma base to the U.S. Marine’s “Camp Schwab” at Henoko on the east coast of Okinawa. In 1998 dugong were re-discovered off Henoko and broadcast on TV. This dugong population is the northernmost in the world and is estimated at less than 50, a number which national and international standards suggest should demand its protection as an endangered species, while the population in the area of the proposed base at Henoko, where reproductive behavior has been observed, may number less than 10. Dugongs are sometimes filmed off Henoko by TV cameras and many feeding trails have been found around Henoko. This shows that Henoko is an important habitat and breeding area. Ironically, the existence of Camp Schwab and its militarily controlled marine areas protects the dugong from such dangers as fishnet entanglement and pollution caused by land development and coastal exploitation, while disposal of old ordinance is a thing of the past. However, the construction of the huge Futenma Air Station Replacement Facility (FRF) on landfill in the middle of the remaining habitat of an endangered species is a serious threat to the whole ecosytem, which the local people do not welcome. There is concern that both the construction and existence of this huge military facility in the bay will bring about large-scale environmental destruction and noise pollution. Okinawa suffers from the scars of war that remain even 60 years after the ground battles of the Pacific War, and from the presence of existing U.S. military forces, while the further burden of a new base and destruction of the natural environment wrings the hearts of the Okinawan people. The endangered Okinawan dugong, a marine herbivore deserving of the name “sea-cow”, is a symbol of peace and should be protected, while the governments of the US and Japan who were responsible for the war in Okinawa should be phasing out the military bases there.
102 103 Although the U.S. Navy’s use of active sonar has been banned in the USA because of its harmful effects on marine mammals such as whales, it is increasingly used in Okinawa, the habitat of dugong and breeding area of humpback whale. In addition, military exercises for amphibious vehicles are frequently conducted in the coral reefs and seagrass beds around Camp Schwab, the dugong’s principal feeding ground, degrading the habitat on an everyday basis.
In order to respond to the demands of the U.S. government, the Japanese government, which is responsible for the construction of the new base, started an “environmental impact assessment” (EIA) without the agreement of the local government or even the release of plans for the new base. Moreover, before the survey methods were discussed and accepted by the EIA committee, and ignoring its own EIA procedure, the government started a “field survey” in an attempt to legitimize its actions. The
104 unapproved field survey was conducted in an extremely insensitive and unscientific way; corals and seagrass beds were damaged by equipment and dugongs were threatened with the risk of accidental ingestion of more than a hundred marking nails and ropes on their favorite feeding ground. This endangerment of the target species itself has drawn severe condemnation from sirenian scientists around the world. Worse yet, the Japanese government sent a specialist warship to Henoko with the obvious intent to intimidate the local people protesting the field survey.
The EIA committee and numerous experts have strongly criticized the government for its use of force and for the inadequate and ambiguous description in the survey method documents, calling for the Okinawa Defence Facilities Office to restart the EIA from scratch.
Coral survey hurts coral itself.
105
Dozens of marking nails with nylon rope have been left callously in areas where dugongs actively forage.(left)
The survey using passive sonars to detect dugong’s voice is not appropriate to give proof of dugong’s visiting to the
certain area in the case the population is very small. (right)
(2) The future of the dugong in Okinawa The Japanese government is desperate to fulfill its commitment to the U.S. government to complete the base relocation by 2014 at any cost. If the EIA does not work appropriately, and the base construction goes ahead according to the U.S. government’s demand, the extinction of the northernmost dugong will become just a matter of time. Just before the committee was due to submit its report, the government added as many as 150 pages of information to the methodology document. By this addition, along with other details of landfill method, and routes of new roads for material transportation, it was revealed that 17 million cubic meters of sea sand (equivalent to full of 3.4 million dump trucks) would be dredged in the island and carried to Henoko for landfill. This attempted cover-up of the plan of construction and deployment destroys the EIA’s validity. The way things stand, we are deeply concerned that the habitat around Henoko will be degraded or destroyed by landfill, soil runoff, construction noise and ship traffic, as well as the noise of the operation of the base. If the dugongs are forced to abandon their last habitat because of habitat deterioration, they have nowhere else to go.
The dugong in Okinawa is designated a “national natural treasure” and is listed as critically endangered in the Red Data List of the Japanese Ministry of the Environment. However, it is now threatened by the construction of a U.S. military base on its last habitat. In order to save them, the local community have started monitoring the dugong feeding trails in their habitat themselves, instead of leaving it to the government.
It is the first step toward conserving the natural environment, including dugongs, and to building a self- sustaining local community that is not dependent on subsidies, by re-realization of the importance of its unique natural ecosystem and the history and culture nurtured by people living in harmony with nature.
106
The Impact of U.S. Military Activities on Environment Presented by Kenichi Moriyama, Resident of Kushi area, Nago City, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan Email: [email protected]
I. Introduction The writer was born in Kushi Village which is adjacent to U.S. Marine Corps training area of Camp Schwab on the main island of Okinawa. Camp Schwab was built in 1960s and soldiers were trained there before they were sent to Vietnam in addition to the B52s that delivered bombs from Kadena Air Base which is also in Okinawa. It played the similar roles in the Gulf War, Afghan War and is still playing important roles for the war in Iraq. As a result of the heavy training programs conducted for such roles, serious impacts have been imposed on the environment surrounding our village. In the background of the village lie natural forests and mountains out
107 of which is called “Kushi-dake.” Kushi-dake is about 3 km away from the village. People of the village are very proud of the mountain as it has a beautiful figure. Unfortunately, however, the mountain has been used as a shield for live firing and bombing by the U.S. Marines. The mountain is showing a miserable figure and the river and the sea are heavily polluted with red soil caused by the training today. In the vicinity of the mountain, Range 10, a live-firing station and EOD3, explosives ordinance disposal are located and they are actively used for training. These two major sources of red-soil pollution are discussed here.
II. Range 10 The main training conducted at this range seems to be live-firing of 20mm machine guns installed on assault amphibious vehicles (AAVs). The bullets are usually shot into the concrete structure built at the foot of the mountain. However, extraordinary number of explosions on the slope of the mountain has been witnessed since second half, 2006. And, particularly, the explosions started at 5:30 am on January 5, 2007 stunned people who were still in bed.
108
The moment of explosion on the slope of the mountain is seen in the first picture and the red-soil dust is seen spreading from the explosion site in the second picture.
III. EOD3 EOD3 is located at the foot of the mountain and it is next to each other with Range 10. Because of the nature of the training carried out at the site, it is causing tremendous red-soil pollution and noise.
109 The red-soil dust is blown very high and, in the winter time, north wind carries the dust as far as the village. The target concrete structure for 20mm heavy machine gun is also seen at the foot of the mountain. The explosion often shakes the buildings in the neighborhood and some people claim cracks in their houses and the claims are usually ignored. Blowup trainings are carried out in the ground made bare of plants by successive explosions and rain fall is intended to be collected and contained in the settlement pool where sediments are supposed to settle before the water is discharged meeting the standard stipulated in the ordinance of Okinawa Prefecture. The settlement pool was built and started operation early 2007 in response to the strong request presented by the village. However, its effect is doubted.
IV. Results As a result of the operation of the above training facilities, residents of the village suffer red-soil pollution of the river and the sea as well as the astonishing noises of machine guns and explosions from Range 10 and EOD3. The picture below has been taken at the upstream of the river where the water could be good for drinking if Range 10 and EOD3 did not exist at all.
Upstream
110
Downstream
Sea
111 V. Conclusion The training facilities are too destructive to the nature and too close to the lives of the people in the area. All these problems take place within about 3 kilometers from the village. This may not be the only reason but we have lost river and marine lives such as shrimp, fish, shellfish, crabs, etc., which were so abundant a few decades ago. Added by the noises from the aircrafts flying over day and night, the noises from the training field are also disturbing the lives of the residents incredibly. In July, 2007, Typhoon No.4 caused substantial damage to the village. Waves surged to the village flooding many houses near the beach. We never experienced any such damage in the past. Some people say that global warming may be responsible for the disaster. What if the forests in the background fail to hold the rain water and the water rushes to the village from behind in concurrent to the waves from the sea in typhoon? Below picture proves that the live-firing training causes not only forest deterioration by explosion but also deterioration by forest burning as below.
Based on the Joint Statement issued on May 1, 2006 by U.S. Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of State for Defense, Futenma Replacement Facility is now in the process of construction in a configuration that combines the Henoko-saki and adjacent water areas of Oura and Henoko Bays for its completion in 2014. Considering the amount of the burden that the residents are bearing today, the expected additional burdens in the forms of noise and pollution from the projected air station are intolerable to them.
112 Environmental activities of US Military Forces Japan (USFJ) by Kaori Sunagawa Master of Studies in Environmental Law 2008 Vermont Law School Email: [email protected]
(a) A national environmental policy for the military/defense sector;
Since 1995, the US military forces in Japan have used the Japan Environmental Governing Standards (JEGS) to ensure US Department of Defense (DOD) activities and installations in Japan protect human health and the natural environment through the promulgation of specific environmental compliance criteria1. JEGS is the primary source document for environmental guidance and standards for service components in Japan. JEGS has been updated several times since 1995. The current JEGS was published in 2006.
JEGS covers different environmental activities. The areas of these activities are as follows: air emissions, drinking water, wastewater, hazardous materials, hazardous waste, solid waste, medical waste management, petroleum, oil and lubricants, pesticides, historic and cultural resources, natural resources including endangered species, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, lead-based paint, spill prevention and response planning, and underground storage tanks. JEGS does not cover noise pollution or indoor air pollution related to excessive radon levels.
The JEGS does not address environmental contamination and abatement standards. These issues are covered under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4715.82 and USFJ Instruction 32-7002. The methodology being used by DOD to determine what course of action to take regarding cleanup and remediation is based on environmental risk and health assessments.
Unlike US laws and Japanese environmental laws, the JEGS “does not create any independent right enforceable against the DOD, the United States, or their officers, agents, or employees.” JEGS 1-5; DODI 4715.8 , 1.2. Without giving local communities in Japan a legal right, these standards are less effective at protecting human health and the environment.
(b) National activities in order to ascertain that military establishments in the country conform to their national environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes;
JEGS 6-2.10 and 6-3.10j (1)3 define Hazardous Waste (HW) as discarded material that may be solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contained gas that exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste defined in Section 6-3.10.j. Like the Resource
1 2006 JEGS CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/pls/portal/url/ITEM/1F0722E4885D1D05E0440003BA8FC471. 2 Available at http://west.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/471508p.pdf 3 See https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/NAVFAC/NAVFAC_WW_PP/NAVFAC_NAVFACFE_PP/TAB34276/CH%20 06_HW%20_2006_.PDF
113 Conservation and Recovery Act (US law), JEGS 6-3.10j lists the following as characteristics of hazardous wastes: (2) Ignitability; (3) Corrosivity; (4) Reactivity; and (5) Toxicity. JEGS 6-3.10j.
In terms of disposal and transportation of hazardous waste, JEGS 6-3.10 (6) designates that Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Sagami is a transporter and TSD facility. The procedures conducted by DRMO Sagami include the required record-keeping and documentation to provide complete monitoring during transportation storage and disposal surveillance.
(c) The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development;
US Marine Copes, Camp Butler in Okinawa Japan won US DOD environmental awards including the fiscal year 2004 Secretary of the Navy Environmental Quality Overseas Installation several times. Following the US Marine Corp publication, the contribution of Camp Butler is as follows:
The Camp Butler has developed an environmental management system and community outreach programs, conducted soil and species control, and providing extensive environmental training. The 2004 award acknowledged the Camp Butler Environmental Branch's expertise on using the geographic information system to support environmental projects throughout the Okinawa island. The GIS is a computer-based program that uses global positioning technology and satellites to track a variety of information. The GIS can provide visual and technical data to the office, helping them manage specific issues with training, weather and the environment. The GIS can provide aerial coverage of a tsunami or even help scientists track the spread of certain species across the island.
The award also noted the community outreach program and the installation's involvement in coordinating beach clean-up projects and work with the local Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops, as well as local communities and the prefectural government. The award was also given to the installation for its efforts to protect rare and endangered species, invasive species control, an erosion control program and training in subjects like stream ecology. 4
(d) Assessments of the damage as well as the need for and feasibility of the clean-up and restoration of areas where damage to the environment has been caused by military activities.
In 2006, the US and Japanese governments agreed to return six US military facilities on Japan’s Okinawa Island to local communities, after the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is relocated in 2014, as specific initiatives for realignment of U.S. forces in Japan5. These facilities are Camp Kuwae (68.3 ha),6 Camp Zukeran (642.6 ha) ,7 Futenma Marine Corps Air
4 Quoting a US Marine Corp publication, available at http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/public%20affairs%20info/Archive%20News%20Pages/2005/050506-award.html 5 United States-Japan Security Consultative Committee, United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation (May 1, 2006), available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/scc/doc0605.html
114 Station (480.5 ha),8 Makiminato Service Area (273.8 ha),9 Naha Port (55.9 ha),10 and Army POL Depot Kuwae Tank Farm No. 1 (less than 127.1 ha).11 In these facilities, the US Military Forces, Japan have owned, or operated facilities to store, treat, or dispose of hazardous substances. These sites are possibly contaminated. The US and Japanese governments need to investigate and cleanup these sites as they work to retuned them to the local community.
The U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement (the SOFA) exempts the US from its obligation to restore US military facilities and areas in Japan to the condition in which they were at the time they became available to the US armed forces. Art. IV. § 1, the SOFA12. DODI 4715.8, 6.3 states “subject to security requirements, the information of environmental contamination shall be provided,. where required, to host-nation authorities upon request.” To help Japanese government officials develop appropriate and efficient research plans that aim to identify contamination and produce a cleanup plan, information about contamination at these bases and technical cooperation from the US government is vital.
6 Also called Camp Lester or Kue, see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-kuwae.htm. Camp Kuwae has accommodated a U.S. military hospital since 1958 (see http://www.oki.med.navy.mil/News/history.htm). Staff dispose of medical waste and hazardous waste* and buildings on the base probably contain asbestos and lead paint.** *See USNAVHOSP Okinawa Instruction 5090.1A, which applies to all facilities under control of the U.S. Naval Hospital, available at http://www.logcom.usmc.mil/CONTRACTS/SOLICIT/M67004-07-R-
0013/2.0%20Applicable%20Document%20List/Navy(Marine)%20Instructions/ORDER%205090.1A.pdf **See Appendix D “Site Type- Definition, Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Annual Report to Congress for
Fiscal Year 1986, hereinafter (Appendix D). 7 Information on Camp Foster (Camp Zukeran) is available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-zukeran.htm. Camp Zukeran has accommodated office buildings, weapon storage, equipment maintenance facilities, a residential area, etc. Office buildings and residential areas in the base probably contain asbestos and lead paint. Weapon storages probably have accommodated explosive chemical and radionuclide. Equipment maintenance facilities probably use heavy metal, and solvents including hazardous chemicals. (Appendix D) 8 For information on MCAS Futenma, see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/futenma.htm. This base accommodates a runway, a helipad, communication facilities, electrical transformer facilities, maintenance/repair facilities, offices, a fire station, storage facilities, parts warehouses, etc. Communication facilities and electrical transformer facilities probably use electrical transformers including PCB. Maintenance/repair facilities probably use Petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL), metals and solvents containing hazardous chemicals. Storage facilities may use POL, solvents, POL sludge, metal, acid and PCBs (Appendix D). 9 Also called Camp Kinser; for information see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-kinser.htm. This base accommodates warehouses, repair/maintenance facilities, and a sewage treatment plant, etc. Warehouse contains ammunition, unit and individual equipment, and fuel. It probably held explosive chemicals, radionuclides, solvents, POL, heavy metals, acids and PCBs. Repair/maintenance facilities probably use POL, metal, and solvents including hazardous chemicals. The sewage treatment plant probably has disposed metals, industrial wastewater, solvents including hazardous chemicals, POLs (Appendix D). 10 Information on Naha Port is available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/naha-port.htm. This Military Port includes seven deep water berths, a watercraft landing area, covered in-transit storage, ship repair facilities, motor repair facilities, weapon repair facilities, etc. These repair facilities probably used POLs, heavy metal, solvents, explosive chemical and radionuclide.
(Appendix D) 11 This tank farm probably holds POLs, POL sludge, solvents and heavy metals. (Appendix D) 12 The text is available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/usa/sfa/pdfs/fulltext.pdf
115 Environmental Issue caused by the presence of United States Military Establishments in Okinawa-Japan
By Yoshio OKADA, PhD Email: [email protected] Address: 49-202 Aza Tomigusuku, Tomigusuku city, OKINAWA 901-0241 JAPAN Tel and Fax: +81-98-850-6540
Summary United States military Base illegally occupy large part of Okinawa Island, located in the midst of living and industrial region and against people’s will. Consequently, every kind of activities by US military Bases in Okinawa have always had very important environmental impacts on people’s life and their living environment. It should be emphasized that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Japan and United States governments has repeatedly been used in a discriminative way to inhibit appropriate measures for securing healthy and safety living condition of this island. That directly resulted in repeated incidents/accidents of all kinds. Upon agreement of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) and successive agreement of Global Posture Review of United States military forces, over 5,000ha US military Bases in Okinawa will be returned to the people of Okinawan. Unfortunately security of these lands is full of doubts of every pollutant which should be removed with large amount of cost. Appropriate handlings of environmental issues caused by military establishments are expected.
Introduction
Okinawa is located at the south of Japan, composed of small islands about 1/10 area of Hawaii. Islands of Okinawa are known by their rich nature. Biodiversity of animals and plants of this land and sea are highly appreciated. It is therefore called oriental Galapagos Islands and was selected as a candidate of UNESCO natural world heritage of the world. The candidacy turned to be unsuccessful owing to the fact that mass occupation of the island by US military bases largely inhibits protective measure for their nature.
US military bases in Okinawa, is a result of military illegal occupation of these area during the World War II which still continue until today. Legal situation of the US military base in Okinawa was slightly changed when Okinawa's sovereignty was given back from US military government to Japan government in 1972. Since then, the US military base in Okinawa is provided by Japan government against the will of Okinawan people. It should be concluded that large part of land of Okinawa is deprived unreasonably and is under the occupation of US and Japan government. These histories strongly affect the management of environmental issues of this small island. Neither the Japanese nor the United States’ environmental standards have been correctly applied to US military bases in Okinawa.
Unfortunately Okinawa has been a training camp and also a relay base to be used for military action of USA in Korea war, Vietnam War, 1st and 2nd Iraq war. This means that activities of the military establishments of this island are closely connected to the US military action in the other part of the world.
116 Repeated old problems
United States military Base (US military Bases) in Okinawa occupy 10.4 percent of total land area of the prefecture (ref.1) or 18.8 percent of the main island of Okinawa (ref.1), where population and industries are concentrated. Consequently, every kind of activities by US military Bases in Okinawa have always had very important environmental impacts on people’s life and their living environment (ref.2 and 3).
Typical example of the environmental impacts are noise of the aircraft, red soil erosion to the sea (ref. 4), water and land pollution by chemicals (including PCB or polychlorinated Biphenyl), waste bullets and shells (including depleted uranium ammunition), massive bush fires (ref. 5). Other types of incidents/accidents include aircraft crash (ref. 6. for general review), which carried radioactive materials (strontium 90) as a mechanical part in the case of accident 13 August 2004. Use of so called orange agent was also suggested in the northern training area in the Forest of Okinawa Island during the period of Vietnam War.
It should be emphasized that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Japan and United States governments has repeatedly been used in a discriminative way as a reason to inhibit appropriate analyses of the environmental impact of each problem. That largely limited to obtain scientific evidence to objectively show the incidents. This directly resulted in repeated incidents/accidents of all kinds. SOFA is also used to hide source of the pollution or cause of the accidents which trigger further negative impacts to the people.
Besides these difficulties, sample collections of the polluted water are done outside military base to look into the incident. The limit of sample collection sometimes makes the research impossible or largely retarded to detect source of the pollution. Sample collections of the soil in the military base is always demanded but rejected. Despite these difficulties, Okinawa Prefecture Institute of Health and Environment has continuously been involved in the issues, particularly in the field of water and air pollution.
Radioactivity level has been continuously monitored at the White Beach, Katsuren-Urma (ex Katsuren-cho) where atomic naval ship lies at anchor time by time (ref. 7. in Japanese).
New problem
Upon agreement of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) and successive agreement of Global Posture Review of United States military forces, over 5,000ha US military Bases in Okinawa will be returned to the self determinative status of Okinawan people. Precedent cases of Philippines (the case of Clark Field Air Base and of Subic Bay Naval Base) strongly suggested that Okinawan people will encounter unexpected pollution of the land and water of the returned places. For the effective and quick conversion of the place into the living and production, information about possible pollution of these kinds should be provided by US military establishments to the detail as type of pollutant, affected areas, timing of the incidents etc.
Code of conducts for Environmental Protection and Preservation
Facing to the newly evolved environmental issue mentioned above, Environmental policy Division, Okinawa Prefecture publicized “Second phase code of conducts for environmental Protection and Preservation (original name in Japanese: Dai 2ji Okinawa kankyo hozen jissi keikaku)”, which is in effect from year 2005 till now (ref. 8.). Included in this code of conducts are principal goal like measurements to enable Unesco world heritage candidacy particularly of Yanbaru area,
117 improvement of maintenance and cooperation practice in US military facilities, as well as appropriate handling of PCB related wastes, water and land pollution management, introduction of strategic environment assessment procedure.
References ref.1: Statistics http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=662&page=1 ref.2: Incidents and Accidents *Military-related Incidents and Accidents http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=661&page=1 ref.3: “(2) Impact on the Lives of the Okinawan People (Incidents, Accidents and Environmental Issues)”, issued by Military Base Affairs Division, Okinawa Prefecture http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=586&page=1 ref.4: Okinawa Prefecture Institute of Health and Environment, Annual Report No.35, 2001 by Hiroaki Mitsumoto “Water pollution by red soil erosion on U.S military base” ref.5: *Bush Fires, etc. Caused by U.S. Military Training http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=668&page=1 ref.6: US military Issues in Okinawa (pamphlet in PDF for 28 pages) http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/7005/pamphlet(English).pdf ref.7: Okinawa Prefecture Institute of Health and Environment, News (in Japanese) vol. 4, 2001. ref. 8: “Second phase code of conducts for environmental Protection and Preservation” issued by Environmental policy Division, Okinawa Prefecture (in Japanese) http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/2983/dai2jikeikaku.pdf
118 Rerevant Information From Okinaw Prefectural Government’s Website
Supplement Figure 1. Military-related Incidents and Accidents
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 U.S Incidents Aircraft- Crash 2 0 0 1 2 0 military- and related Emergency 3310 85 related Accidents accidents landing related to training Other 2 3 2 0 1 3 and other Total 7 6 3 1 118 operations Stray bullets 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water pollution 4343 35 caused by oil and other spills Bush fires and other 13 15 18 12 7 5 fires Other 4 11 2 2 32 Total 28 35 27 18 2420 Other Incidents and Accidents 2 6 5 8 11 8 Total Within provided area 18 24 26 19 19 15 Outside of provided 12 17 6 7 16 13 area Total 30 41 32 26 3528 Japanese Self Defense Forces related 0 3 1 4 3 5 Gross total 30 44 33 30 38 33
Note
1. The numbers are confirmed by the Okinawa Prefectural Government except for that of “Fires” which is obtained from Naha Defense Facilities Administration Bureau.
2. Incidents in which parachutes landed outside of the military facility are included in “Other” of “Incidents and accidents related to training”.
Originally from Okinawa Prefecture HP http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=661&page=1
119 Supplement Figure 2. (2) Impact on the Lives of the Okinawan Pepole (Incidents, Accidents and Environmental Issues)
Incidents & Accidents related to the U.S. military bases from 1996 until the end of December 2001 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Aircraft-related 6 3 1 11 7 8 Stray bullets, etc. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste oil and other spills 3 4 3 3 3 5 Bush fires 15 18 12 7 12 5 Others (training-related) 11 2 2 3 4 2 Others incidents & 6 5 8 11 6 8 accidents Total 41 32 26 35 32 28
The existence of the vast U.S. military facilities and areas in our prefecture has had various impact on the Okinawan pepole's lives and the environment. Hazardous impact on the health of residents living in the vicinity of the bases from daily air craft noise pollution is one of the particular issues we have. Other issues include the impact on the Okinawan pepole's lives and on the environment from incidents and accidents stemming from military base operations such as military aircraft (fighters, helicopters, etc.) crashes, POL (Petroleum Oil and Lubricants) and red silt outflow as well as mountain forest fires caused by live-firing exercises. Further, there has been more than 5,076 cases of crime caused by the *SOFA status people since the reversion of Okinawa to mainland Japan. This number includes 531 cases of brutal crimes and 955 cases of assaults. Thus, there is fear amongst the pepole of Okinawa as to whether or not security for their daily lives can be maintained and whether their property can be preserved.
120 Supplement Figure 3. At the training areas in Camp Hansen, repeated live-fire exercises and mountain forest fires caused by these exercises are denuding mountain surfaces of their valuable greenery, causing our irreplaceable natural environment to be lost.
In addition, it is expected to take many years and an enormous amount of money to dispose of the countless number of unexploded shells within Camp Hansen.
▲U.S. military exercises often cause forest fires destroying precious greenery.
At Onna Communication Site, which was returned in November 1995, contaminated toxic substances, such as polychlorinated biphenyl(PCB) which exceeded the accepted environmental pollution limit, were detected in sludge left inside purification tanks. After detection, the Japanese government had to remove it. In addition, the media reported in July 1998 that there had been a holding pond within Kadena Air Base used as a dumping site for waste oil containing PCB. The U.S. government conducted an environmental survey followed by the Government of Japan conducting a supplementary survey. From the results of these surveys, it was concluded that there was no impact on the health of people. However, this incident has raised the concerns of the local residents about environmental issues stemming from the U.S. military bases.
Supplement Figure 2-3, Originally from Okinawa Prefecture HP http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=586&page=1
Supplement Figure 4.
Originally from Okinawa Prefecture HP http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/ contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=821&page =1
121 ○ Nationwide Action Plan regarding the Fundamental Revision of the Status of Forces Agreement The Okinawa Prefectural Government believes that U.S. military base problems and SOFA are diplomacy and security issues concerning the entire nation of Japan. It is therefore important that the Government, respective municipalities and all individual citizens regard these issues as their own problems. We also believe that the rise of public opinion with regard to this matter will lead to the realization of a solution to these problems. Since June 2003, we have composed a Nationwide Action Plan, which includes petition activities to chairpersons of prefectural assemblies and governors who are members of the National Governors' Association for Military Facilities, and advertisements soliciting opinions in national newspapers, for the purpose of exciting public opinion and expanding the movement to every region of Japan. We are working towards the fundamental revision of SOFA. The Okinawa Prefectural Government believes that this series of activities will contribute towards the realization of the fundamental revision of SOFA.
Revision of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement
1. Article 2: Use of Facilities and Areas, etc. (1) Article 2 shall specify that if a request is made by concerned local governing bodies to maintain local citizens' security and improve welfare, the Japanese Government and the United States Government shall examine this request with consideration to the content of each facility's and area's agreement, which are to be concluded by the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee. (2) Article 2 shall specify that the Japanese and United States Governments shall hear the opinions of concerned local governing bodies and shall respect their intentions when conducting examinations as mentioned above. Furthermore, Article 2 shall specify that the Japanese and United States Governments shall hear the opinions of concerned local governing bodies and shall respect their intentions when examining the return of the facilities and areas. (3) Article 2 shall specify that the agreements concerning each facility and area, which are to be concluded by the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee, shall state matters such as the scope, purpose and conditions of the use of the related facility or area.
122 2. Article 3: Measures Regarding Facilities and Areas (1) Article 3 shall specify that the U.S. Forces shall provide local governing bodies with necessary and appropriate support for performance of duties, including entrance into the facilities and areas by advance notification. It shall also specify that, in cases of emergency, local governing bodies may enter bases immediately without advance notice. (2) Article 3 shall specify that information on incidents or accidents stemming from activities by U.S. Forces, such as aircraft accidents and mountain forest fires, that may have an impact on public safety or the environment, shall be promptly provided to concerned local governing bodies, even in cases when they occur inside facilities and areas. It shall also specify that appropriate measures shall be taken for preventing the disaster from spreading. (3) Article 3 shall specify that Japanese law, such as Air Navigation Law, shall be applied when activities such as exercises, training, and maintenance and construction of facilities are carried out by U.S. Forces.
Access to U.S. facilities and areas and Areas Access to U.S. facilities and areas for environmental surveys or other purposes, is subject to U.S. forces approval. While the procedure is prescribed in the agreement made by the U.S.-Japan Security Committee in December 1996, the decision is left to U.S. discretion and 14- day prior notice is required, making immediate entrance impossible.
Access
3. Article 3 A: Environmental Preservation within Facilities and Areas Article 3 A shall specify that the following environmental items be newly established. (1) The United States shall be responsible for preventing any kind of pollution arising from activities by U.S. Forces, such as soot and smoke, polluted water, red soil and waste. Furthermore, the United States shall be responsible for taking necessary measures for properly preserving the natural environment. Furthermore, the Japanese law concerning environmental preservation shall be applied for all activities of the U.S. Forces in Japan. (2) When developing plans for facilities and areas, the U.S. Forces shall minimize any impact the plans may have on people, plants and animals, soil, water, air and cultural assets. Furthermore, both prior to and after implementing projects based on the related plan, the impact of the projects shall be surveyed, predicted or measured and evaluated regularly. The survey results shall also be released. Moreover, both the governments of Japan and the United States, on the basis of survey results, shall discuss measures for environmental preservation. (3) The United States shall be responsible for taking appropriate restorative measures with regard to environmental pollution stemming from U.S. Force activities. The governments of Japan and the United States shall discuss responsibility for the expenses arising from such measures.
123 Joint Statement of Environmental Principles
On September 11, 2000, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC, otherwise known as the 2+2 Meeting) issued a Joint Statement of Environmental Principles. In concrete terms, the Japanese and United States Governments are to periodically review the Japan Environmental Governing Standards (JEGS: standards for environmental protection and safety on activities involving the U.S. Forces in Japan, developed with the basic idea of selecting the more protective standards from relevant U.S. and Japanese laws and regulations.), share information, and discuss measures concerning environmental contamination. However, JEGS is not a compulsory code in the Japanese legal system and it does not define standards for noise, vibration and odor.
4. Article 4: Return of Facilities In regards to the return of the facilities and areas in use by the U.S. Forces, the governments of Japan and the United States shall conduct joint surveys in advance on items such as environmental pollution, environmental destruction and disposal of unexploded shells etc. caused by U.S. Forces activities. Furthermore, when such things as environmental pollution is confirmed, necessary measures shall be taken by the governments of Japan and the United States for developing and implementing restorative plans, such as environmental clean-up. The governments of Japan and the United States shall discuss responsibility for resulting expenses.
Pollutions on Returned Land On January 30, 2002, a number of drums containing a tar-like substance were discovered on returned land in Mihama, Chatan Town. Furthermore, arsenic, lead, sexivalent chrome, and fluorescent light condensers which were suspected to contain PCBs were discovered at Camp Kuwae, part of which was returned at the end of March 2003. Disposal in both cases was conducted under the responsibility of the Japanese Government.
5. Article 9: The Status of U.S. Armed Forces and Related Personnel Article 9 shall specify that Japanese law shall apply to inspection of persons, animals and plants, as well as to hygiene of people.
Source: US military base issues in Okinawa pp17-19 Military Base Affairs Office Executive Office of the Governor Department of General Affairs OKINAWA PREFECTURAL GOVERNMENT http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/contents/attach/7005/pamphlet(English).pdf
124 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Asia Report to UNEP Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop January, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE) NO DU Hiroshima Project Contact Person of this report: Katsumi Furitsu MD. Ph. D Mailing Address: Satonaka-cho, 2-1-24, Nishinomiya, Hyogo Country: Japan Zip code: 663-8183 Phone: +81 (0)798 44 2614 Fax: +81 (0)798 44 2614 E-mail: [email protected] Website: CARE: http://www1.odn.ne.jp/hibaku-hantai/ NO DU Hiroshima Project: http://www.nodu- hiroshima.org/
CARE and NO DU Hiroshima Project have been involved in the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) since its foundation in Oct. 2003. Katsumi Furitsu is a member of Steering Committee and Science Team of ICBUW.
About ICBUW International Office: Mailing c/o CADU,Bridge 5 Mill22a Beswick Street Address: AncoatsManchesterUK M4 7HR Phone: +44 (0)161 273 8293 / 8283 Fax: +44 (0)161 273 8293 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/ Introduction: The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons was formed in October 2003 following a conference in Belgium. Representatives of 17 grassroots organizations from 6 countries were founding members. Today the Coalition is made up of 92 member/supporter organizations from 25 countries. Mission: ICBUW calls for an immediate ban on the military use of uranium, so-called 'depleted' uranium (DU), and other radioactive materials. We also demand the clean-up of contaminated sites; medical assessment, treatment and compensation of the victims; independent investigation and long-term monitoring of affected populations and environment. It calls on governments to disclose locations and quantities of uranium weapons they have used. We call for the comprehensive prohibition of production, possession, testing and sale of uranium weapons. To ban uranium weapons we promote a Draft Convention. Public Action: - ICBUW International Conferences ('04, '05: Brussels, '06:Hiroshima, '07:NewYork)
125 - Workshops and Seminars on the issue of DU weapons inviting UN delegates, UN organizations as WHO and NGOs (May '05: New York, Nov. '05 and March '07: Geneva) - Photo exhibition and workshop in EP (May '07:Brussels) - Support to the research of “Basra Epidemiological Study” and “Iraqi Children’s Tooth Project” - Events on the International Day of Action (Nov. 6th in every year, on “The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict” decided by UN)
I. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons What is DU? DU is ‘nuclear waste’ produced from the enrichment process and is mostly made up of the alpha emitting isotope Uranium 238 and is depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium 235, as compared to concentrated natural uranium (NU). DU is somewhat less radioactive than NU, yet has about 60% of the radioactivity of concentrated NU (NU in nature is thousands of times less concentrated). DU is mostly an alpha emitter, a very damaging type of radioactivity inside the body. DU and NU are identical in terms of the chemical toxicity, which is also a source of potential damage to the body. With regard to DU’s radioactivity, it is well known that concentrated DU is one of a number of radioactive materials, which are strictly controlled by laws in most of the countries of the world.
What are DU weapons?Uranium’s high density, combined with its pyrophoric nature, results in a high-energy kinetic weapon that can punch and burn through armor plating. Striking a hard target, DU munitions create extremely high o temperatures of more than 3000 C. The uranium immediately burns and vaporizes into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment, while the shell is penetrating the target. The uranium particles formed by this heat are unlike forms of naturally formed uranium in terms of their size (10 to 100 times smaller). These extremely small particle sizes are known to be much more toxic and more rapidly absorbed from the lungs than larger (micron-sized) particles.
DU weapons are inhumane weapons of ‘indiscriminate destruction’Aerosolized DU dust can easily spread over the battlefield, and can be re-suspended by the winds, spreading over civilian areas, sometimes even crossing international borders. Therefore, not only military personnel but also civilians (including children who are very sensitive to such toxic substances), might inhale the fine DU particles and internalize them in their bodies. The contamination also continues after the cessation of hostilities. DU particles will remain in the environment and retain their radiation for decades and centuries if not longer. Taking these aspects of DU weapons into account, we consider that DU weapons are illegal under binding international humanitarian, human rights and environmental law and is one of the inhumane weapons of ‘indiscriminate destruction’.
Environmental and health concerns by DU weaponsWe do not, as yet, understand the full impact of fine particles of DU oxide on the human body. However, there is a considerable amount of basic scientific evidence from both animal and cellular studies that suggest deleterious effects on human health from inhaled DU particles through both radiological action and chemical toxicity. Therefore, many scientists have warned that the issue of DU weapons should also be discussed seriously, based on the 'precautionary principle'.13, 14
13 The ‘precautionary principle’ has been established as one of the basic principles of ecosystem and public health protection. In the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which was adapted at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) in Rio de
126 On December 5th in 2007, the UN General Assembly has passed, by a landslide, a resolution entitled 'Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium' and is calling for further research into the health effects from DU.
Peacetime concerns of DU weapons Hazardous pollution results from every stage of production and use of DU weapons, including storage, transport and testing even in peacetime. For example, in the event of a fire at a storage facility for DU munitions, DU could also burn and vaporize into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment, as it does during a military action. Aerosolized DU dust could be spread over the storage facility being re-suspended by the winds and could possibly be diffused outside the facility, spreading over residential areas. A recent study clearly indicates that the workers of the DU weapons-producing factory as well as residents living nearby were contaminated by DU.15 The contaminated area extends for a radius of more than several kilometers around the factory.16
II. Concerns of DU Weapons at the US military bases in Japan 1. Storage of DU weapons 1) Facilities of concern (a) Kadena Ammunition Storage Area The US Kadena Ammunition Storage Area (27,190, 000 m2) straddles six municipalities, Onna Village (2,543 m2), Gushikawa City (493 m2), Naha City (8,611 m2), Kadena Town (3,479 m2), Yomitan Village (10,679 m2) and Ishikawa City (1,384 m2), in Okinawa Prefecture.17 The US military forces occupied Okinawa and started to use this area as an ammunition storage area in 1995, just after the end of the WWII. The Japanese government provided the US Army with this area in 1972, when the administrative right over Okinawa was returned to Japan, pursuant to Article VI of the Japan- U.S. Security Treaty. The US Air Force (the 18th Munitions Squadron) started to control this area in 1978 when the US Army shifted their storage area to Korea and Middle East. The US Air Force and Marine Corps together control this area at present. All the ammunition for the military exercises and urgent operations required at the Kadena US Air Force Base came from storage in Okinawa.18
Janeiro, they stated: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation; Principle 15.’ 14 “Joint Communiqué from Scientists On the UN Resolution Concerning Depleted Uranium Weapons” was sent to the UN delegations on Dec. 4th 2007, with a list of 67 scientists from around the world who signed it. It was drafted by the ICBUW science team. 15 Randall R. Parrish et al., “Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after approximately 20 years: implications for human health assessment”, Science of the Total Environment, 2007 October 30 [E-pub ahead off print] 16 N. S. Lloyd et al., “5 tonnes of uranium and town called Colonie – investigating the fate of depleted uranium particulate in the environment”, presented at Festival of Postgraduate Research, University of Leicester, 29/06/2007 17 Okinawa prefectural government, dep. of US bases affairs, “US military and JDF bases in Okinawa”, 2006. [in Japanese] 18 Okinawa city government, dep. of US bases affairs, information [in Japanese] is available on http://www.city.okinawa.okinawa.jp/sitemanage/contents/attach/1753/DANYAKUKO.htm
127 On February 20th, 2001, Kyle Kajihiro, Hawaii Area Program Director of AFSC (American Friends Service Committee, a peace NGO) made a Freedom of Information Act request, directed to Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander in Chief Pacific, for records relating to DU weapons at US military bases in the Pacific Command Area. On August 1st, 2001, AFSC received a reply with declassified documents. The documents included records provided by the 18th Munitions Squadron at Kadena Air Force Base, which showed that the number of DU munitions stored in the Kadena Ammunition Storage Area was 398,768 at that time. Since then, no further information about exact places, numbers and conditions of the DU munitions stored in the Kadena Ammunition Area has been disclosed.19
In 2000, 473 rounds of used DU shell cartridges were found at the property of a scrap business in Nishihara Town. They were bought from the US military as "steel scrap" and kept there without any precautions being taken.20
(b) Other Storage Sites at the US military bases in Japan Any information about exact places, numbers and conditions of the DU munitions stored in other sites of the US military bases in Japan has not yet been disclosed. However, the Japanese government has officially admitted the presence of DU munitions in the US bases in Japan, though they do not specify the sites. They do not deny the possibility of DU munitions storage at sites other than Kadena.21
2) Environmental concerns In the event of a fire or an airplane crash, DU munitions stored in a military base could also burn and vaporize into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment. Aerosolized DU dust could be spread over the storage area re- suspended by the winds and could possibly be diffused outside the area. Nearby residents and people using public roads close to the sites could be exposed to the DU dust as well.
3) Measures and evaluation (a) Measures of the Japanese government do not exist The Japanese government officially admits to the presence of DU munitions in US bases in Japan, although they do not specify the sites. They repeatedly answered questions from the public and members of the Diet: “We will never request that the US disclose information about the storage of DU weapons. It is their policy to never give us any information about the storage of specific weapons and the military capabilities at each US base in Japan.” 22The Japanese government has not taken any measures to protect residents near the probable storage sites in case of possible events of DU contamination.
19 Presentation of Si woo LEE at ICBUW Hiroshima Conference, contact
128 (b) DU-related laws and regulation in Japan: In Japan, DU is strictly controlled under domestic laws [Atomic Energy Basic Law and Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law (NRRL)] because it is considered to be a hazardous radioactive material. In these laws, DU is defined as nuclear fuel. According to NRRL, those, who are to use DU in the amount exceeding 300mg, are obliged to get special permission from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. This 300mg of DU is almost equal in amount to that used for a penetrator of only one 30mm DU shell.
During a public discussion with Japanese ICBUW members, on May 8th, 2007, an officer from the Foreign Ministry said: “The military use of DU is different from its commercial use.” Thus, Japanese government does not apply the same basis of risk assessment and regulation, when they consider the risk of DU weapons in the US bases as compared to its commercial use.
2. Past firing exercises using DU shells 1) Site of concern: Torishima US Military Firing Range Torishima is a small island (41,000 m2) in Okinawa prefecture. It is situated about 100 km (63 miles) west of the main island of Okinawa. A radius of three nautical miles (5.5 km) around the island is off limits, because of the US Military Firing Range on the island.
During the shell firing exercises carried out at the Torishima US Military Firing Range in December 5th and 7th in1995, and January 24th in1996, the US Marine Corps fired a total of 1,520 rounds of 25mm DU shells (each penetrator contains 148g of DU). This fact was revealed a little over a year later, in February 1997. The US government explained that they used DU shells “by mistake”. After that, the US military retrieved the DU penetrators, but only a total of 247DU penetrators have been retrieved.23
2) Environmental concerns About 190 kg of DU has been left scattered somewhere in the environment, in the soil and water on/around Torishima Island. During the days of the firing exercises and just after, DU dust could well have migrated on strong winds over the sea to Kumejima Island, which is situated about 25km South of Torishima.
3) Measures and evaluation Measurements of the Japanese government are not satisfactory: First of all, they could not provide the residents on the nearest island, Kumejima, with any information about the event during the exercises or after them.
In May 1997, the Japanese government carried out an environmental investigation on Torishima Island to observe the retrieving activities of US military. They also carried out the environmental investigation over surrounding waters as well as on Kumejima Island. They measured the radiation dose rate in air and the concentration of uranium (some with an isotope ratio analysis of U234/U238) in the soil, water, air dust and some marine organisms. In September 1997, the assessment committee of the environmental investigation reviewed the data and concluded: “any increased dose of
23 footnote 8.
129 radiation or DU contamination were detected and there was no environmental concern”.24 It should be noted that they took the radiation measurements more than a year after the event. No follow-up study on the environment has been done. Local authorities on Kumejima Island asked the Japanese government to provide physical exams for the people living on the island, and to continue recovering the penetrators. However, the Japanese government has taken no further measures.
III. Policy Recommendations and Civil Society Organization Challenges 1. Policy Recommendations (a) to the Japanese government and relevant local authorities: - request the US government to disclose all the information regarding DU weapons storage sites, their number and condition - take concrete measures to protect residents from DU exposure at possible events of contamination - request the US government to remove the entire DU weapons from the US bases and related facilities in Japan - strictly control metal scraps possibly contaminated by DU from the US bases - provide physical exams for the residents on Kumejima Island at the request of local authorities - carry out a follow-up survey of the environment on/around Torishima Island - request the US government to continue recovering the penetrators at the Torishima Firing Range (b) to the US government: - disclose all the information about DU weapons storage sites, their numbers and condition - remove all DU weapons from US bases and related facilities in Japan - discontinue the release of DU contaminated scraps from US bases - continue the recovery of the penetrators at the Torishima Firing Range (c) to the international community: - research the environmental situation around the military bases and firing ranges where DU munitions have been stored or used - promote the process to achieve “the DU weapons free zone” in each regions in the world including Asian Pacific Region - promote the process of achieving a total ban of DU weapons, including its storage and use at military exercises 2. Our challenges as NGO - provide people with information about the hazards of DU munitions to the environment and health, in cooperation with environmental and peace NGOs at local, national and international levels - demand that the Japanese government, local authorities and US government follow these recommendations - promote the process to achieve “the DU weapons free zone” and total ban of DU weapons in cooperation with the international community
IV. Concerns of DU Weapons at the US military bases in Korea The documents declassified in 2001, also included the records provided by the 51st Maintenance Squadron Munitions Flight at Osan Air Force Base in Korea. According to the documents, the numbers of DU munitions stored in each US
24 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Data Reviewing report of the investigation of the issue related to misused DU shells at the Torishima US Military Firing Range”, 1998, [in Japanese] available on http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/10/09/980912.htm
130 Air Force Base are 1,360,181 in the Suwon, 933,669 in the Cheong-ju, and 474,576 in Osan.25 The record showed a serious discrepancy between the numbers of DU shells actually confirmed by inspectors and figures on the document in each US Air Force Base. Especially on the Osan Base, 24,696 DU munitions may be missing; it also showed that some of the containers had punctures and shells were corroded.
In 1997, the US military force in Korea reported that a 120mm DU shell detonated by mis-classification at the Yeonchon explosive disposal facility in Gyeonggi Province. There was no protective measurement at the river running close to the facility and there was concern that the water might be contaminated. However, neither the US military or the Korean government carried out any environmental investigation. According to a testimony of a US Air Force veteran, DU shells were used during firing exercises at the Maehyang-ri US Military Firing Range.26
Relevant information
オーストラリア地位協定の研究 : 特に環境条項と軍事情報通信施設について
法政大学 教授 永野 秀雄
The Status of Foreign Forces in Australia: How Do Their Environmental Clauses Work? Professor Hideo Nagano, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan
Japanese text is available at http://rose.lib.hosei.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10114/863/1/ning_daigaku_nagano1.pdf
軍と環境法 : 特に米国の域外軍事施設に関する環境保護法制について
法政大学 教授 永野 秀雄
National Defense and the Environment the Environmental Protection Regime of U.S. Overseas Installations
25 Si woo LEE, “3 million DU shells in US Military bases in Korea”, No Nukes Asian Forus Japan, 2006, [Japanese translation] available on http://www18.ocn.ne.jp/~nnaf/81a.html 26 Green Korea United, “Another Vieques in South Korea”, Earth First! Journal, 2001, available on http://westgatehouse.com/art41.html
131 Professor Hideo Nagano, Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan
Japanese text is available at http://rose.lib.hosei.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10114/864/1/ning_daigaku_nagabo2.pdf
132 Annex I
A CSO Report on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments For submission to the United Nation Environment Programme Regional Consultation Meeting for Africa in preparation for the 9th Global Civil Society Forum (GCSF) Cairo, Egypt on 21 - 23 October 2007
This report is availabe on the UNEP Major Groups website at
http://www.unep.org/civil_society/PDF_docs/A-CSO-Report-Miltiary-Establishments.pdf
* Part of this report was submitted to the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and distributed at the
Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments, Nairobi, 3-5 October 2007
21 October 2007 Edited by The Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns,
Vermont Law School International Law Society1
1 The Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns, Vermont Law School International Law Society, P.O. Box 96 Chelsea Street, South Royalton, VT, 05068, USA URL : http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/page0005.htm Contact persons : Kaori Sunagawa at [email protected] & Weston Watts at [email protected]
i Table of contents Reports with (*) were submitted to the Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments and distributed among attending government representatives, Nairobi, Kenya October 3-5, 2007
Republic of Kenya page 1
* "A CSO Report from Kenya for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments” By SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES CENTRE (SDIC)
* "Kenya : Tabulated statement on military and environmental policies from civil society group” By Centre For Rural Development (CRD)
"Kenya : Comments for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments" By Professor Eric Odada, the University of Nairobi, Kanya
"A CSO Report from Kenya on Military activities and the Environment” By East African Wildlife Society
Relevant information * "British Army in Kenya ” * "Pastoralists Caught Between Army Drills and Survival” * "UK troops and wildlife" Provided by Center for natural Resource management, Advocacy and Marketing (CREAM)
Republic of South Africa page 24
* "A CSO Report from South Africa for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments” By NiMBLE - Nelson Mandela Bay Local Environmentalists
ii République du Djibouti/ Republic of Djibouti page 33
* "REPUBLIQUE DE DJIBOUTI : Compte rendu de CSO pour la réunion régionale africaine sur l'application des normes environnementales par les établissements militaires (REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI: A CSO for the African regional meeting on the application of the environmental Norms by Military Establishments) " By Réseau Ensemble pour le Développement Durable du District d'Arta (E.D.D.A.) (Network Together for the Sustainable development of the District of Arta (E.D.D.A.))
République du Burundi/ Republic of Burundi page 35
* "Burundi: Rapport de l'application des normes environnementales par les établissements militaires (Report of the application of the environmental standards by military establishments) " Per (by) L'Organisation pour la Defense de l'Environnement au Burundi (ODEB) (The Organization of the Defense of Envronnement in Burundi (ODEB))
République démocratique du Congo - Democratic Republic of Congo page 37
Congo: "Une politique environnementale nationale pour le secteur militaire et de défense (A national environmental policy for the military sector and the defense) Per (by) Action pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche avec Protection Environnementale de Likende (ADAPEL) (Action for the Development of Agriculture and Fishery with Environmental Protection of Likende)
"A CSO Report from Congo on Military activities and the Environment” By Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP)
Relevant information * "CONSERVATION DE LA BIODIVERSITÉ DANS LES AIRES PROTÉGÉES EN TEMPS DE CONFLITS ARMÉS : CAS DES SITES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL EN RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO (R.D.C.) (CONSERVATION OF THE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PROTECTED AREAS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS: CASE OF THE SITES OF THE WORLD HERITAGE AS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (R.D.C.))"
Per (by) Henri Paul ELOMA IKOLEKI Chercheur à l’ICCN et Coordonnateur du Projet (Henri Paul ELOMA IKOLEKI Researcher with the ICCN and Coordinator of the Project)
iii
Republic of Uganda page 56
* "A CSO Report from Uganda for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments”
By
"SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS IN UGANDA" (SAFE)
“Uganda : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment” By UGANDA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION (UEEF)
Republic of Ghana page 69
* "CLIMATE GHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE MILITARY IN AFRICA (A CSO Report from Ghana for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments) " By
KUMASI CIVIL SOCIETY GROUP (KUSOG); YOUNG LEADERS FORUM (YLF) AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (YDF)
Republic of Cameroon page 73
* “A CSO Report from Cameroon for the African regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by the Military Establishments”
By
THE FEDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY FOR AGRICULTURAL REVAMPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS (FEEDAR & HR)
" Cameroon: The contributions of the military sector in the protection of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development "
By
CAMEROON YOUTH AND STUDENT FORUM FOR PEACE CAMYOSFOP
iv Republic of Rwanda page 76
* “Ruwanda : Inputs for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments” By
African Foundation (FARMAPU-INTER & CECOTRAP-RCOGL)
Federal Republic of Nigeria page 78
* “Nigeria : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment in peacetime” By DEVELOP AFRICA NIGERIA
The Somali Republic page 85
“Somalia : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment ” By Somali Human Rights Association(SOHRA)
“Somaliland : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment” By Environment protection Organization (EPO)
v Annex I
Republic of Kenya
1 "A CSO Report from Kenya for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments”
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES CENTRE (SDIC) Contact Person(s): Maina Muniafu Mailing Address: School of Arts and Sciences, USIU P.O. Box 14634 00800 Country: Kenya Phone: +254-020-3606541 Fax: +254-0203606100/1 Mobile: +254722301597 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Website: http://www.usiu.ac.ke/usiu-sdic
a. National Environmental Policy for military /defense sector
This will be needed as a way of getting the military to build capacity to: - i. Deal with any negative environmental effects arising from its activities including preparations for warfare (practice games) or actual warfare. ii. Assist communities to deal with sustainability issues
Care has to be taken to ensure that all the components of such a policy fit into existing frameworks and that it can be effectively monitored and evaluated by independent agencies, the secrecy of military matters notwithstanding.
c. Military sector contribution to the achievement of National environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development.
A major goal in Kenya’s national environmental policy derives from the Millennium Development Goal No. 7, target 9. These seek to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Recourses (MENR) considers sustainable development to be a key concern to economic growth, equity and ecological concerns. For this ministry, areas of challenge include de-forestation, environmental degradation and wise use of mineral resources through carefully targeted programmes and projects.
One environmental area of focus for the military can be that of increasing the country’s tree cover from less than 2% to over 10%. As an institution that has a presence in all parts of the country the military can help to
2 facilitate the transportation of tree seedlings, mobilization of people/locals for tree planting and the sustainability of the tree planting programs.
Another area is in the conservation of biodiversity and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Although protection of large wildlife species in Kenya is done by the KWS, the military can assist in the general monitoring of the natural habitats or high biodiversity areas. The source of pressure on these is Kenya’s high poverty level. This leads to a great dependence on easily available natural resources by its citizens. This places immediate pressure on resources such as trees, large herbivores and natural habitats, which are desired for land cultivation. Community cooperation needed to sustain the natural resource base is difficult to solicit given the absence of programs that target conservation partnerships rather than the one-sided policing (mostly inadequate) of such resources. Military equipment and technical capacity can be utilized to rescape rural regions that have undergone soil erosion or repair infrastructure where calamities have occurred.
3 Kenya : Tabulated statement on military and environmental policies from civil society group by Sylvester ABUONJI(Programs coordinator), Centre For Rural Development (CRD) Email : [email protected]
Index Peacetime Obstinate actions Environmental concerns Military Activity 1 Armed forces Exercises Low copter flights (< 50m Disturbance of natural tranquility (Bush maneuvers; aerial alt.) within ecosystem dynamics (Example; and ground as exhibited Clan setups among gregarious by the UK and US forces herbivores, Nestlings Avians and in overseas trainings physical food chains disruptions). within Samburu and Laikipia Districts in Kenya. And the Kenyan Unexploded ordnances pose a danger regiments too moving animals , impede human development. Spent cartridges, casings Unattended post drills and wrecks litter the environment as ordnances un-recycled waste. 2 Disaster Response: 1)The dyke were Settlements precariously predisposed to As undertaken by the constructed along the river flooding. Kenya army in mitigating banks haphazardly and not the effects of perennial with regard to long term No standby emergencies for flooding within durability hence requiring evacuations for life and properties Budalang’i area occasional tendings occupying the flood zones of lower Nzoia 2)The Dyke construction river before emptying was not informed by a into lake Victoria, professional study of the western Kenya. river regime, climate understanding local anthropogenic 3 Musketry Training; Live firing result in These areas lie within major water Fire arms live munitions discharge of bullet heads, catchments namely, Athi, Tana and drills as in Athi River essentially made of element Uaso nyiro Bassins. Rifle range, Embakassi Lead (Pb) which burry into Lead is heavy metal which may be APTC. Kiganjo and the soil. A typical training taken up in the food chain as it seeps Archers Post Isiolo or competition comprises into water table, various living systems of details having several up the pyramid. Once in the hundred troops. Each physiological systems it may affect the trooper dispenses packs of kidneys filter functions or occasion a magazines with several developmental malformation in the rounds of munitions. embryonic growth stages.
4 4 Equipment Auctions and sale of All disposals and acquisitions, where Replenishment and disused military possible should be done with a hind disposal: merchandise. sight on safer environment ( echoing the basis of 3Rs ; Reduce, Re-use or Recycle) so as to sustain a sanitized environment 5 Military establishments Socio-cultural and Boost in local economies and human settlement economic interaction with -Rise in vices and red-light activities neighborhoods. the populace -Rise of illegitimate children, (As in Garison Towns vagrancies Nanyuki, Dol dol in -school drop-outs Kenya) 6 Maritime surveillances; Anti submarine surveillance Disturbance to marine life as is being As on the Kenyan coast and underwater maneuvers attributed to beach deaths for certain for Horn of Africa for using high powered sonar species as whales, dolphin, dugongs (in anti terrorism, ship piracy transmissions in vain effort to outrun frequency irritants) and strategic super power sophisticated fleets. patrols Kilindini water way and Jomo Kenyatta beach Whale carcasses sightings at the heights of Al qaida campaigns by US and NATO naval fleets.
" Kenya : Comments for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments " by Professor Eric Odada, the University of Nairobi, Kanya (Email : [email protected])
Most African laws do not apply during military activities i.e nothing in the laws that will prevent or regulate military actions. The military are very priviledged and feared in some countries.
Secondly, most military personnel are not trained to deal with environmental disasters. In fact, some of their actions have been know to exerberte environmental problems. By their nature, African military are often above the laws of their states and civilian governments are afraid to control them.
The initial step is to initiate environmental education and awareness in the military. The next step is to train them in environmental conservation and impact assessment. Third, initiate award schemes for best practices amongst the military battalions or brigades.
5 "A CSO Report from Kenya on Military activities and the Environment” by East African Wildlife Society Contact Information Affiliation or Organization: East African Wildlife Society Contact Person(s): Executive Director Mailing Address: 20110-00200 Country: Kenya Zip code: _ Phone:+254 020 3874145 Fax: +254 020 3870335 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.eawildlife.org
About your Organization • Introduction: [Feel free to describe its location, history, its members or staff] The East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) was formed in 1961 through a merger of the Kenya and Tanzania Wild Life Societies and wildlife enthusiasts from Uganda. It is established as a membership organization as reflected in its constitution and was registered as an NGO in 1993 in compliance with the NGO Act of Kenya of 1990.
• Purpose: [Please describe the aim of your organization’s work] The Society’s mission is to promote conservation and wise use of wildlife and the environment in East Africa. It has a vision of working towards an East Africa where all people can enjoy the full diversity, beauty and richness of nature.
• Efforts to Inform the Public: [Please list or describe any public education programs or publications that your group provides, for example educational events, newsletters, journal articles, studies, or books] -Swara Magazine African Journal of ecology
• Public Action: [Feel free to list and describe actions your group has taken related to this issue, for example workshops, studies, or other efforts of your group.]
N/A
6 Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
These include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector2 activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non-combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete.
Please describe problems affecting your community and the environment as a result of military sector activities. Below we have asked you to provide answers to complete a basic description of the problem you face. Please adhere to this structure as best you can because it helps us present the information.
Military sector facilities or sites of concern You can include multiple sites if you are familiar with more than one, simply copy and paste the headings under each site name and provide information under each heading.
Site: [Please name the site or location including region and country information]
I. Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: [Feel free to describe the site of activities causing a local impact in terms of its size and where it is in relation to local communities or natural resources.]
-Lamu Archipelago/ Tana Delta -Laikipia/Samburu Northern Rangelands -Kajiado/Magadi/shompole (Southern Rift) -Mt. Elgon, Pokot, Lodwar Side
2. History: [Please briefly describe the history of the site – feel free to include more information than the space provides] Most of the sites were established before Kenya got independence. The climatic conditions of the site is favorable to military trainings. However, despite most of them being pre and post colonial others have become more eminent since the instability of Somali increased and the increased risk to terrorism
2 For this survey “military sector” includes defense agencies, military forces, private contractors hired to perform defense related activities like weapons production or research, and similar organizations conducting national defense related activities.
7 3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [Please describe the source of military authority over the area or what enables them to cause the impact you are concerned about – for example, it there a treaty, a law, an agreement that you are aware of that gives or gave the military the right to operate in this area]
-State lands -Trust lands ( community land) -Private lands
4. Mission and facilities [Please describe what kind of site or facility and what its purpose is]
-shooting range -military drills -testing of equipments -dumping of military waste
5. Operations [Please describe the activities that have or continue to cause the problems you are concerned about]
-Collection of scrap metals for recycling purposes which tends to cause great damage since the people doing it to not have the technical expertise to identify the metals. -Dumping
6. Relationship with the Community: [Please briefly describe how the community and military have interacted – feel free to include more information than this space provides]
-Exclusion of the local communities from their grazing land -Provision of medical facilities -Rehabilitation of housing facilities -Lack of transparency leading to suspicion among the communities. Most of the military sites are adjacent to wildlife areas hence cause disturbance to wild animals. E..g low flying
8 II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can] You can name more than one by copying and pasting this section and filling out what you can for each concern.
Concern: [Please name a concern you can explain, and name the sites where it is a problem]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) [Please present any measures setting out the magnitude of the concern or its extent with what information is available]
2. Scope of the Impact [Please describe how many people, what wildlife, or what area has been affected by the issue you have named, with what information is available] -Reported injury cases
(a) Human Health impact [Please describe carefully, especially if you have data to contribute or have surveyed the number of people affected by ailments or injury related to your concern]
(b) Environmental Impact [Please describe any observed or studied harm to wildlife, vegetation, or the environment in general related to your concern]
-Water pollution, Air pollution, Soil pollution
(c) Economic Impact [Please describe any effect on incomes or economic activity in the area] -At the national level there’s economic gain but it does not trickle down to the nationals. -The grassroots bear the cost of the military operations -At the micro-economy, gains go to the local community
(d) Social Impact [Please describe any harm or benefit to the community you can relate]
-Sexual abuse, Child abuse, Bastardization of culture, STD’s/ HIV, Drug abuse, Prostitution, Change of lifestyle like clothing
9 III. Legality and Access to Justice
1. Access to Justice: [Please describe any legal or political activities that you or others you know have been able to use to address this concern, with what information is available]
There’s no political will to carry out any legal or political activities.
2. Cases: [Please describe any legal action that has attempted to address your concern with what information is available]
N/A
3. Law [Please list any laws, treaties, norms, regulations, or ordinances that appear to address your concern or that you may want address your concern in the future]
N/A
4. Administrative Avenues [Please describe any procedures your government has made available that you can use to address your concern(s), for example notice of harmful activities, relevant information available on request, opportunities to comment on actions before agencies make major decisions affecting your area, public announcement of major decisions, and any appeal or ability to gain an explanation of a controversial decision] N/A
IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.3
3 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
10 Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 1 [Please list your rating for each measure (ex. satisfied)]: [please express the reason for your rating] Lack of transparency
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 2 [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
A lot of inconsistency
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating] None existence
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 2 [Please list your rating, conveying your sense of the cooperation shown in addressing each of your concerns]: [please express the reason for your rating]
The relationship is plastic in nature There is no social responsibility in the military rather what we get is goodwill
11 5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Please list your rating, conveying your sense of how much assistance occurs]: [please express the reason for your rating]
We have not heard of any.
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Please list your rating for each opportunity or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
NO.
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Please list your rating for each avenue you can use to access information or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
NO
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
We don’t know of at government programme that address our problems Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [ ] Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable
12
If you have more, please continue to write below.
N/A
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates?
Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Feel free to list and evaluate the policies of each country involved, as above] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
Most of the military sites are no go zone areas to the public
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 [Feel free to list programs and evaluate each with ratings and explanations] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating] We are not aware of any
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities [What have local authorities done, or what are local authorities doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?] Nothing has been done by the local authorities
Challenges that the local authorities face among others are; -lack of information -ignorance of international; treaties -lack of supportive national and local legislation -inadequate capacity
13 2. Your organization [What has your organization done, or what is your organization doing to address the problems and what challenges do you face?]
Our mission is not about that. Our role is advocacy but the decision doesn’t lie with us.
Our greatest challenge is restricted access to the area.
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations [What have other organizations or individuals done, or what are they doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?] Not aware of any.
VI. Policy Recommendations: 1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [What recommendation do you have for national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ It should carry out Initial Environmental Evaluation, set mitigation measures to minimize the impact as well as have remedial measures ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ National Government ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below] Inorder to increase the preparedness of the relevant authorities inorder to be able to deal with issues as the emerge
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [What recommendation do you have for local authorities? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ Develop mechanisms for preparedness ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ Local Authorities ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below] To keep the local people informed and increase their preparedness To avoid conflict
14 3. Recommendation to the international community: [Feel free to direct your recommendations to international organization like the UNEP and NATO, other governments or NGOs]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ To urge the government to integrate Environmental Management in their military programme ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ International community ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below] To come up with control measures to minimize adverse effects.
15 Provided by Center for natural Resource management, Advocacy and Marketing (CREAM)
(Contact: Mr. Muswahili Evans at [email protected], [email protected]) ------
British Army in Kenya
Deadly munitions legacy: the Archer's Post Range report
The text of munition's expert David Taylor's preliminary report.
Research of unexploded ordnance contamination in the Dol Dol and Archer's Post Training Areas, Kenya
Kamal Ahmed: Britain's Secret Killing Fields
Sunday July 1, 2001
Observer
Executive Summary
During the course of two visits in April, May and June 2001 to military training areas, Archer's Post and Dol Dol in Kenya, a significant quantity of unexploded ordnance (UXO) was encountered.
Both of these areas have been used by the British Army for live firing training over many years and it is believed that most, if not all, UXO encountered is attributable to this training. Locals brought some of this to the attention of a UXO specialist researching the areas, and other items were encountered during the course of searches carried out over known impact areas. British Army insistence that they could not have fired the live UXO items encountered in these areas is not plausible in view of the evidence encountered.
Several of the items encountered were of a type that have historically formed, or are currently part of, the British Army armoury. In addition, som eof these items carry identifying marks consistent with those used by the British Army. These markings include lot numbers that will enable precise identity of the end user at unit level to be established, and it is anticipated that they will confirm British Army responsibility for UXO that has been encountered in the two training areas.
It is an undisputable fact that a proportion of all ammunition fired will not function correctly and will fail to detonate. Estimates of the percentage of these failure rates vary but an accepted working figure is 15%. It is an established fact that the British Army artillery and mortar units have used the two training areas over several decades.
Even in circumstances where there had been very thorough clearance of the areas it is likely that some UXO will have been overlooked and will remain in the area. Ammunition that fails to function and remains live on the ground presents a serious and often lethal threat to anybody who subsequently encounters it and disturbs it.
The British Army appear to have implicitly accepted responsibility for UXO remaining in the area in view of the large scale clearance operations of unprecedented proportions that they undertook earlier this year. Despite this clearance effort, two major items of UXO were encountered less than 100
16 metres away from a location that was used by the British Army to destroy UXO they had encountered during the course of their operation. This is a likely indicator of the ineffectiveness of the British Army's efforts and an indicator of the likely scale of UXO contamination in the areas concerned. Given sufficient time and resources it is highly probable that tens, possibly hundreds of UXO items could be located.
The preliminary report illustrates that some, and possibly all, of the UXO encountered is of British origin and will have been used by the British Army in live firing exercises. The implication therefore is that British munitions will have been responsible for a significant proportion, and possibly all, deaths and injuries caused by UXO in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas.
The final report is expected to confirm the above points.
Introduction
An unexploded ordnance (UXO) specialist was engaged to provide technical input and opinion to support research to establish whether the British Army is responsible for UXO that has caused deaths and injuries among civilians in Kenya.
Two military training areas at Dol Dol and Archer's Post were visited between late April and mid-June 2001. The British Army has used those areas over several decades for live firing practise using an array of live land service ammunition ranging from infantry to artillery scale munitions.
Background
Historical
It is known that the British Army has been using the Dol Dol and Archer's Post training areas more or less continuously since the Second World War. Some of the UXO encountered in the Dol Dol area carried dates of manufacture from the early 1950s. There is no consistent anecdotal evidence amongst civilians of casualties attributed to encounters with UXO dating back to this time.
It is understood that the normal procedure was to remove local people from impact areas prior to live firing practise and allow them to return immediately it was over. This is an extremely dangerous and irresponsible practise in circumstances where there is not a thorough clearance of impact areas following live firing practise. A comparable arrangement in the UK or Europe is simply inconceivable.
It is known that there had been some clearance of UXO from range impact areas, but accounts suggest that this clearance was not consistent or thorough. UXO encountered trhoughout the range areas confirms the accuracy of such accounts.
Current situation
The British Army initiated a UXO clearance operation of unprecedented proportions, probably in response to legal action being brought against them by community members affected by UXO. It is likely that the operation was at least in part an attempt to eliminate the possibility of incriminating evidence in the form of identifiable UXO being encountered by the UXO specialist researching the training areas.
It is known that the British Army could not sustain an operation of this scale in view of its limited specialist resources and other commitments. It came as no surprise therefore when it emerged that the military clearance operation was suspended shortly after the UXO specialist left after his first visit.
17 During the course of the specialist's first visit to the Archer's Post training area the British Army blocked access on the grounds of safety. On a subsequent visit the UXO specialist was able to locate several items of UXO in an area that had supposedly been cleared by the Army. This residual contamination is an indicator that there is a serious UXO threat remaining in the areas concerned.
Munitions background
Types of munitions
The munitions used in the Dol Dol training area appears to be almost entirely land service ammunition (LSA) which is the spectrum of munitions used by ground forces. Air dropped munitions have been used in addition to LSA in the Archers Post training area.
LSA includes an array of small arms ammunition SAA, or bullets in non-technical parlance. It also includes a range of mortar and artillery rounds containing both High Explosive (HE) and White Phosporous (WP) and other items such as anti-tank rockets that also contain HE.
It was not possible in the circumstances of the research process to thoroughly research the types of air-dropped munition used but no evidence of large HE bombs was encountered.
Reasons for munitions failure
A proportion of all munitions fired will fail to function in the way that they are designed to. The main reasons for failure are as follows:
• Manufacturing tolerances which keep manufacturing costs down mean that there is an in-built failure rate in all munitions at the manufacturer's gates;
• Design limitations : munitions are tested in environments that don't adequately match the areas where they are eventually used, where there could be, for example, soft ground;
• Interrupted or oblique impact: where a munition does not strike a hard flat surface on impact which it is designed to and strikes a tree, for example, or strikes a glancing blow off an oblique surface;
• Incorrect weapon usage: attributable to the user who may not have armed the munition correctly or caused it to miss its target meaning it does not function as designed.
Risks that UXO presents
All UXO regardless of its size has the potential to kill or injure, even those items not specifically designed to do so, such as blank ammunition or smoke grenades.
The least dangerous items encountered include during the research process was blank ammunition which is used in rifles and other weapons in stimulated combat. It is similar in appearance to a normal round, does not fire a bullet, but makes a loud report similar to a real round being fired. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least one person has been blinded in the Dol Dol area when blank ammunition exploded when thrown onto a fire.
Mortar and artillery rounds with HE fills pose an obvious and serious risk from the explosive force and resultant fragmentation of the steel casing. They can be detonated when struck on the fuze and anecdotal evidence suggests that deaths have occurred when people have struck items they were
18 trying to dismantle. They have considerable potential to kill anybody next to a detonation and can injure people hundreds of miles away in some circumstances.
Mortar and artillery rounds can also contain white phosporous that is designed to deliver smoke on to a battlefield to obscure the vision of an enemy. If such rounds detonate close to a person, then that person can be covered in burning white phosporous that will stick to the skin and inflict serious and very deep burns. The treatment in such circumstances would be to immerse or drench the victim in water, clearly not an option in the arid environment of each of the training areas.
Other HE ammunition such as anti-tank rockets can have fuzes that are in a very sensitive slate and consequently can detonate with very little disturbance. These, apart from the sensitivity of the fuzes pose a similar threat to mortar and artillery rounds.
Recommendations
Short term recommendations
In view of the fact that it can be shown that there is significant UXO contamination in the training areas researched, immediate and effective remedial action should take place. In circumstances where the British Army is unable to provide sufficient resources to address this issue a commercial contract to mitigate UXO contamination should be awarded to an appropriate civilian contractor.
Medium to long-term recommendations
A rolling programme of effective range clearances should be initiated in order to avoid UXO contamination reaching the unacceptable levels that they have done.
In addition, appropriate time and resources should be allocated to Grand Prix exercises in order to allow effective range clearance to be carried out immediately following live firing practise.
More stringent accounting of ammunition fired together with the number of blinds (unexploded rounds) should be recorded and maintained. It may be that appropriate records have been maintained but the evidence on the ground indicates that the British Army has not applied information to mitigate against the effects of its activities in the respective training areas.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
19 Pastoralists Caught Between Army Drills and Survival African Church Information Service, 11 June 2001
Don Dol - The experiences of the two pastoral communities, the Maasai and the Samburu of Kenya are horrifying, as the British Army continue to use their land for military training.
Apart of the environmental destruction, abandoned military ordnances in their grazing field have exploded maiming many folks. There is now an outcry from the communities, as they demand compensation up to 10 million pounds, for injuries and misuse of their land.
Christian leaders in the region say that they are frustrated by what they call ignorance from the concerned authorities. In two parts, the writer explores the conflict and the plight of the community.
About 250 km north of Nairobi, Don Dol, a small town centre, spreads below a stretch of rolling mountains. A visitor to this centre is immediately attracted by the natural view, but one does not fail to appreciate the sense of toughness presented by the dry stony ground.
This is the country, where the Maasai, a herding community of Kenya live. Another 350 km in the same direction from the city, lies Archers Post, deep in the arid northern Kenya. The Samburu, another herding community live here.
Archers Post is equally hot dry, stony and tough. These two grounds are now the centre of a battle between the two communities and the British Ministry of Defence. The two communities are suing the British government for injuries caused by military ordinances allegedly left behind by their Army.
More than 200 related accidents have been recorded, with 90 percent of them involving children. The numbers are said could rise to 400 as more victims come forward.
The pastoral communities have filed a suit in London through a civil rights law firm Leigh, Day and Company advocates. In the first of its kind suit the lawyers representing 50 members of the Maasai and Samburu communities, most of them children.
The inquisitive and curious children are the ones who have become most vulnerable to the explosives. On May 13, this writer found Nasintoi Kilesi, an eight-year old girl with a fresh wound. She had been playing with a live bullet next to a fire, which blow up missing her eye narrowly and ploughed through her cheek.
The use of the lands contravenes the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 28, which protects such communities as these two against the misuse of their land.
It says that Army activities shall not take place on the land of indigenous peoples without their consent. Hazardous material shall not be stored or disposed of on the land of indigenous peoples.
Governments shall take measures to assist indigenous peoples whose health has been affected by such material.
A whole gamut of issues for this case is being pursued. This is mostly based on missed opportunities by the community ranging from environmental destruction by heavy machinery, the alleged miscarriage of pregnant women due to the blasting of motor and gunfire during training, to the allegation that military operations begin with no warning at all.
At the army training grounds of Archers Post in Samburu District and Don Dol in Laikipia district, lay many unexploded artillery shells and grenades scattered where the herder communities graze their cattle. The tough dry hot mountains regions of Archers Post and Don Dol provide a hardening ground for soldiers. The community feels that this is one reason why the region is so preferred by the armies.
20 A whole gamut of issues for this case is being pursued. These include environmental destruction by heavy machinery, the alleged miscarriage of pregnant women due to the blasting of motor and gunfire during training, to the allegation that military operations begin with no warning at all.
Martin Day, a senior partner with Leigh, Day and Company Advocates, said in Nairobi last month that these were the places where the Maasai and Samburu live, play and graze their flocks, and had a strong case against the British.
He said the two communities were supposed to get the same compensation, as the British people were entitled for the same level of damages. The use of heavy weapons artillery here constantly, which included firing of bombs, mortar and rockets as well as smaller ordnances such as grenades was evident, he said.
Some of the writings etched on the objects read; (TV148 LX R5 69 Â TV184 VEC 10/67), C DM37 AI LOS 1M1-7) and (Grenade Hand Smoke Screening Training L8 3AI H&W 10-95 153).
A British television documentary shot in Laikipia and Samburu districts by a UK Channel Four television (shown in December, 2000) quoted an unidentified British Army source as saying that they had evidence implicating the Army on the death of three children in the area.
The children were killed hand grenades they were playing with exploded in Archers Post. The television reporter, Stevens Smith said: "The British Army has taken too many liberties with Kenyan lives and cutting corners in a way that would not be tolerated in the UK and Europe".
A lawyer from the Leigh, Day and Company said the British Army was responsible for the atrocities and used the land in northern Kenya for training of its troops because of restrictions in the UK and other European countries.
Dr Inonda Mwanje, a legal expert, giving his remarks on the Development Costs of the Military Training in the Semi-Arid and Arid Areas in Nanyuki (another Kenyan outpost) last August, said military training should be environmentally friendly.
He also said that some contingency measures needed to be put in place to rehabilitate the environment. There must also be some understanding between the military training and the local communities which appear to be lacking in the areas.
But according to the press officer at the British High Commission in Kenya, Mr. Rufus Drabble, the British Army did not fire these ordnances. "We take these allegations seriously".
"It is only in Archers Post where we have used live ammunition, which is a gazetted as a military training ground by the Kenya government. In Don Dol we have used blanks. We do not believe the bombs at Don Dol are British fired," said Rufus.
The British high Commissioner to Kenya, Jeffery James, admitted in the local media that the Army used live ammunitions, but was categorical that visual sweeps were done after every exercise. More than 3,000 British army units come to Kenya every year for specialized training in the desert and the jungle warfare.
Day said the British Ministry of Defence pays substantial amounts of money to the Kenya Army for the use of the land, but their Kenyan counterparts could not reveal the exact figures. "The responsibility of cleaning up of the area lies with the British army," said Day.
A Kenyan Member of Parliament, Mrs Beth Mugo, speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary, Judicial and Human Rights Committee of the Inter-parliamentary Union, said despite numerous reports in the media, there seemed to be a conspiracy of silence and inactivity between the two governments.
21 General Adan Abdullahi of the Kenya Army speaking on Effects of Military Training Exercises on pastoral Livelihood in Kenya in August last year said the local people were always informed through the district administration of any impending military operation. Status of Force Agreements (SOFA) is drawn between Attorney General for the Government and the concerned foreign country. Modes of compensation exist where civilians are affected. The government gazettes areas for military training. The army officers are subject to the laws of the land.
Copyright 2001 African Church Information Service. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
22
UK troops 'scare Kenyan wildlife'
By Karen Allen BBC News, Nairobi
British soldiers training in Kenya, accused of frightening wildlife, say they did not overfly the game reserves.
The soldiers, it was claimed, had been flying helicopters so low that they were scaring off the wild animals.
Game wardens in the Samburu district complained that the British forces were hampering Kenya's conservation efforts.
The allegations sparked an urgent investigation and the British High Commission now says none of the alleged incidents took place.
'Illegal' safaris
Members of the First Royal Irish Regiment are undertaking training exercises in Kenya.
But within days of their arrival at Archers Post, about 220 miles (350km) north of Nairobi, they were accused of illegally conducting their own safaris from the air, flying helicopters alarmingly low and scaring off the animals in the nearby game reserves.
A senior warden from Shaba and Buffalo Springs game reserves, Mohammed Tubi, said the soldiers had hovered low in helicopters above the parks for up to 15 minutes at a time.
The deafening noise had scared off elephants, giraffes and other wild animals, he said.
But a spokesperson for the British High Commission in Nairobi said: "As part of current training exercise, British army pilots have in the last few days been testing safety of helicopters in designated training areas, and practising dust landings at the Kenyan School of Engineering, which is 2km outside the game reserves.
"Helicopters follow routine flight paths which avoid game reserves and national parks. They have not flown beneath minimum height restrictions and have not been illegally viewing game."
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7011593.stm
Published: 2007/09/25 17:05:17 GMT
© BBC MMVII
23
Republic of South Africa
24 "A CSO Report from South Africa for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments”
Contact Information Affiliation or Organization: NiMBLE - Nelson Mandela Bay Local Environmentalists Contact Person(s): Gregory Smith Mailing Address: PO Box 23211,Nelson Mandela Bay,6000 South Africa Country: South Africa Zip code: 6000 Phone: + 27 741165509 Fax: 0865154757 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.nimblesa.org
About your Organization Introduction: [NiMBLE is a South African registered Non Profit NPO 058-208 and environmental advocacy group based in Nelson Mandela Bay. We are membership based and have a student chapter based at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Our NiMBLE constitution defines our role within our Metropolitan area and the nature of our Executive Committee. We also have strategic partnerships with government, commerce, industry and various local & international role-players.]
Purpose: [Our mission statement: To promote pro-social participation in local environmental affairs for the benefit of all Metro residents while contributing to the global climate change effort.] Efforts to Inform the Public: [NiMBLE in 2007 has:- Public Protests - We have held 3 public protests. (The mobilization of local residents has been aimed at hightening public awareness regarding certain unchecked Industrial Developments we have legitmate concerns about. We have an Industrial Development Zone within our Metro called the Coega IDZ and it is a destination for Heavy Industry Multinationals. We were joined by Earthlife Africa as we firstly protested locally, then nationally, an finally internationally. Public Meetings - We have held a number of different types of gatherings. At the university, at the beginning of the year we held a Student Life gathering where a NiMBLE stall addressed & highlighted local environmental issues. NiMBLE also staged a concert in the park, called LIVE EARTH 07/07/07 - This music festival was part of Al Gores international environmental awareness effort. NiMBLE has held a variety of meetings with local youths throughout the year. NiMBLE has meetings with local role-players within various Environmental
25 Monitoring Committee's we serve on - eg Coega IDZ EMC, FIFA World Cup Football Stadium EMC, Nelson Mandela Bay Alcan Environment Alliance, Port Elizabeth Regional Chamber of Commerce & Industry Environmental Forum etc]
Public Action: [NiMBLE has conducted the above and has used the local media & international community for lobby strength. We use the local Newpapers for local lobbies and have gained national coverage via SABC Television. We use the internet for international lobby strength and have comprehensive international internet network.]
Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities These include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non- combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete. Local issues: Environmental Impacts from past warfare -Abandoned munitions stockpiles and unexploded ordinance left over from a past war. Algoa Bay has Marine/Off-shore munition dumps. We have joined with Ocean Messangers, a Section 21 Marine Non Profit, to brainstorm, gather info and analyse this problem. These munition dumps include Chemical & Biological Weapons. (Mustard Gas) Motor pool pollution - The SANDF has decommissioned large numbers of vehicles & military equipment. We are concerned about this in our Metro specifically and in South Africa (nationally). Without proper re-cycling, this equipment is effectively polluting our environment as it is allowed to decay on site within various depots. We have a shooting range adjacent to a protected Wildlife Area, this shooting range has been a longstanding contentious issue, during past military era's the 'strategic importance' was elevated beyond environmental concerns, now we'd like to see a change in mindset regarding the placement of this shooting range. We would like to see re-furbishment & upgrades of military installations within our Metropolitan area subject to the same EIA (environmental impact assessments) as commerce & industry. Naval Maneovers - Marine wildlife & ecology is under threat from our own Navy. A recent exercise (Joint Operation) held off the coast held no regard for breeding whale colonies. We are devastating our coastal resources with exercises using live explosion etc at sea. Joint operations & foreign Navy's (USA, UK, Canada) using our coast for training is also putting pressure on marine eco-systems. Outdated equipment - Engine pollution - The SANDF has a policy of keeping on certain equipment that has 'old-technology' in terms of pollution. We would like to lobby for a
26 decommissioning of various 'old-tech' machinery in favour of equipment that meets the same standards the public and commerce & industry must comply with. Aviation - Airforce Training, controlling environmental impacts when discharging training munitions. Firing ordinance into the ocean does have a impact ! We are concerned about the protocols as outlined above. Flying has a huge carbon footprint, we'd like to lobby for simulators to be used in place of indiscriminate high pollution flying training. Nuclear - South Africa has a peaceful, Nuclear energy programme. As members of CANE, Collition Against Nuclear Energy (SA based lobby group) we are totally against Nuclear proliferation per se. We have concerns about various downstream Nuclear fuel production facilities and tranparancy regarding Nuclear weapons production accountability. PBMR's & PWR's (2 types of Nuclear Reactors) are being developed for our local area & we have serious concerns here.
Military sector facilities or sites of concern As NiMBLE is primarily concerned with local Metro issues we'll only comment on our local military base. Site: [Eastern Cape Tactical HQ - Nelson Mandela Bay] I. Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: [Humewood 'Old Group 6' Base - This military base should be naturalised. The camp is totally unnecessary & rather than decay it could be public open space or natural land.] [EC Tactical HQ 'Old EP Command' - Nelson Mandela Bay - This military base should adopt stricter environment practises. Beyond the impacts of decay and poor maintenance, the camp has little regard for heightend environmental imperatives. Across the board in SA, I believe the military can re-address its priorities with regard to environmental impacts.]
2. History: [Nelson Mandela Bay's military presence is relatively small and the bases are from circa 1950's]
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [The bases are the property of the SANDF]
4. Mission and facilities [General bases]
5. Operations [Merely re-prioritizing of environmental impacts of actions per se]
27 6. Relationship with the Community: [Although the SANDF does interact with communities, huge potential remains untapped.]
II. Peacetime Concerns: Quantifying the Above
1. Quantify the overall impact [It is difficult to quantify the overrall impact of the above but an indepth study would be able to give scientifically verifiable data]
2. Scope of the Impact [The Nelson Mandela Bay Metro is South Africa's 3rd largest city complex. We have 1.5 million people and grow at an exponentially multiplication of roughly 200 000 people per annum. The city will have 5 million people in 20 years and we have serious concerns regarding our sustainability.]
(a) Human Health impact [Unquantified, but potentially, the opportunity cost might be enormous.]
(b) Environmental Impact [Unquantified, but again serious.]
(c) Economic Impact [The Environmental Economics opportunity cost is massive, we lobby for increased/upgraded environmental ethics and the economics involved with this.]
(d) Social Impact [Unquantified]
III. Legality and Access to Justice Access to Justice: [South Africa has a great constitution. Courts may have certain buearcratic hinderances and lack of political will is something we have to continually battle. Within certain equations of sustainability, environment must still grow in stature.]
Cases: [Unresearched]
3. Law [Kyoto & various others. South Africa has great legislation & is in principle a party to fine regulations regarding the environment.]
28 4. Administrative Avenues [DEAET - South Africa's Department of Environment Affairs is seen as 'toothless' and as being co-opted by industry. We have a Minister of Environmental Affairs, whom environmentalist regard as a traitor to true environmentalism.]
IV. Measures and Evaluation Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector. Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 - Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? 2 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] We'd like to lobby for a re-prioritizing of environmental & social goals, but understand that national government has already cut defence spending dramatically, so there is that concession for their good work.
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? 1 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] No, we'd like to lobby for a single standard for military & commerce/industry.
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? 1 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] No, co-operation is ad hoc, sporadic at best and in need of a redressing.
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)?1 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] No, this is almost non-existant at present & in need of lobby strengthing
29 5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 1 No, the capacity need to be addressed & extended
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? 1 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] No, as far as I'm aware, there is no public participation at present ?
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 1 No, I think there is room for improvement
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates? 0
Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] See above
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 0 No, no political will exists.
30 V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities [No political will and no priority for this within a set of local African priority sets.]
2. Your organization [NiMBLE will continue to raise public awareness & increase environmental ethics within our Metro]
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non-governmental organizations [Globally there is a trend towards increase environmental ethics, we have a number of local & international partners attempt to allign ourselves with worthy partners who share our struggle.]
VI. Policy Recommendations:
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [What recommendation do you have for national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?] Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ National Strategy for Sustainable Development ] (a) Recommendation to: [ South African Government ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [Within a NSSD as proposed by the World Summit, we could highlight many of these issues. The environmental impact of the military could be contained within chapter of the NSSD. All countries should have a NSSD to guide their environmental policies.]
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [Local governments should utilise the SANDF more effectively for upgrades of policy & general environmental ethics] (1) Title of your recommendation: [ NMMM-SANDF Environmental Framework ] (a) Recommendation to: [ NMMM - Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [Cooperation between our Metropolitan council and local military roleplayers has been serverly overlooked. There is potential here and this needs to be explored.]
31 3. Recommendation to the international community: Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ NSSD - National Strategies for Sustainable Development ] (a) Recommendation to: [ All ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [We think the NSSD is the way to go]
VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities:
None
VIII. Additional Comment, if any: None
Notice: This message and any attachments are the property of NiMBLE and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.
32
REPUBLIQUE DE DJIBOUTI
REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI
33 Nom de notre Organisation: Réseau Ensemble pour le Développement Durable du District d'Arta (E.D.D.A.) B.P: 4241 – TEL: +253 82 84 24 FAX: +253 35 08 79 WEAH – DISTRICT D’ARTA REPUBLIQUE DE DJIBOUTI Adresse Eléctronique: [email protected] / [email protected]
A) Une politique environnementale nationale pour le secteur militaire et de défense;
En République de Djibouti, il n’y a pas encore une politique environnementale nationale pour le secteur militaire et défense. Comme vous le savez, le Ministère de la Défense de Djibouti est un petit ministère vu ses activités limitées car le pays a un traité militaire avec la France qui y posséde à Djibouti, sa plus grande base militaire de l’étranger avec 3700 hommes.Egalement, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique possédent une base militaire de 2200 hommes qui sont venus au pays tout juste après les attentats du 11 septembre 2007.
B) Des activités nationales afin de s'assurer que les casernes militaires dans le pays se conforment à leurs normes environnementales nationales dans le traitement et l'élimination des déchets toxiques;
Il n’y a jamais eu des activités nationales pour s’assurer que les casernes militaires se conforment à leurs normes environnementales nationales dans le traitement et l’élimination des déchets toxiques. Toutefois, notre ONG a relévé des cas des maladies des nomades qui habitaient aux alentours du champ de tyr Myram, qui sert aux tests des tyrs des bombes nouvelles qui sont testés dans ce champ qui est sous la tutelle de notre Région. Plusieurs décés ont été enregistrés et le cas recensé fût un cancer de gorge pour ces personnes. Un point d’eau servant à l’alimentation des nomades et leurs bétails se trouvent tout juste à côté de ce champ ainsi aussi passe la principale oued du pays.
C) La contribution du secteur militaire dans l'achèvement des politiques environnementales nationales, des buts et objectifs environnementaux visant a atteindre le développement durable;
A notre connaissance, il n’y a jamais eu de contribution du secteur militaire dans l’achévement des politiques environnementales nationales. Comme je vous l’ai mentionné, le secteur militaire djiboutien est un secteur inactif pour ce qui concerne leur implication dans des politiques environnementales. Jamais le secteur militaire djiboutien n’a mis en place des buts et objectifs environnementaux visant à atteindre le développement durable.
34
République du Burundi Republic of Burundi
35 "Burundi: Rapport de l'application des normes environnementales par les établissements militaires
(Report of the application of the environmental standards by military establishments) "
Per (by) Kinyomvyi Antoine L'Organisation pour la Defense de l'Environnement au Burundi (ODEB) (The Organization of the Defense of Envronnement in Burundi (ODEB)) (Email : [email protected], [email protected])
L'Organisation pour la Defense de l'Environnement au Burundi "ODEB" ne peut pas repondre aux differents themes pour les raisons donnees hier car le pays a connu la guerre pendant 12 ans. Toutefois, la contribution du ecteur militaire dans l'achevement des politiques environnementales se resume en ceci: une police chargee de l'environnement a ete mise sur pied et est fonctionnelle pour appuyer les institutions gouvernementales dans la protection de l'environnement. Cette activite se fait tant bien que mal pour la simple raison que cette police n'a pas ete formee suffisamment dans le domaine. Du cote miltaire, aucune action n'est menee par ce corps et les militaires ne sont pas sensibilises encore a tous ces problemes qu'ils causent: coupe de boisement, destruction de maisons, creusement de tranchees, et les impacts des differents engins utilises sur l'environnement humain. S'agissant d'une politique environnementale nationale pour le secteur militaire et de defense, aucun texte juridique n'existe a ce jour et meme au niveau du code general de l'environnement, les textes d'application manquent egalement pour que le code soit bien applique Les raisons avanceess sont le manque de juristes dans le Ministere de l'environnement toutefois je crois que si des fonds pouvaient etre disponibises , des consultants juristes d'ailleurs pourraient faire le travail. Faute de temps pour chercher les investigations, les autres themes ne peuvent pas avoir de commentaires. Fait par l'Organisation de Defense de l'environnement au Burundi
B.P. 32 Bujumbura Burundi
36
République démocratique du Congo
Democratic Republic of Congo
37 Congo :"Une politique environnementale nationale pour le secteur militaire et de défense (A national environmental policy for the military sector and the defense) Per (by) Action pour le Développement de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche avec Protection Environnementale de Likende (ADAPEL) (Action for the Development of Agriculture and Fishery with Environmental Protection of Likende (ADAPEL))
NOM DU RESPONSABLE : Amédé Daki Bopolo, FONCTION : Coordinateur EMAIL : [email protected], Telephone : 00234812194463
La proposition de notre organisation
0. Introduction
La République Démocratique du Congo est un pays doté d’immense ressources naturelles ; qui constituent un atout indéniable pour assurer son développement socio-économique à condition qu’elles soient gérées rationnellement de manière à satisfaire les besoins actuels de la population sans compromettre ceux des générations futures.
En vue d’atteindre cet objectif, notre pays a développé un cadre un cadre institutionnel de gestion de l’environnement. Il a également pris part à toutes les rencontres internationales relatives à l’environnement, notamment la conférence des Nations Unies su l’environnement et le développement qui s’est tenue à Rio de Janeiro en Juin 1992. C’est cette conférence qui a constitué pour des nombreux pays, dont la République Démocratique du Congo, nulle part on fait allusion aux activités militaires.
1.1 Conflits, guerres et environnement
La République Démocratique du Congo possède beaucoup d’informations sur la gestion de l’espace environnementale pendant la guerre, elle possède 9375 Km de frontières avec 9 pays. A cause de ce voisinage, les conflits internes dans chacun de ces pays ont eu des répercussions sur notre pays. C’est ainsi la guerre civile au Ruanda, et au Burundi a provoqué l’exode de plusieurs milliers de personnes vers la République Démocratique du Congo.
Accueillis et installés dans des camps au Nord et au Sud Kivu, les réfugiés et les militaires ont exercés une forte pression sur l’environnement à l’Est du pays. Au fil des temps la guerre du Ruanda s’est étendue en République Démocratique du Congo provoquant ainsi l’afflux des réfugiés et des déplacés Congolais de l’Est vers l’intérieur du pays. Ce mouvement a eu des conséquences négatives importantes sur les écosystèmes naturels de la République Démocratique du Congo. Les impacts dus à cet efflux doivent être étudiés ensemble pour dégager des pistes afin d’éviter des nouvelles conséquences de telle ampleur.
38 Pour notre organisation, la clé principale d’abord c’est l’élaboration dans chaque pays « d’un plan national militaire d’action national environnemental » cela doit prendre comme fondement le plan national qui existe dans plusieurs pays et de le faire adapter au contexte mais militaire on y ajoutant certains règlements militaires pour une application rigoureuse. Ce plan national doit être axé sur l’éducation environnementale des militaires avant, et pendant la guerre.
1. Education de la population et des militaires
Le comportement de la population et des militaires pendant les conflits armés doit toujours aller de paire, car le comportement des militaires pendant la guerre contribue toujours à la pollution des eaux, des fleuves, des rivières et ruisseaux servent de
« dépotoirs » pour les déchets ( cadavres), ils sont pollués par les excréments humains abandonnés volontairement et les eaux véhiculent après des nombreuses maladies hydriques, qui font beaucoup de victimes, surtout la population infantile plus que les armes.
L’éducation de la population militaire constitue l’une des solutions efficaces et durables d’assurer une exploitation rationnelle et une gestion efficiente de l’environnement. Il est à ce sujet regrettable de constater que l’enrôlement dans l’armé dans les pays en développement ne tient pas compte de niveau d’études, le facteur le plus important c’est la condition physique, l’inexistence de système éducatif informel est très accentué en Afrique, les gouvernements n’appliquent pas la politique d’alphabétisation pour récompenser le vide créer lors de recrutement.
La terre, l’eau, l’air, la végétation (flore), et la faune sont continuellement, menacés de dégradation par les militaires pendant les guerres sans l’intervention de la communauté internationale. Il y a plusieurs causes qui sont chaque fois citées, il y a la pauvreté au sein de l’armée qui pousse les militaires à commettre certains actes de survis individuels.
Il faut combattre la pauvreté au sein de l’armée dans les pays en développement par une politique économique rationnelle au sein de l’armée pendant la guerre, juste, réaliste, prenant en compte les problèmes environnementaux, constitue l’une des solutions pour une implication concrète des militaires dans la politique environnementale mondiale.
Une telle politique mettra l’accent sur la formation et l’éducation de toute la population militaire dans le domaine de l’environnement.
C’est à ces deux conditions c'est-à-dire ; la lutte contre la pauvreté des militaires pendant la guerre et le recul de l’ignorance dans le domaine environnemental peut faciliter à stopper la destruction de l’environnement dans les casernes.
39 2. Cadre institutionnel et législatif pour les actions militaires dans l’environnement
Beaucoup des pays du monde ont signé ou ratifié plusieurs protocoles et conventions internationales dans le domaine de l’environnement, il est maintenant important de mettre en place, une convention internationale de l’armée relative à l’environnement, cela peut contribuer à des poursuites judiciaires, à l’égard des officiers, des commandants dont leurs sont troupes sont reconnues coupables pour des actes contraires à la protection ou à la destruction massive des ressources naturelles.
Le PNUE d’une manière ou d’une autre doit faire pression à travers le conseil de sécurité des nations unies pour que chaque pays signe la convention, et cela peut amener dans le cadre des responsabilités de chaque état au niveau des ministères de l’environnement, de la défense et de la justice afin de prendre la responsabilité de promouvoir et de coordonner toutes les activités relatives à l’environnement pendant et après la guerre.
Ces actions environnementales importantes pour les militaires sont
1. Le développement institutionnel 2. La gestion des ressources en eau ; 3. La gestion des ressources en terre, 4. La pollution de l’air et de l’atmosphère ; 5. L’écosystème naturel ; 6. la protection des patrimoines culturels et historiques.
Le développement de cette politique doit être accompagné des points suivants :
1. Renforcer les capacités de planification et de gestion des ressources naturelles et environnementaux militaires avant, pendant et après la guerre; 2. Renforcer les capacités de sensibilisation et d’éducation environnementale des militaires avant la guerre ; 3. Développer les procédures d’études d’impacts environnementaux et constituer une banque des données environnementales après la guerre, en vue de la mise en œuvre des poursuites judiciaires, 4. L’implication des militaires dans la catalysation de la durabilité des zones protégées, 5. L’introduction des militaires dans l’intégration de la biodiversité dans les paysages et les secteurs de la production, 6. Le renforcement des capacités des militaires pour la mise en œuvre de protocole de Carthagène sur la biodiversité, 7. Créer des projets de démonstration dans l’armée, 8. Faciliter un accès plus grand 9. aux sources locales de financement pour la formation.
40 "A CSO Report from Congo on Military activities and the Environment” by Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP) Contact Information Affiliation or Organization: Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP) Contact Person(s): MIKILO NGOULOU Porel Arnet Mailing Address: Iskra - Nduenga Private School - Kinsoundi / Brazzaville Country: Republic of Congo Zip code: 18060 Phone: 00(242) 520 52 27 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ajdhpe.populus.ch
About your Organization Introduction: [The Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection (YPAHDEP) is a non governmental organization (NGO) with no lucrative goal, created in September 2004 in Brazzaville in Republic of Congo, with an aim of making take part the young people and old children from 10 to 30 years in projects and programs of environmental protection. The Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment Protection counts 50 active members, acting to protect the environment as far as possible. The staff of the YPAHDEP is composed of: MIKOLO NGOULOU Porel (President); GOMBESSA KOUBASSANA Espérancia (Vice President); MATONDO Ruth Ornely (Secretary charged with the administration); LOMBE Giscard Damien (Secretary charged with the communication); MATSIONA Orthé Luc (Secretary charged with the relations extrieures); BOUESSO Roll Matiphate (Secretary charged with the social affairs, cultureles and of the environment); MAYALA BWESSAULT Dieuveille (Trésorière General); YENGO Alden Godfré (assistant Treasurer)]
• Purpose: [The Goal of the YPAHDEP is to make known and to make respect the environment; to promote the protected surfaces and to organize the activities of productive and cultural and to imply the young people in the process of decision-making]
• Efforts to Inform the Public: [The YPAHDEP has already informed the public on the environmental problems such as: the bad management of solid waste in the urban environment and on the anarchistic deforestation in the rural medium this was made by the means of the leaflets (publication and distribution of the
41 leaflets) and of the workshops of formation in schools in order to educate and inform the pupils on good management of the environment]
• Public Action: [The YPAHDEP has already carried out several activities among which: - The collecting of waste in the streets of Brazzaville - The Plantation of trees to give a great vision on the importance of the Protection of the parks (celebration of the international day of the tree. - Workshop of formation at the school Iskra Nduenga.]
Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
These include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector4 activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non-combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete.
Please describe problems affecting your community and the environment as a result of military sector activities. Below we have asked you to provide answers to complete a basic description of the problem you face. Please adhere to this structure as best you can because it helps us present the information.
[In Republic of Congo, several ecological effects were observed with resulting from the military actions in times of peace. We can quote amongst other things: 1. The period after the war showed that the weapons used during the recent war of 1998 – 1999 contributed to the destruction and or with the degradation of the vegetable cover and the air pollution in breadth department of the pool (Department victim of this conflict). < < YPAHDEP > > 2. The toxic products propagated by the heavy armament used poisoned the grounds of this zone of conflict, the water polluted by the corpses and the animals cut down anarchically by the soldiers and the bombardments (the inhabitants of this zone living mainly of agriculture, the breeding and the craft industry saw themselves deprived of their labour from where the famine increased and intensified after the war). 3. <
4 For this survey “military sector” includes defense agencies, military forces, private contractors hired to perform defense related activities like weapons production or research, and similar organizations conducting national defense related activities.
42 gasolines used for the various needs (construction, basket making, culture etc). < < given quantified consulted in a document going back to 2001 on www.fao.org > > The effects post conflicts touch with these gasolines within the framework of the exploitation and anarchistic demolition of the trees by the ex-combatants (who exploit some to make charcoal) and by the population which does not find any more satisfaction in work pastoral and agricultural (agriculture is not any more one gainful activity because the ground becomes poor), it thus seems to them to better exploit wood to cut out it and sell for in detail and or to make of it charcoal which is sold with good market.<
Military sector facilities or sites of concern You can include multiple sites if you are familiar with more than one, simply copy and paste the headings under each site name and provide information under each heading.
Site: [ ]
I. Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: [ ]
2. History: [ ]
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [ ]
4. Mission and facilities [ ]
5. Operations [ ]
6. Relationship with the Community: [ ]
II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can] You can name more than one by copying and pasting this section and filling out what you can for each concern.
Concern: [ ]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) [ ]
2. Scope of the Impact [ ]
(a) Human Health impact [ ]
43 (b) Environmental Impact [ ]
(c) Economic Impact [ ]
(d) Social Impact [ ]
III. Legality and Access to Justice
3. Access to Justice: [ ]
4. Cases: [ ]
3. Law [ ]
4. Administrative Avenues [ ]
Because owing to the fact that we do not have a source of exact information on the military sites and all the characteristics not asked we are obliged to abstain from any comment. IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.5
Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
5 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
44 1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [2] [Dissatisfied] : [by what the laws exist well but do not make respect (the soldiers and even the government are not prompt to make respect the laws on the good management and the environmental protection.)]
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [2] [Dissatisfied]: [Many things are said but nothing is done on the ground]
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [2] [Dissatisfied]: [The law strikes only the weak ones, the civil ones in particular]
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [2] [Dissatisfied] : [in the company, the recourse to the adapted services, in the public administrations and almost in all the cases]: [complex of superiority on behalf of the soldier; no the capacity for the civil people (the civil people do not have the freedom of expression), it is necessary to be (or to have relations) militaries to be respected and to see themselves allotted justice]
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [4] [Satisfied, several]: [when it is a question of intervening some share to satisfy or protect the people, the military services are present ]
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [1] [No satisfied with the whole, any access]: [Almost no reliable participation, the population is suffering, it undergoes all the decisions without saying word]
45 7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [1] [Non satisfied with the whole,]: [The military services are the dumbest structures of information can be available (with public) but are less; the remainder is strictly interdict of access]
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [ ]
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [ ] Evaluation: [ ] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable
If you have more, please continue to write below.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates?
Overall Evaluation: [3] [No opinion] [Unknown measurements]: [ ]
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [3] [No opinion] [Unknown measurements]: [ ]
46 V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities [Mister the Minister for Tourism and the Environment who chooses a healthy environment while proceeding by the collecting of waste in 2005 and other studies of the environmental protection.]
2. Your organization [The YPAHDEP carried already out several surveys and realized activities in the framework of protection and the good management of the environment, as an association, although we do not have a subsidy, we make an effort with better protecting our environment, informing the public and to be on the ground insofar as we it can to contribute to the safeguard of our planet.]
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations [Association for the environmental protection and the durable Development, also work to ensure the good behavior of the environment and choose a healthy environmental future in our country.]
VI. Policy Recommendations:
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [It would be wise for our government to take effective but more especially to make respect the standards nationals and international measures to contribute to the safeguard of our beautiful planet; our country for example is dedicated to the turning into a desert in the years to come if one does not take measures to stop the actions which are destroying with the environment. Because the extent of the air pollution and impoverishment of the soil (of nature) are very high in Republic of Congo. ]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation : [A healthy environment and safe from any disease ]
(a) Recommendation to: [All the personnel (Authorities: governmental and local) implied in the protection and the good management of the environment ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [ If the present does not do anything to safeguard nature, the future one will be in a state more degradable and our beautiful planet will try to disappear; it is thus with us (those of today) to work for the cause of the future generation, it is necessary for us then, to have more love for our environment and to try to do all for the safeguard of the large environment so
47 not even the personality of today will disappear without leaving traces if they do not have to safeguard nature for those which will succeed them.]
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [ To mobilize the existing structures for the collecting of waste, to set up the means of adapting for the recycling and the evacuation of waste (abundant Dustbins Public) which destroys our environment, educating the people on the importance to manage its environment well and of showing that it is possible to live in a healthy environment and shelter of the diseases, to be active in the process of deforestation because the turning into a desert and the planetary reheating increase day in day, of making known and of making respect the existing laws with the Congolese population. Because the laws exist indeed, but are ignored and there is too many waste in the capitals and same in the departments of Congo if one now does not mobilize Brazzaville called `` Brazza the green' ' the day coming it can be a desert in the near future]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation : [To make known and to make respect the national and international Laws on the environment ]
(a) Recommendation to: [Mess Mayors]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [[The lack of knowledge of the laws pushes sometimes people not to protect the environment]
3. Recommendation to the international community: [ We will ask the international community to take care severely on the practical application of the international laws on the environment; to support the good wills and especially to have an eye in each large locality (by the means of the non governmental organization on the level national and international) To put an acute accent on the plastic toxic waste, inventory managements, and good governance in the African countries, to attenuate the problems of the environment posed by the hostilities such as the proliferation of pollutant gases at the time of the bombardments to the weapons with massive destruction. To take care very severely and or to legislate on the sale of the nuclear weapons, of the products for harmful purposes, experiments of the chemists (the deposit of the nuclear waste) in Africa and in all the poor countries the UNEP of and NATO, other governments or O.N.G.S ]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [Cries of alarm to save the environment]
48 (a) Recommendation to: [UNEP; OTAN; ONGS]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [In the majority of the African countries, the standards are not respected. The decrees taken at the end of the great international conferences only always (for the majority) are ridiculed. We observe very clearly whom there are more dialogue than of field work whereas most important would be to work more than one does not speak. Works on the ground is the thing most important to make now, to save the planet ground which knows serious geographical changes; it would thus be necessary to be more concrete in the actions after the many ones and interesting resolutions which are taken with each international conference. ]
VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities:
VIII. Additional Comment, if any:
[The Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment protection (YPAHDEP) is happy to take part in this manner required useful information for a better environmental future (healthy and durable). We consulted public libraries of the Web sites and especially of the documents resulting from the surveys carried out by our Association and others. The question of knowing if the Congolese environment will improve without an effective contribution remains posed. The military field and its actions in Republic of Congo especially affect the environment within the framework of and the poisoning impoverishment of the soil of vegetable spaces causing of many fatal diseases. The former wars put our country in a very pitiful state. Thus for the safeguard of our environment, us YPAHDEP are highly laid out to fold our handles to work of our hands to save our planet. This is why we have one demolished to raise, that to make known the laws on the environment and the importance to manage its environment well but more especially to show the African people which it is possible to live in a healthy environment and safe from any disease. Our future plans are amongst other things: that the international community asks the Congolese Government to carry out by the means of the Ministry for Tourism and the Environment, an impact study in the departments having undergone bombardments, in order to rehabilitate the impoverished ground and to help the population by improving their living conditions so that those stop with the massive exploitation of the trees. The government should also stop any use of the weapons with massive destruction on the Congolese territory for the good safeguard of our environment. ]
[Form filled (in the measurement of our possibilities) with resulting from research and investigations as of Young People Association for the Human Development and the Environment protection (YPAHDEP) on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and not for an unspecified publication.]
49 Provided by Henri Paul ELOMA IKOLEKI Secrétaire Général du Réseau Femmes Africaines pour le Développement Durable REFADD Afrique Centrale [email protected] Tél. : + 243 9 98 18 10 10
INSTITUT CONGOLAIS POUR LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE (I.C.C.N.)
Projet UNESCO/DRC/UNFIP (Réf. 243ZAI4070) : « Conservation de la biodiversité dans les régions de conflits armées ; Protéger le Patrimoine Mondial de la R. D. Congo »
Unité de Coordination/Kinshasa
Gestions durables des espèces animales (mammifères, oiseaux) Approches biologiques, juridiques et sociologiques Paris, novembre 2004
CONSERVATION DE LA BIODIVERSITÉ DANS LES AIRES PROTÉGÉES EN TEMPS DE CONFLITS ARMÉS : CAS DES SITES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL EN RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO (R.D.C.)
par Henri Paul ELOMA IKOLEKI Chercheur à l’ICCN et Coordonnateur du Projet
mars 2004
50 1. Présentation des Sites du Patrimoine Mondial (PM) en RDC
La République démocratique du Congo compte cinq sites du Patrimoine Mondial que sont les Parcs nationaux de : Virunga, Garamba, Salonga et Kahuzi-Biega ainsi que la Réserve de faune à Okapi. Le tableau ci-après présente ces différents sites.
N° Sites Création Superf Anné Liste Espèces phares icie en e Site Site du Km2 du PM PM danger 1. Parc Créé sous le 8.100 1979 17/12/19 Gorilles de Montagne national nom de Parc 94 (Gorilla gorilla beringei), des National Hippopotames, Éléphants, Virunga Albert par Chimpanzé, Buffles, Lions, (PNVi) Décret Royal Antilopes du 21 avril 1925 2. Parc Créé par 4.900 1980 1984 Rhinocéros blanc du Nord national Décret Royal (Ceratotherium simum de du 17 mars 1992 07/12/19 cottoni), Girafe du congo Garamba 1938 96 (Giraffa camelopardalis (PNG) congoensis), Éléphants, Hippopotames 3. Parc Créé le 30 36.000 1984 30/11/19 Chimpanzé nain (Pan national novembre 99 paniscus), Éléphant, Paon de 1970 par Congolais (Afropavo Salonga Ordonnance congoensis), Grande faune (PNS) n° 70-318 de forêt 4. Parc Créé le 30 6.000 1980 06/12/19 Gorille de plaine de l’Est national novembre 97 (Gorilla gorilla graueri), de 1970 par Éléphant, Chimpanzé, Kahuzi- Ordonnance Grande faune de forêt Biega n° 70-316 et (PNKB) agrandi en juillet 1975 par Ordonnance n° 75-238 5. Réserve Créé le 02 13.700 1996 06/12/19 Okapi (Okapia johnstoni), de Faune mai 1992 par 97 Éléphant, Chimpanzé, à Okapi Arrêté n° Grande faune de forêt (RFO) 045/CM/EC N/92
Tableau 1 : Les cinq sites du Patrimoine Mondial en RDC
51 Les cinq sites du Patrimoine Mondiale en RDC
2. Conflits armés en RDC A) Quatre des cinq sites du Patrimoine Mondial en RDC sont situés dans la partie orientale du pays qui est en proie à plusieurs conflits armés internes ou externes, depuis la décennie passée. Au nombre de ces conflits on peut citer sur le plan externe : • La guerre civile soudanaise entre la rébellion de John GARANG et le Gouvernement central qui affecte le Parc national de Garamba par l’afflux des réfugiés et le retranchement dans le parc des miliciens SPLA (Sudanese People Liberation Army) ; • le génocide rwandais de 1994, suivi des représailles sur le territoire congolais ayant comme conséquence l’empiètement des Parc nationaux des Virunga et de Kahuzi-Biega par des populations en déplacement (réfugiés ou bandes armés).
Sur le plan interne :
• en 1996 commence une rébellion, à l’Est du pays qui aboutira en 1997 par le changement du pouvoir à Kinshasa. Mais la marche vers le pouvoir se fera aussi à travers les aires protégées sites du Patrimoine Mondial ; • en 1998, une autre rébellion prend le relais, toujours à partir de la même région et se pérennise avec comme conséquence la partition du pays en plusieurs zones d’influence politico-militaires et le pillage systématique des ressources naturelles dont la biodiversité et les habitats mis en conservation dans les sites du Patrimoine Mondial en RDC.
52 3. Stratégies pour sauver la biodiversité pendant les conflits armés
La Convention concernant la protection du Patrimonial mondial, culturel et naturel a été adopté par la Conférence générale de l’UNESCO en 1972. L’inscription d’un bien sur sa Liste lui confère un prestige indéniable. Elle engendre aussi des obligations pour l’État concerné, auquel la protection de ce bien lui incombe au premier chef et qui en devient responsable vis-à-vis de la communauté internationale. La République démocratique du Congo a ratifié la Convention en 1974 et a inscrit sur sa liste les cinq sites tel que décrit dans le tableau 1.
Constatant que les différents conflits évoqués au point précédent peuvent conduire à l’érosion irréversible de la biodiversité mise en conservation dans les sites du patrimoine mondial, l’Autorité nationale chargée de la gestion des aires protégées en RDC à savoir l’Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), a rencontré en 1999, le Comité pour le Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO et toutes les autres organisations internationales vouées à la conservation de la nature qui travaillent dans les sites en vue de développer un plan d’action d’urgence pour leur sauvegarde. Le Fonds du patrimoine mondial a rendu disponible un fonds d’urgence. Entre-temps, les démarches ont été enclenchées pour obtenir un financement plus substantiel en faveur des cinq sites de la part de la Fondation des Nations des Nations Unies (UNF). En 2000, ce dernier accepte de financer pour deux millions neuf cent milles dollars des Etats-Unis (2.900.000 $ US) un projet estimé à quatre millions pour une durée de 4 ans. Les axes prioritaires du financement sont : 1. Payement de la prime aux gardes (1100 personnes pour les 5 sites) en vue de les maintenir dans les sites pour 65%du budget ; 2. Equipement sommaire (matériel d’ordonnancement, radios, uniformes…) ; 3. Formation para-militaire et en monitoring de surveillance et d’inventaire des espèces ; 4. Missions diplomatiques et réunions tripartites pour harmonisation des décisions entre des sites sous gestion des administrations belligérantes ; 5. Activités communautaires en faveur des populations environnantes des aires protégées (volet pris en charge par la coopération belge pour un montant de 300.000 Euros.
4. Évaluation de l’exécution du projet
Le Projet « Conservation de la biodiversité dans les régions de conflits armés : Protection du Patrimoine mondial naturel en RDC » a fonctionné pendant quatre ans avec l’argent de la Fondation des Nations Unies, géré par le Comité du patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO et utilisé au niveau des sites par les organisations non gouvernementales et de coopération bilatérale (WCS, WWF, PICG, SZM, SZL, IRF, GIC et GTZ) suivant les desiderata de l’ICCN. Le résultat le plus probant est que en une décennie de trouble les cinq sites ont gardé à des degrés divers leur intégrité. Certes la biodiversité a subi un coup assez dure mais on aurait déploré le pire si le projet n’avait pas existé. Les populations d’espèces fauniques phares ont gardé plus ou moins leurs effectifs. Les gorilles de montagnes ont augmenté de 10% de leur effectif avant la guerre. Les Rhinocéros blancs nord qui ne comptaient que 5 exemplaires en 1984 sont passé et maintenu à une trentaine d’individus. Certes que la grande faune (Éléphants et Hippopotames) a subi des pertes importantes par le fait de braconnage et trafic illicite de l’Ivoire et de la viande de brousse (la population d’Hippopotames aux Virunga est passé de plus de 20.000 individus avant les guerres à environ 1.300 individus. Certaines parties des parcs ont été envahies par des populations en déplacement. Certains Parcs sont occupés à plus de 80 % de leur étendue (cas du Kahuzi-Biega) mais le secteur vital est resté sous contrôle des gardes de parcs. Dans l’ensemble, l’ICCN en collaboration avec ses partenaires ont mis en place des mécanismes de collaboration et de gestion en temps de conflits qui peuvent faire école.
53 Il s’agit surtout : • L’appui est accordé directement sur terrain par le payement de la prime des gardes et leur équipement pour le maintien de la surveillance malgré les troubles ; • L’instauration des missions diplomatiques qui comprennent des délégations externes des scientifiques, diplomates ou journalistes ou d’autres personnes célèbres et influentes pour amener les belligérants à l’observance d’une certaine neutralité vis-à-vis de toute la communauté de conservation ; • L’utilisation des partenaires établis dans les sites et en contrat avec l’institution nationale de gestion des aires protégées ; • Le battage médiatique entretenu permet de garder focalisé vers les sites le regard de la communauté internationale.
5. Conclusion
L’alignement de quelques aires protégées de la RDC, dans la liste des Sites du Patrimoine Mondial s’est révélé un outil efficace pour mobiliser l’appui tant national qu’international pour la sauvegarde des sites. La situation n’est certes pas reluisante mais elle aurait été pire n’eût été le mécanisme mis en place par l’ICCN et soutenu par le Comité du Patrimoine Mondial. En comparaison avec les autres sites tels que le Parc National de la Maïko qui était devenu pratiquement une « terra incognita », le processus a permis la sauvegarde du capital écologique sur lequel on pourra rebondir pour les lendemains meilleurs.
Ceci démontre que malgré l’appui politique et financier, seulement la paix peut garantir du succès à long terme.
Après la stabilisation totale du pays par la réunification et l’imposition de la paix à tous les coins, il y a nécessité de rassembler des moyens financiers, humains et matériels pour qu’à partir du capital écologique sauvegardé, les différents sites, riches en biodiversité, puissent connaître un essor nouveau pour le bien des générations tant présentes que futures de l’humanité toute entière.
En illustration, quelques cas célèbres d’endémisme des Mammifères protégés dans les sites du Patrimoine Mondial en RDC.
Dos argenté de Gorille des plaines de l’Est Bain des Chimpanzés nains (à la Salonga) (au PNKB)
54
Okapi (à la RFO) Rhinocéros blanc du nord ( au PNG)
55
Republic of Uganda
56 "A CSO Report from Uganda for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments”
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS IN UGANDA
SAFE
2ND Floor 2ND Door South Bukedi Coop Union Building Plot 6 Busia Rd, Tororo Municipality, P.O BOX 815 Tororo UGANDA
Phone +256772837861 0ffice +256454448729 Email: [email protected] [email protected]
1st October 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 About your Organization………………………………………………... 2 2.0 Back ground……………………………………………………………… 2 3.0 Wars and its effects……………………………………………………… 2 4.0 Military activities that have caused environmental degradation………… 3 5.0 Effects of the wars to the environment………………………………….. 4 6.0 National environmental policy for the military sector………………….. 4 6.1 Interventions strategy…………………………………………………… 4 7.0 National activities in order to ascertain that military establishment in the country conform to their national environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes ………………………..…………………. 5 8.0 Poor government policies……………………………………………….. 5 8.1 Causes …………………………………………………………………... 5 8.2 Interventions ……………………………………………………………. 5 9.0 The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development……………………………………………. 9.1 Intervention by the Military to reduce environmental degradation …….. 5
10.0 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 6
57 1.0 About your Organization SAFE is a non-profit making non- governmental organization which is located in the district of Tororo in Uganda and operates in others districts of Butaleja, and Bugiri. Its involved in Environmental Management, Agricultural activities especial Sustainable Organic Farming, Agro- forestry and capacity building of institutions of all levels and advocacy. Our slogan is “CONSERVE NATURE, TO FIGHT POVERTY”
We carry out activities on behalf of government like NAADS “National Agricultural Advisory Services” program and have partners with other government institutions, NGOs and CBOs within Uganda.
We are in partnership with the Nile Basin Initiave (NBI) and we are implementing a Nile Trans- boundary Environmental Action Project “NTEAP” in Malaba Town border with Kenya. We are conserving River Malaba and its ecosystem through a waste management project. Our funders are World Bank and UNOPS for Nile Basin Initiatives project. Internationally we are accredited to the Global Environment Facility.
2.0 Background In Africa and the world at large, the climate has changed drastically and this has led to many changes taking place which have led to changes in weather conditions and climate alterations all over the world. This situation has led to global warming as resulting to melting of the ace caps of mountain tops, the polar zones like Artic melt. Others are long drought, encroachment and expansion of the desertification.
The change of rainfall partners and unreliability of the rainy seasons of which now the floods have affected most parts of Africa and Uganda in particular. These have occurred all over the world ranging from African continent to America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
Above all the highest percentage 95% in terms of causes to climate change and environmental degradation is initiated by mans activities. These activities have to be checked so that some of the effects to arise can be minimized.
In the world and Africa in particular, environmental deterioration has been due to many factors
which some are , poor farming methods, deforestation, urbanization, over population, natural
disasters like floods, cyclones and extraction of wetlands and other water bodies. Above all these,
the issue in point is wars and its effects to the environment.
These are stated below,
3.0 Wars and its effects 3.1 Wars and conflicts both civil and international conflicts, have highly contributed to climate change in the world. Wars are not bad, but necessary in human survival and one of the tools of bringing an understanding among a certain group of people when peaceful methods fail. 3.2 Many wars have had a lot of effects in the world, for example the First World War affected3the human race when millions of people died and property lost. The Second World War claimed about 52 million lives and above all the atomic bomb claimed many lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
58 These claimed lives of humans, animals, trees and earth nature. These effects still affect people where they occurred.
3.3 Above all the effects of war have a variety and levels of effects to the environment, ranging from immediate, medium and long term.
4.0 Military activities that have caused environmental degradation In Uganda in northern part of the country earth scotch method of fighting was used where trees and especially fruit trees like Mangoes, Jack fruits and other fruit trees which could supply rebels and either side of the combatants where cut down as a method to starve the fighters. Deliberate cut down of tree cover to flush out rebels and soldiers of either side is an environmental hazard. Setting up of military camps, detaches in the forests has always left the natural resources of trees for temporary shelters constructed by both government soldiers and rebels. The use of poles and grass for structures, use of firewood for cooking and frequent shifting from one place to another. Also the use of fire to burn forests when encountering rebels and either side of the combatants as been so common, this is evident where the military war fare in Uganda between the rebels and the soldiers and in other developing countries use less of air force to identify the enemy in the ground or positions, thus setting up of fire to a bushy areas whenever they want to encounter armed combatant.. In the war of northern Uganda, the rebels have frequently set ablaze houses of the community and killed many people. This in most cases has always affected the surrounding villages when the fire catches to the whole area and especially during dry season of November to February and July to August. The Uganda invasion of Democratic republic of Congo (DRC) left the whole world amazed until when the Congo government sued Uganda due to exploitation of her natural resources. This was carried out by all parties who invaded Congo, yet the mission was to overthrow the Mobutu and Laurent Kabilas’ Government. Like wise Congo being a heavily forested country, it was easy for the forest to harbor the soldiers and rebels as well. Due the search for either side of the forces, fire has always been set up and the forests resources destroyed in large numbers.
Other resources destroyed where the wild animals like the Baboons, Gorillas and many creatures which make the Congo ecosystem. The plunder of Congo resources also took place like timber, diamond and many other natural resources which where exported to developed countries. In real since, the Congo war was also economical due to the abundance of natural resources which where not easily monitored. In reference is the blood diamond of west Africa where the wars continued as the rebels exchanged diamond for ammunition to use to win the war. The essence of wars in Africa are basically on the fight for natural resources/ wealth, like the recent clashing of the Congolese and Ugandan troops on the lake Albert is directly on the oil extraction on the lake which is shared by both countries. The effects of the wars for example in northern and eastern Uganda led to what is termed as internally displaced persons (IDPs) who where collected in camps. These camps are set aside and congest a lot of people and there are no healthy facilities. 100% of the structures are made of mud and roofed with grass and poles. These are destroyed from the nearby forests and the community extracts firewood from the vegetation around. There is little carried out like farming for sustainability and no measures put in place like planting of tree cover. The healthy conditions are alarming in these refugee camps. The bombs used have had adverse effects to the natural resources where the vegetation is burnt down. Use of land mines is the commonest tool used by both parties in the conflict. The army lays down to trap the rebels, while the rebels also use them so frequently when they retreat and as a method to out compete the soldiers. This has had adverse effect to the community in Northern Uganda. Many people have been killed, left crippled and left limbless due to landmines. Many children have fallen victims to landmines and farmers as well as they go to carry out farming, the landmines explode on them. Many homes have been abandoned for decades and those who go back find it very had to cope up with life. The Rwandan civil war of 1994 which claimed over 800,000 had its effects in Rwanda but also impacted on the environment. This was due to reports and photographs which unveiled to the world how
59 human bodies floated on river Kagera and polluted the river system down up to Uganda. The river which was a source of fish and water for the communities near by where affected due to decomposing human bodies floating in the rivers. Wars have also affected the animal kingdom which plays a big role in ecosystem cycle where many wild animals are killed whiles others run away to other places. Also the killing of the wild animals has led to reduced numbers of animals in Game parks or in the wild.
5.0 EFFECTS OF THE WARS TO THE ENVIRONMENT Unstable communities who move from place to place, which has not given them time to settle and cultivate on their land due to fear of being abducted and killed. Reduced food production and starvation of the communities in war tone areas as realized in northern Uganda and in Congo during the 1997- 2002 war. The Congo war of 1997-2002 had adverse effect to the communities due to famine, diseases which killed many people which where indirectly caused by the war. Destruction of the natural resources especially the plant cover. Change of the environment and climate change like in northern Uganda and southern Sudan. In southern Sudan where their has been no care for the environment, the climate in very harsh and there is need for project activities of afforestation in the affected areas. Declain in development in the affected areas and unequal division of resources, to stable parts of the countries. For an example, no investor or project activities can take place in war affected areas. The Afghan, Iraq wars also have affected the earth and led to climate change, the bombs blasted have claimed lives, vegetation cover, increased global warming due to the heat generated by the explosions. These have resulted to pollution of the skies with toxic gases. Effect on the aquatic life, has always happened for instance the first gulf war where Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait affected the oil resources. This was due to deliver release of oil well into the sea and burning of the oil which affected the skies and the aquatic life.
6.0 National environmental policy for the military sector 6.1 INTERVENTIONS STRATEGY For the land mine issues there is need for clean up of the affected parts of the country and all African countries, where wars have taken place. International laws to be followed by both sides of the conflict to adhere to environmental laws. If the landmine policy is enacted in Uganda, where usage is banned or restricted the effects to civilian natural resource effect will be minimal. If rules of engagements are followed up properly which will not have effects on the environment. An example to be followed was in Angola where the civil war affected the national growth and the war tone areas left backward for long, their intervention in landmine clean up as set a different state of development. This can be through awareness to the communities and having truce in the conflicts for wars to end. The world can copy from other laws on restricting use of specific weapons like the nuclear weapons. This has worked very well, by international communities, though some countries like North Korea and Iran and still stubborn. The ban on landmines cans help a lot and destruction of forests by use of heavy firearms. Restoration of the vegetation cover can be very possible for any country in Africa and the world at large. This can be in war affected areas. The Ministry of defense can carry our afforestation, reforestation as stated by national policies, if there enacted so that they can provide firewood for them selves as well as good vegetation cover. An example, is military barracks should plant forests that can serve there needs whenever they need tree materials. The internally displaced camps can be turned into forestry plantations, after vacation of the people, and also a policy can be enacted for all camp occupants to set up tree plantations.
60 National policy and international policies should be enacted to all countries to stop the earth scotch war strategy which destroys the environment. This method also involves poisoning of water points like ponds, wells and application of chemicals which will kill any human who consume the water. Environmental conventions on the parties in wars who have a direct hand in the destruction of natural resources should be enforced to any country. For example during the first gulf war of 1990-1991, Iraq destroyed the oil wells of Kuwait by releasing the oil directly into the gulf water bodies (Ocean). This had a very drastic effect to the marine ecosystem (aquatic life) and the environment. And this costed a lot of money to clean up the oils from the water bodies. Though laws and fees should be charged to cater for such effects.
There is need for a policy for the army to use at least air craft for surveillance and operations than unselective destruction of nature’s beauty in search of unseen enemies by burning the vegetation to flush out a rebel. Though most African countries can not afford surveillance/ reconnaissance planes.
7.0 National activities in order to ascertain that military establishment in the country conform to their national environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes ¾ The ministry of defense can be of help and international bodies can play a lot like in the destruction of small firearms which the Uganda government has done for so long. This law and policy has been carried out especially to cattle rustling areas of Karamoja where the natives possesses illegal guns and use them to rustle cattle and steal the communities. This has happened, but it’s very hard to get the landmines and other dangerous weaponry has been destroyed. What is needed for the issues is destruction of light fire arms as well as landmines and also to disarm and destroy captures weapons. ¾ Need to destroy landmines and any dangerous weapon, so that they may not used at all due to its effects to the environment.
8.0 POOR GOVERNEMNT POLICIES. Though wars have contributed to nature destruction, in Uganda even the poor government policies have played a role. In the past months it was known in the whole world, how the government had decided to de-gazette a part of Mabira forest for sugar cane plantation to be established.
8.1 Causes Poor decision making by members of parliament best on monetary gains and business profit issues than nature conservation and environment protection for future sustainability. This also has been in sections where military budgets are increased without looking at the effects of the war on the environment.
8.2 Interventions ¾ Sensitization to the members of parliament, government officials on the policies that can govern well the natural resources. ¾ At times need to have donor tied grants that my target climate change interventions to conserve natural resources. ¾ Governments can set up Environmental policies for the military to follow which will reduce the effects on the Environment. ¾ Increasing of budgets at all levels from donors to governments and NGOs to apportion higher percentages of projects to nature conservation.
9.0 The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development.
9.1 The military can initiate and help in projects as below; ¾ Use of solar cookers by communities since Africa and Uganda in particular has a lot of sunshine. Use of improved charcoal stoves that consume less firewood and charcoal. I.e. Lorena stove.
61 ¾ Use of bio-gas for cooking and lighting, especially from dung of cattle, Pigs and sewage. This can be introduced in the camps of the displaced persons and military detaches. ¾ Use of solar lighting by use of solar panels. ¾ Policies to be used in the extraction of forestry resources by local authorities. The military to participate in tree planting days and world environment days. ¾ Sensitization to the entire communities on afforestation activities and institutions especially those of higher learning to establish their tree forests for firewood consumption as well as the military barracks ¾ Introduction and prioritization of forestry based projects and programmes by donor communities and the governments. ¾ Participation on tree planting events. ¾ Ban on the use of toxic weapons to all nations.
10.0 Conclusion The military has played a big role in Environmental degradation, but there can be a way to reduce, if policies are passed to governments in form of conventions so that they can be adhered and followed.
Drafted by Moses Aisu Okurut Coordinator SAFE. Bachelors Degree in Environmental Management Certificate Sustainable Organic Agriculture [email protected] [email protected] +256-772837861
62 “Uganda : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment ”
by UGANDA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION(ueef)
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: UGANDA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION(ueef) Contact Person(s): MR NICHOLAS SENYONJO Mailing Address: P.O.BOX 5658 KAMPALA Country: UGANDA Zip code: 256-414 Phone:256-414-290740 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Website: wwwugandacoalition.or.ug
About your Organization
• Introduction: [Feel free to describe its location, history, its members or staff] UEEF is an indigenous NGO founded in 1997 by a group of professional environmentalists and its registered by the Government of Uganda
• Purpose: [Please describe the aim of your organization’s work] To sustain ably provide policy advocacy, agro forestry, water and sanitation and conservation of the natural resources through education and trainings.
• Efforts to Inform the Public: [Please list or describe any public education programs or publications that your group provides, for example educational events, newsletters, journal articles, studies, or books] .Environmental Education and awareness .Environmental publications through newsletter
• Public Action: [Feel free to list and describe actions your group has taken related to this issue, for .example workshops, studies, or other efforts of your group.] • Hold workshops and awareness on environmental degradation through military activities especially in Northern Uganda .Organizing policy workshops to inform policy makers on the dangers of environmental violations.
63 Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
These include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector6 activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non- combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete.
Please describe problems affecting your community and the environment as a result of military sector activities. Below we have asked you to provide answers to complete a basic description of the problem you face. Please adhere to this structure as best you can because it helps us present the information.
Military sector facilities or sites of concern You can include multiple sites if you are familiar with more than one, simply copy and paste the headings under each site name and provide information under each heading.
Site: [Please name the site or location including region and country information]
I. Characteristics of the site :Northern Uganda, lira District 1. Location and Size: [Feel free to describe the site of activities causing a local impact in terms of its size and where it is in relation to local communities or natural resources.]
In Lira district, families have been misplaced, property destroyed, lives lost due to military activities involving Lord Resistance Army(LRA) and Government forces. Further more, the area has been polluted with heavy gun powder causing more effects on the Ozen layer. Forestry destroyed due flushing rebels out the forests and many other related environmental crimes.
2. History: [Please briefly describe the history of the site – feel free to include more information than the space provides] The history of the site is where the langi tribe origanetes and it has been in the war as by 1998.
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [Please describe the source of military authority over the area or what enables them to cause the impact you are concerned about – for example, it there a treaty, a law, an agreement that you are aware of that gives or gave the military the right to operate in this area] Uganda Army controls the sites by now.
4. Mission and facilities [Please describe what kind of site or facility and what its purpose is]
5. Operations [Please describe the activities that have or continue to cause the problems you are concerned about] Defforestration
6 For this survey “military sector” includes defense agencies, military forces, private contractors hired to perform defense related activities like weapons production or research, and similar organizations conducting national defense related activities.
64
6. Relationship with the Community: [Please briefly describe how the community and military have interacted – feel free to include more information than this space provides]
The Military and community are interacting well, no more distanbances from the rebels.
II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can] You can name more than one by copying and pasting this section and filling out what you can for each concern.
Concern: [Please name a concern you can explain, and name the sites where it is a problem]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) [Please present any measures setting out the magnitude of the concern or its extent with what information is available]
2. Scope of the Impact [Please describe how many people, what wildlife, or what area has been affected by the issue you have named, with what information is available]
(a) Human Health impact [Please describe carefully, especially if you have data to contribute or have surveyed the number of people affected by ailments or injury related to your concern]
(b) Environmental Impact [Please describe any observed or studied harm to wildlife, vegetation, or the environment in general related to your concern]
Wild life during the war most where effected and even made some to runnto neibouring countries.
(c) Economic Impact [Please describe any effect on incomes or economic activity in the area]
(d) Social Impact [Please describe any harm or benefit to the community you can relate]
III. Legality and Access to Justice
1 Access to Justice: [Please describe any legal or political activities that you or others you know have been able to use to address this concern, with what information is available]
2. Cases: [Please describe any legal action that has attempted to address your concern with what information is available]
65 3. Law [Please list any laws, treaties, norms, regulations, or ordinances that appear to address your concern or that you may want address your concern in the future]
4. Administrative Avenues [Please describe any procedures your government has made available that you can use to address your concern(s), for example notice of harmful activities, relevant information available on request, opportunities to comment on actions before agencies make major decisions affecting your area, public announcement of major decisions, and any appeal or ability to gain an explanation of a controversial decision]
Government has given security to NGOs and relief agencies to provide services tothem.
IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.7
Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 – Satisfie d x 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] NO mainly on the side environment and social goals things are not moving on well. [Please list your rating for each measure (ex. satisfied)]: [please express the reason for your rating]
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] Not satisfied at all [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] satisfied [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
7 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
66
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] satisfied [Please list your rating, conveying your sense of the cooperation shown in addressing each of your concerns]: [please express the reason for your rating]
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? 3 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating, conveying your sense of how much assistance occurs]: [please express the reason for your rating]
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 3 [Please list your rating for each opportunity or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 2 [Please list your rating for each avenue you can use to access information or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 3
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [ Northern Uganda Rehabilitation Program ]
Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] 3 Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable
If you have more, please continue to write below.
67
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates? 2 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list and evaluate the policies of each country involved, as above] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem?3 Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list programs and evaluate each with ratings and explanations] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities [What have local authorities done, or what are local authorities doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]
2. Your organization [What has your organization done, or what is your organization doing to address the problems and what challenges do you face?] Tried to sensitizes but lack resources
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations [What have other organizations or individuals done, or what are they doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]
VI. Policy Recommendations:
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [What recommendation do you have for national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [Participatory problem solving with all stakeholders. ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ Let Government sit down with Environmental Organisations and UNEP to come up with environmental solutions. ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below] Military Environmental related issues effects everybody
68
Republic of Ghana
69 CLIMATE GHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING AND THE MILITARY IN AFRICA © (A CSO Report from Ghana for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments) BY NELSON GODFRIED AGYEMANG, Msc.; PGDPA,B.A.(HONS)1. CHAIRMAN,KUMASI CIVIL SOCIETY GROUP(KUSOG); BOARD CHAIR, YOUNG LEADERS FORUM (YLF) AND BOARD CHAIR,YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION(YDF) P.O. BOX 4941, KUMASI-GHANA TEL+233-244-741-755 FAX. +233-51-23622 E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]
Introduction
This short presentation is a CSO Report from Ghana for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments to contribute to the topic: The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development.
And I look specifically at what the Military in Ghana may do together with Civil Society in the Potential, Imminent and Occurring Climate Change disasters that pose threat to peace and security.
Climate change/Global warming, Peace and Security
Climate Change as a result of human activities, particularly those that relate to use of pollution- producing oil and other fossil fuels such as industrial processes, electricity generation and motor cars is now part of our earthly reality, and Africa is having its ”unfair” share of this phenomenon, having contributed to 4% of the world’s green house gases, but being “ the poorest and least developed of the world’s regions, will be especially hard-pressed to adjust” to climate change and global warming (Africa Renewal:07). As the earth heats up, it alters rainfall and other weather patterns, threatening human, animal and plant life with potentially calamitous climate change consequences (Africa Renewal: 07). These consequences include dwindling water bodies and sources, drought, floods, rising coastal sea levels and the related disasters and damage to human , animal and plant life and property.(Young Leaders Forum-Melting Ice- A Hot Topic?:07) “Among the most worrying effects of global warming is the impact on water supply.”(Africa Renewal:07).All over Africa we have began to experience disasters which already indicate the threat of global warming/climate change has caught up with us. Flood and rain related disasters have already occurred in 20 countries this year alone. Ghana is reported to be one of the 3 hardest hit countries (Others being Togo and Burkina Faso), in this water, flood and rain related climate change disasters. In a Span of 2 months, Rainstorms and flooding has affected areas in the north and south of Ghana, with disaster proportions. Civil Society Leaders predict, that if this trend continues and exacerbated by the anticipated rising sea levels, low lying coastal south of Ghana and the arid and erratic rain affected areas of the north will be flooded and citizens will be forced to move to the centre of Ghana, most likely to the hilly second city, Kumasi, its areas and its region. Then it will become true that “ many will move into overcrowded cities that today strain to provide jobs, housing and basic services, and will themselves be under threat from effects of climate change”(Africa Renewal:07).
70 This phenomenon already being exemplied in Africa and Ghana has serious implications for Global, National and Community peace and security, as recently stated by the UN Secretary General and supported by Leaders at The Security Council “ The economic, political and social consequences of climate change could threaten world peace unless the world acts now to prevent it, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the security council on 17th April.”(Africa Renewal: 07).
The military in Africa
Clearly whatever phenomenon that affects peace and security has relevance for the military. But that is not the only reason it should be concerned about Climate Change and Global warming. The Military’s own uses of oils and fossil fuels and military hardware have implications for the environment, and its own contribution to global warming. This is even important, as security considerations, do not always allow the military to disclose its choice of these motorable equipment, and so where environmentally wrong decisions are made they have even more impact on polluting the ozone layer. The Military institution already plays an important role in disasters including, natural ones, even in peace times. In Ghana, the Military has more expertise that can benefit the country even in peace times, whilst some of that expertise is badly needed for the benefit of civilians. One area in which the military expertise can be tapped, beefed up to benefit Ghana, before, during and after disasters is in the area of Management of Climate Change and global warming. The thesis is to encourage Military-Civil-CSO interaction and joint actions in areas such as, Information management, prevention, early warning, early intervention, disaster Preparedness and management, monitoring, surveillance and intelligence related to “planning for the coming climate shocks and assisting vulnerable communities to adapt”(Africa Renewal:07).In September, 2006 UNFCCC Secretariat convened a workshop on climate change adaptation attended by 33 Africa governments, international agencies and Civil Society groups. “The meeting highlighted the need for greater monitoring and early warning of climate changes and severe weather events like drought and floods, and called for integration of long-term adaptation strategies into development and disaster preparedness programmes.”(Africa Renewal:07).Clearly any move at developing national military environmental policies will benefit very much if they are put in the right Civil-Military interface for cooperation and wider impact.
Some Areas to Consider for Civil-Military Cooperation in Environmental Policy, Strategy and Action Plans: 1. Information Management, Systems and Dissemination and ICTs- Collection, storage, processing, transmission, use and evaluation of information related to potential, imminent and existing climate change disasters. The Building of Capacity of Children, youth and Citizens in use and management of information communication technologies(ICTs) for climate change adaptation will be vital along the lines that are proposed for adoption by The Ghana ICT4AD process.( Agyemang, N et al:06) 2. Prevention- Education and awareness to citizens on potential and looming dangers from climate change and effects of human activity on climate change, military-civil interface in prevention activities, military-CSO joint disaster preparedness, afforestation, water harvesting, reduction of co2(chlorofluorocarbons/green house gases) emissions, protecting ozone layer, use of ICTs. Before disasters even strike, there is the need for Civil-Military cooperation to build up “national, provincial and community capacity to recognize and manage climate change and promote private sector involvement in climate change adaptation”(Africa Renewal:07) 3. Early warning systems- Metrological, climatological, weather systems, information exchange and role of ICTs through cooperation between Military-civilian institutions at governmental and non-governmental levels. 4. Early intervention- Joint Information sharing, evacuations, relocations, resettlement, and rehabilitation efforts by civilians CSOs and the military
71 5. Disaster management- Joint military-civil-CSO disaster management and humanitarian teams- broad based training, information exchange, interaction, joint operations, rehabilitation, health care, Food and water supply, housing, etc, resettlement, and long term development 6. Monitoring/Surveilance/Intelligence Citizens, CSOs and Military cooperation in monitoring potential, imminent, occurring and existing disasters, checking interventions at several levels for results using the following guidelines as means of assessing progress of all actors:
Indicators for expected results will include: Effectiveness Efficiency Appropriateness Adequacy Relevance Comprehensiveness Quality Protection of life Protection of property Assurance of National interest and sovereignty Sustainability
CONCLUSION
The Military need to be systematically involved in Environmental policy, strategy and action plan making, including the looming Climate change challenge facing Africa. Such efforts need to be collaboration between Military-Civil-CSOs. And “the action plan emphasizes local, national and sub-regional responses to environmental degradation, improved environmental monitoring and research, and more effective international partnerships to promote “green” technology transfer, improve disaster preparedness and early warning systems and ease the consequences of climate change on the most vulnerable”(Africa Renewal:07)
1. The Author is Chair of Various Civil Society Groups, A Consultant and a key CSO Leader in Ghana with two decades experience in CSO, Development and International affairs. He consults on these issues for various entities. © Please acknowledge this source in use of this information.
References
1. UNDPI,JULY,(2007), AFRICA RENEWAL,VOL.21 NO.2,UN-NEW YORK, USA 2. AGYEMANG,N ET AL(2006), OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF ICT FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT IN GHANA,YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, KUMASI GHANA 3. YYYOOOUUUNNNGGG LLLEEEAAADDDEEERRRSSS FFFOOORRRUUUMMM (((YYYLLLFFF))),,,(((222000000777))),,,RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT::: MELTING ICE-A HOT TOPIC? TH WWWOOORRRLLLDDD EEENNNVVVIIIRRROOONNNMMMEEENNNTTT DDDAAAYYY CCCEEELLLEEEBBBRRRAAATTTIIIOOONNN,,,555TTHH JJJUUUNNNEEE,,, 222000000777,,,YYYLLLFFF,,,KKKUUUMMMAAASSSIII---GGGHHHAAANNNAAA,,, WWWEEESSSTTT AAAFFFRRRIIICCCAAA
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR CONTACT: NELSON GODFRIED AGYEMANG CONSULTANT P.O. BOX 4941, KUMASI-GHANA TEL+233-244-741-755 FAX.+233-51-23622 E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]
72
Republic of Cameroon
73 Subject: “A CSO Report from Cameroon for the African regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by the Military Establishments”
by
THE FEDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERSITY FOR AGRICULTURAL REVAMPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS (FEEDAR & HR)
PO BOX 321 KUMBA MEME, SOUTH WEST PROVINCE, REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON www.feedar.interconnection.org Email:[email protected] [email protected]
Summary:
Cameroon is a country that has been under civilian rule since 1960, but it has had only two presidents, the late El Hadji Ahmadou Ahidjo, president from 1960-1982 and the current president his Excellency Paul Biya from 1982 to the present.
The president remains the commander and chief of the armed forces of Cameroon, having a total of 26000- 27000 personnel on the ground, air and the naval forces.
Little is documented or known about the Cameroon national environmental policy for the military and the defense sector.
So far there is no mechanism put in place to address the consequences that may arise from the effects of the military.
The Lake Nyos gas Disaster in the North West Province of Cameroon on the 21st of August, 1986 was determined not to be a military act. It was identified as an accumulation of CO2 at the bottom of the lake.
The CO2 suffocated up to 1800 people and 3500 livestock in surrounding villages. Measures have been put in place to reduce the effects of CO2 accumulation in the future.
Cameroon, has suffered much in her long history, more recently a failed coup d'etat in 1984 and political turmoil towards attaining the multi-partisan politics in 1990-1992.
The forces of law and order used all measures within their competence to arrest these challenges to restore order which has not really brought peace to the country.
In 1994 the boarder crisis between Nigeria and Cameroon began over the disputed oil rich peninsula.
This war was centered within the borders, within the creeks, and the effects or damages caused to the environment have never been talked about.
It is possible that for defensive purposes ammunitions that are not environmentally friendly were deployed within the region in the early stages of the attack when fighting was intense.
Additionally to conserve the nature of this peninsula, that is mainly occupied by poor fishermen, it will be of paramount importance for a quick surveillance to be made within and without the boarders of both countries especially to provide safer fishing, safe drinking water and safe environment for the people of both countries.
Thanks to the green tree accord initiated by the former UN Secretary General Koffi Anan it is possible for peace to reign within the region and to permit experts and environmentalists to penetrate the region to provide safety to the innocent and impoverished population.
74
Cameroon: The contributions of the military sector in the protection of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development
Organization: CAMEROON YOUTH AND STUDENT FORUM FOR PEACE CAMYOSFOP Contact person: NJIFAW GEORGE Mail Address: BP 3873 MESSA YAOUNDE CAMEROON Tel 00237 75811235 Fax 237 2233958 Email: [email protected]
In Cameroon , the military sector has been quite encouraging in puting in to place international norms that Cameroon is a signatory to.The gendarmes in Cameroon which is also part of the military and also in the legal department, has contributed immensely in taping down defaulters in the domain of forestry wildlife and fisheries.The 1994 law on forestry and wildlife has been put in place in which the gendarmes traps down defaulters of the law who are in possession of animals species that are endangered and may be extinct in some part of the world.
Nevertheless the gendarmes contribute for the prosecution of defaulters who polute the environtment with toxic waste deprieving citizens of a sound and healthy environmen mindfull of the 1996 law on environmental management in Cameroo.
The military has contributed immensely in briging peace in Cameroon, and of couse avoiding the destruction of her natural heritage.She is one of the most peaceful conuntry in Africa particularly in central Africa. Having looked at these contributions, it is highly recommended that the gendarmes, the police NGOs and the judiciary has been contributing alot in protection of environmental sensitive resources for global need.
75
Republic of Rwanda
76
Ruwanda : Inputs for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environmental Norms by Military Establishments ______
By Hibert Kirongozi, Head in charge of External Relations and Information African Foundation (FARMAPU-INTER & CECOTRAP-RCOGL) Email : [email protected]
Reference made to your commnication inviting us to provide input for the African Regional Meeting on the Application of Environment Norms by Military Establishment. The following is our short comment on this matter:
1. As far as this subject is concerned and the dynamics in great lakes region; few information related to this topic has been accessible to the general public, including civil society.
2. In relations to the listed topics:
(a) A national environmental policy for the military/defence sector
For the moment, we do not possess exact information on the existence of national environment policy for military/defence sector in the country. However, in the general context there is an existing national environment policy. This information could be verified and shared with later.
(b) National activities in order to ascertain that military establishments in the country conform to their national environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes
This needs first to verify if the policy exists, thereafter we could identify the activities. Beside, some activities related to the general national environment policy have been conducted in the country.
(c) The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development
In some extend, the military sector has been contributing to the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development. An assessment of the negative impact of military activities visa-a-vu the contribution of military sector should be conducted.
(d) Assessments of the damage as well as the need for and feasibility of the clean-up and restoration of areas where damage to the environment has been caused by military activities.
In line with the precedent comment, the above needs to be conducted. And we believe that this process should involve others non-military stakeholders, including civil society.
3. In relation to UNEP regional meeting on this topic in Africa, with reference to your communication, we regret that this event will not be opened to Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). We look forward the participants in the meeting and the organizers, and UNEP in particular, to take in consideration inputs from CSOs and understand that the later are partners for the success of this process and its related works.
77
Federal Republic of Nigeria
78
Nigeria : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment in peacetime
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: DEVELOP AFRICA NIGERIA Contact Person(s): ADEWOLE TAIWO Mailing Address: CLOSE 12 HOUSE 10 SATELLITE TOWN Country: NIGERIA Zip code: 23401 Phone:+2348023354679 Fax: NIL E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://developmentinafrica.cfsites.org
About your Organization
• Introduction: We are located in Lagos State, Nigeria with state coordinators in Abuja, Oyo State and Port Harcourt, The organization was set up in 2006 after concluding my Master Degree in nEnvironmental Resource Management from Lagos State University, NIGERIA our membership are spread across the country, and they are mostly vounteers
• Efforts to Inform the Public: We have been embarking in educating the general public through email, publication of leaflets, and organizing seminars, workshops and also attending conferences
• Public Action:
We have embarked on series of workshops and studies which were widely supported my Ministry of the Environment, Earth Day Network and Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO, Japan, and we are still receiving support from other NGO’s out there.
Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
Military sector facilities or sites of concern
Site: [Niger Delta Region]
I. Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: There are many sites in Nigeria, the most recents one are the one taking place Presently in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where the military are recently Battling with the militant in the region, most of the house and farming activities in The creek has been badly damaged, forcing the farmers and inhabitants of that Region to be homeless and their water badly pollutedDe
79
2. History: The Niger Delta region is where Nigeria derived it minerial resources from (Crude oil) and since 1999, there have been a lot of crisis in the region, which forces the President to allowed the military to move into the region, and ever since then, there have been various crisis every day between the military and the youth (Militant) in that region, a lot of lives have been lost and properties and environment devastated
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: The command in Chief of the Armed force of Nigeria, (The President) gave the military the right to operate in this area
4. Mission and facilities The Mission was to bring peace back to the region and curb the activities of the militant in the region, and people are not feeling to secure with the presence of the military in every nooks and corner of the region.
5. Operations The mission was to bring peace to the region, but the military are applying tougher action by bombing and polluting the creeks which has already been polluted already through the activities of the oil companies in the region.
6. Relationship with the Community: The Mission was to bring peace back to the region and curb the activities of the militant in the region, and people are not feeling to secure with the presence of the military in every nooks and corner of the region.
II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can]
Concern: [Please name a concern you can explain, and name the sites where it is a problem]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) As stated earlier on the many people along the creek are been displaced and their water polluted, many people in these region relies on the creek for fishing, and farming, despite the activities of the oil companies, the military are not also helping matters
2. Scope of the Impact We have some of our members on field who are presently carrying out the research on this impacts
(a) Human Health impact
We have some of our members on field who are presently carrying out the research on this impacts
(b) Environmental Impact We have some of our members on field who are presently carrying out the research on this impacts
80
(c) Economic Impact We have some of our members on field who are presently carrying out the research on this impacts Though it is widely known to the whole world that the Niger Delta is a no go area for investors
(d) Social Impact We have some of our members on field who are presently carrying out the research on this impacts
III. Legality and Access to Justice
6. Access to Justice: Most of the Legal or Political activities in the region is towards the oil companies and also towards the Youth in the region, because if there is a mutual understanding between the youth and the oil companies, there wont be any need for the military to be there at the first instance.
7. Cases: Most of the Legal action so far are against the activities of the oil companies in the region and in most cases it takes longer time to get justice due to our Judiciary system in Nigeria
3. Law There is a need to review the Law that gives the president the power to call for military interventions throughout the country without proper consultations with the parties involved
4. Administrative Avenues We have been embarking on enligthment campaign and sanitizing the public on how to carry on their activites with the presence of the military in their region and another means is through this questionnaire which we are currently processing
IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.8
Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
8 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
81
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [4]
There is a need for the Nigeria to inculcate Environmental Education into the Military training Curriculum
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [2]
Like I said ealier on there is a need for the Nigeria to inculcate Environmental Education into the Military training Curriculum
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [3] There is a need for more cooperation between the military forces and local authorities because there is this believe among the local community that the only thing the military understand is force.
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [3] There is a need for more cooperation between the military forces and local authorities because there is this believe among the local community that the only thing the military understand is force.
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [3]
I am not satisfied because most of the military men are going beyond their primary assignment in the region, they are taking the laws into their hand.
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [3]
The Public participation is not going round, in most cases it is usually between few selected individuals who doesn’t have much saying in the crisis
82
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [3]
There are no first hand adequate informations and the Government or the military hardly releases information to individuals or organizations
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [3]
There are no sound foundation of information that are fiscally and Techologically executable
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [ ] Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable
If you have more, please continue to write below.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates?
Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list and evaluate the policies of each country involved, as above] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list programs and evaluate each with ratings and explanations] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
83
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities The local authority are trying their best, but in most cases, it is the CSO and the NGO who usually comes to their help
2. Your organization We have been embarking on enlightenment campaign and also carrying out more studies on the impact of the military activities in the region
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations
There are lots of other NGO out there who are voicing out about the implications of the military activities in the region, the academics are also carrying out research and studies on the impact of military on the region, the businesses organization have little or nothing to do at all because they believe the military are there to protect their investments
VI. Policy Recommendations:
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): The national Government has to inculcate Environmental Training/Management into military traning, so that they can know the impact or implication of their activities What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ ] (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities
3. Recommendation to the international community: [Feel free to direct your recommendations to international organization like the UNEP and NATO, other governments or NGOs] International community through UNEP. NATO and other International NGO’s out there should support local NGO/CSO and local communities
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
84
The Somali Republic
85
“Somalia : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment ” by Somali Human Rights Association(SOHRA)
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: Somali Human Rights Association(SOHRA) Contact Person(s): Mr.Abdullahi Sheikh Abukar Mailing Address: DHL,Mogadishu,Somlia Country: Somalia Zip code: 2125 Phone:+25 25 98 53 67 Fax: N/A E-mail: [email protected] Website: N/A
About your Organization
• Introduction: [Somali Human Rights Association(SOHRA) is non-Government, Non-Profit ,non- religious organization founded Feb.8,2002 and Based Mogadishu ,Somalia. the members are Volunteers Comprising into two Groups. • ( group A) Human Rights Protection Team and (Group B) is Environmental Protection Team . Due to The combination of these two Groups nominated as SOHRA. • The Structure is as follows: Board of Directors: Executive Director Project Coordinator Environmental Protection officer Human Rights Protection officer Financial officer Public Relation Officer]
• Protection and Promotion of Human & Environmental Rights Issues
• Efforts to Inform the Public: [a) collecting waste materials from main Streets • b)_Planting Trees where the charcoal from wood trees had been Abused • c)planting trees where education is taken plan as Schools, University, Academy • d) Public Awareness Raising through media as Radio Talk Shows, Newspapers • e), Holding Workshops, Forums or public Rally
• Public Action: [Enhancing and Assisting Environmental Protection Campaign for Somali IDPs During and after civil war in Somalia.
86 Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
These include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector9 activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non- combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete.
Please describe problems affecting your community and the environment as a result of military sector activities. Below we have asked you to provide answers to complete a basic description of the problem you face. Please adhere to this structure as best you can because it helps us present the information.
The Number four is most affecting in our Somali Community like, eviction from where IDPs were habiting by Military Action. as for Former Governmental Buildings in Mogadishu, Somalia. So that IDPs has no Planned where to settle because, they live very Risk shelter that could not resist Sun light at day time as well as coldness ,Rainy. In addition to that there is no single Latrine that may share IDPs , waste materials is surrounding , Disposal of trash, drinking water and Washing water are not separated closely each other. The result of that is poor Sanitation and Environment wasting. <
Military sector facilities or sites of concern You can include multiple sites if you are familiar with more than one, simply copy and paste the headings under each site name and provide information under each heading.
Site: [Military sites concerns in Somalia are more than any other sectors of Civil services, for example in Lower shabelle Region, south-Somalia has the following sites concern: 1. BALLI-DOOGLE 2. LAANTA-BUUR 3. DHANAANE 4. ARBISKA 5. GUUL-WADE
I. Characteristics of the site: the Characteristics of sites are military training purposes only 1. Location and Size: Each site of Military concern area mentioned above is estimated 2000 meters square. Lower shabelle region in Somalia is the most suitable for farming and cultivation lands. Where is most fertile soil could be available any seasonal plantation. But for military occupying Reason the peasants or small scale farmers evacuated from their farms resided where there is no enough cultivation. This was Impacted to flee community from their farms and go to bigger urban/town like Mogadishu to Seek Employment and leave crop production activity from their farms.
2. History: as mentioned above the sites, The whole Lower Shabelle Region is most producing crops region than the in Somalia. Let me give you an example of this Region. It was the first Region targeted By Colonial era of Italy and has adequate irrigation water from Natural River named (Shabelle River)
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [ let me explain this issues, as we aware, in any country of Africa has final decision making by traditional clan leaders. Regarding to this areas in lower Shabelle Region especially where the military activities have been conducting is only participated by Local traditional leaders
9 For this survey “military sector” includes defense agencies, military forces, private contractors hired to perform defense related activities like weapons production or research, and similar organizations conducting national defense related activities.
87 and Military officers in oral agreement not written document signed both sides. So if the traditional leader of area agreed would be given start up Money for his own interest then followed by getting incentive money each month from the date of oral agreement to last day of his life. Thought, during this event could not participate by local ownership community.
4. Mission and facilities Military training, Weapon Storages, testing weapons, Mine/Explosion Elements, air force base, Repairing and Food storage
5. Operations • [ confrontation between Military Operation against insurgents, because military has more access than insurgents . so that, when incidence happened , Human and Environment are affected for result heavy artillery weapons
6. Relationship with the Community: There had never been happened to interact local Community and Military, but may only be Traditional leader. And this is not fair for participation of ownership Community
II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can] You can name more than one by copying and pasting this section and filling out what you can for each concern.
Concern: [Please name a concern you can explain, and name the sites where it is a problem]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) [Please present any measures setting out the magnitude of the concern or its extent with what information is available]
IDPs without Shelter and food
88 2. Scope of the Impact [Please describe how many people, what wildlife, or what area has been affected by the issue you have named, with what information is available]
Lack of water for IDPs
(a) Human Health impact [Please describe carefully, especially if you have data to contribute or have surveyed the number of people affected by ailments or injury related to your concern] when the IDP person come a new place it is difficult to adopt in the area then they may meet poor sanitation that affect their health.
(b) Environmental Impact [Please describe any observed or studied harm to wildlife, vegetation, or the environment in general related to your concern] many houses, plants have been destroyed during the war by heavy artillery exchanging.
(c) Economic Impact [Please describe any effect on incomes or economic activity in the area] The IDPs meet with Food shortage and water, destruction of their Micro-Enterprises
(d) Social Impact [Please describe any harm or benefit to the community you can relate] Huge number of IDPs has been fled from Homes-Mogadishu and they have no shelter, food, Medicine
III. Legality and Access to Justice
8. Access to Justice: [Please describe any legal or political activities that you or others you know have been able to use to address this concern, with what information is available] the activities that have been implemented by our NGO is (investigation, Documentation, Monitoring and Advocacy of Human & environment Rights)
9. Cases: [Please describe any legal action that has attempted to address your concern with what information is available] when the war was going on IN Mogadishu, Somalia. We were reporting
89 the accurate number of IDPs fled from Mogadishu to our UNHCR Partner and it has been pleased by the International Community
3. Law [Please list any laws, treaties, norms, regulations, or ordinances that appear to address your concern or that you may want address your concern in the future] 9 To be applied Universal Declaration of Human Rights 9 International Laws for Environmental protection 9 To
4. Administrative Avenues [Please describe any procedures your government has made available that you can use to address your concern(s), for example notice of harmful activities, relevant information available on request, opportunities to comment on actions before agencies make major decisions affecting your area, public announcement of major decisions, and any appeal or ability to gain an explanation of a controversial decision]
[We as Human Rights Association (SOHRA) Deeply Disappointed the Speech of Mayor of Mogadishu Complaining UN Agencies and Partners Working in Somalia are Ding Discrimination on Somali Community. This Speech Announced Tuesday on 31/07/2007 in the Occasion of Opening Seminar Participating Currently for 16 districts of Mogadishu including Members of Administrative, Security, and Community Mobilizes. The Mayor Mohamed Dheere Openly attack UN-Agencies and Partners Working in Somali complained that they are Doing Discrimination.
We believe that The Word of Discrimination Used by The mayor of Mogadishu is Illegal and Violation against UN- Agencies and Partners working in Somalia . We recognized that he doesn’t know the Definition of Discrimination, for the following Facts:
9 High officer representing from UNDP Brought to Mogadishu and Distributed Equipments Amisom Peacekeeping army that assist to indicate where land Mines and Explosives are hidden. within the same day that dated 31/07/2007 are carried out this donation this Equipment will Improve the Protection of Somalia Community especially in Mogadishu Community That Killing result of Land Mines Explosives. 9 Also UNDP is playing concrete role in the Current National Reconciliation Conference in Mogadishu in terms of Funding for Conference Participants in Logistic, Accommodations and other facilities that required in the Meeting.
9 UHHCR is also played concrete action that was supporting for Recent Vulnerable IDPs/Refugee fleeing from armed conflict in Mogadishu . And Still UNHCR And other UN-agencies working I Somalia are standing to Support The Vulnerable groups of Somalia .
Hence, SOHRA Request from Mogadishu Mayor Mr. Mohamed Dheere Respect and Not To Violate UN-Agencies and Partners. And he must announce Apologize Statement as soon as Possible
IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.10
10 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
90 Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [please rate (1)
[Please list your rating for each measure (ex. satisfied)]: [Not satisfied at all because we are very aware of the most national budget is used for Military concerns ]
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [1]
[Please list your rating for each measure]: [Military activities and industrial activities are different sectors that affect different environmental , economical, health and social concerns ]
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate (1)
[Dissatisfied at all ]: [Because there s no any negotiation that can participate all Grassroots Community to reach common cooperation]
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [4]
[Please list your rating, conveying your sense of the cooperation shown in addressing each of your concerns]: [ Cooperation between Military and Stakeholders is the Part of Participatory of decision making process that can Stop abuses or affect of military activity to environment Protection and reaching accountability and Transparency agreement. Because this is the outcome of community participation ]
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [please rate (4)
[Please list your rating, conveying your sense of how much assistance occurs]: [in fact Military assistance for emergency time includes: Floods, Droughts, Explosion of Easily Spreading Diseases, Insecurity as well as instability arise among Community]
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate (5)
91 [Please list your rating for each opportunity or your general sense of how much access you have]: [Because , opportunity has been participated all community levels and it is transparency by knowing the public what kind of agreement has been reached ,Terms of References, Job descriptions by the military concerns]
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [4]
[Please list your rating for each avenue you can use to access information or your general sense of how much access you have]: [ because , liable source of information is independent Media houses in FM Radios, newspapers, international Journalists correspondents are free from Government
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [4]
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [Environmental Protection project ] Evaluation: [2] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and 9 (c) technologically executable
If you have more, please continue to write below.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates?
Overall Evaluation: [4]
[Feel free to list and evaluate the policies of each country involved, as above] Each site of Military concern area mentioned above is estimated 2000 meters square. Lower shabelle region in Somalia is the most suitable for farming and cultivation lands. Where is most fertile soil could be available any seasonal plantation. But for military occupying Reason the peasants or small scale farmers evacuated from their farms resided where there is no enough cultivation. This was Impacted to flee community from their farms and go to bigger urban/town like Mogadishu to Seek Employment and leave crop production activity from their farms.
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [4]
[Feel free to list programs and evaluate each with ratings and explanations] [ let me explain this issues, as we aware, in any country of Africa has final decision making by traditional
92 clan leaders. Regarding to this areas in lower Shabelle Region especially where the military activities have been conducting is only participated by Local traditional leaders and Military officers in oral agreement not written document signed both sides. So if the traditional leader of area agreed would be given start up Money for his own interest then followed by getting incentive money each month from the date of oral agreement to last day of his life. Thought, during this event could not participate by local ownership community.
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities: [What have local authorities done, or what are local authorities doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?] Somali Transitional Government(TFG) has successfully Stopped exporting of Plants used Charcoal. Smuggling is continuous undergoing.
2. Your organization [What has your organization done, or what is your organization doing to address the problems and what challenges do you face?] My organization fulfills Human & Environmental Protection Activities. So, our problems is only external funding issues, But, we do local Fund Raising program that could not cover for target program.
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations [What have other organizations or individuals done, or what are they doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]Other local NGOs and local community including Business Group and Interested Individuals always encourage us to carry out as small as possible project implementation in order to achieve the target goal.
VI. Policy Recommendations:
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [What recommendation do you have for national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [Decision making Process ]
(a) Recommendation to: [must be participated by all local community Levels in the area]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [this is the sense of participatory decision making process from bottom to top of the local /ownership Community
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [What recommendation do you have for local authorities? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: p ]
93 (a) Recommendation to: [ must be participated by all local community Levels in the area]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [this is the sense of participatory decision making process from bottom to top of the local /ownership Community
3. Recommendation to the international community: [Feel free to direct your recommendations to international organization like the UNEP and NATO, other governments or NGOs]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [promotion and protection of Environment ]
(a) Recommendation to: [must be increased ways and means to protect environment issues]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [ we have seen and experienced international community does not Interested to support all environmental related issues and we Request them to glance this important issues ]
VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities:
(1)Please attach relevant materials (documents, articles, videos) that may support your work or help someone understand the situation in more depth, and feel free to comment on any other issues concerning military activities:
This Somali IDPs crowed to escape Military Fighting single Mini-Bus with high Fare prices during Military fighting with insurgents (2) Please provide information which you think helpful such as websites and any other groups or individuals who are working on this topic.
VIII. Additional Comment, if any: [Feel free to present any future plans you have made for addressing this concern, or feedback on the issue, this survey, or related work in general] environmental protection must be as poverty alleviation in worldwide Campaign. Because, "if you protect the environment means you protect yourself". Therefore, we must plan near future series campaign related environmental protection globally.
94 Somaliland : the Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment ” by Environment protection Organization (EPO)
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: Environmental Protection Organization (EPO) Contact Person: EPO Executive Director/Mr.Abdiazaziz Osman Elmi Mailing Address: Hargeisa City: Email : [email protected]/[email protected] Country: Somaliland/Somalia Zip Code: 00252 Phone: 0025224463531
Military Sector Facilities, or Sites Of Concern: Introduction: There was a military regime that dictated the pace of everything in this country (1969 – 1991). The later was the union between the British, and the Italian Somali lands . This regime, that has its origins in the south, the Italian Part, has had a lot of premonitions about the union, which was very biased then, as all sorts of developments were concentrated in the south. These include the health issues, the university, the trading licenses, and the like, as it did everything it could to disabled the northern communities. And there , after severe, and damaging wars, including bombing aerially the local people, together with the destruction of the infrastructure, and obviously looting it, the military regime that was finally desposed, has planted mines enormously across the land, and thus caused major impacts, such as killing innocent civilians, and/or making them severely disabled, to the communities .
1. The geographical locality we will like to present to you, as the one that will serve for us the purpose you did propose is Salahlay district. We will discuss the characteristics of the district, its location, and possibly the size. The district locates by the border with Ethiopia. It is a medium-sized town, with a population of about 20,000 individuals, sometimes rising to 35,000 during the rainy season. The military regime discussed, fairly planted mines, and bombs across this particular district. The result is too serious, and perhaps with terrible consequences than anticipated, as hidden mines planted exploded with innocent local civilians such as children, women, and men, including the elderly. The outcome is very grim, and gloomy, as one sees many disabled people around the area. There are, adding insult to injury, health-hazard items as asbestos, and other serious contaminating pollution that cause huge damages to the environment.
2. History: The district is not far from Hargeisa, the capital-city of Somaliland; it is about 55 miles, surrounded by 33 villages, quite strategic locations for the military regime then, as the border with Ethiopia , an old enemy then, posed a particular threat, was founded in 1950. The point to be made here is that various military exercises were undertaken there, leaving a lot of items that damaged the environment. These include, as previously written, asbestos poisoning civilians, and/or causing childhood leukemia, with a contaminating pollution, causing serious damage to the environment, and hence past warfare impacts.
95 3. Ownership & Authority To Control The Area In Question: The area, as said above, was a strategic location for the then military regime because it did put a dangerous threat to the country, as the military believed it, as the border with Ethiopia, an enemy then, was almost there. The implication here is the military did make many military showdown drills that feared the enemy, and made it take-for-granted that the regime was very strong, and dangerous, and that facing such as opposition was, in fact, an impossible mission to do, because of its sheer power, and combat readiness. The idea to be understood here is, as the military exercises were unfolding, many health-hazard- items were presented to the public such as bombs,, abandoned ammunition stockpiles, and perhaps unexploded stuff, all contributing for the current problems. The later is compounded with the military's enemity, and hatred towards its own citizens, by planting hidden mines, and bombs, to lessen the possibilities of Ethiopia invading them whilst causing problems to the country, and its citizens, without giving due respect, and consideration to its own people here, and there at Salahlay. All of these issues cited above exacerbate the problem, and hence cause more damages to both the community members, and the environment. And no wonder the effect the stuff substances cause to the later is damaging, and degrading.
4. Mission & Facilities: The site was certainly a military one, and its purpose was, in its eyes, defending the territory. Fine but there were some hidden agendas, as causing problems to both the community members there, and the environment (please see above for details).
5. Operations: There are some mine-clearing agencies that are engaged in demining the area, like others in the land. The Danish Demining Group, which has done many effective good works in clearing the mines, and/or alleviating the problems the later cause to the public at large, is one of them. This group does also raise the consciousness of the public about the mines, and its unpleasant effects on our lives, never mind the environment, that is either abandoned, or destroyed, as a result of the undesirable experiences put to. It is very appropriate to make some written information, in the form of leaflets, posters, cassettes, and possibly audio-visual videos, ready for the purpose, the effect of which will be ever-lasting. The government here, and its public are concerned about the dangers the mines pose to us. There are some approaches though unsuccessful, financially, to many funders to come forward, and to assist in tackling this ugly, and perhaps lethal threat. We are of the opinion that raising the public's conscious about the terrible effects of mines, and related health-hazards, for the time being, is extremely paramount. We are, however, very pleased to know your organization right now, so that we will put-a-pen-a-paper to seek your assistance in these threatfull phenomena both technically, and financially. And it will be extremely very kind of you should your organization makes some noises on our behalf, to resolve the problem from a united front, resource-permitting.
6. Relationship With The Community: The military troops did obviously interact with the local community, which by, and large, hosted the former, by involving themselves by the way of selling businesses with them, by befriending with them in such ways as marrying the locals there. The point made is very sensitive, and perhaps alarming, as some affected military personnel may pass some contagious diseases as menegitious, and other passed diseases to others. There were other possibilities the locals would face the threat posed by the new arrivals, the military. This is, as a result of, the later carrying out military drills, by using dangerous weapons that could cause serious diseases that could put threat to both the humans, and the environment.
96 A Case Study: The Effects The Superpowers Chemical Decompositions have on Humans & The Ecology. The city of Berbera in Somaliland is a very strategic seaport in the Red Sea. It is the southern entrance to the Suez Canal in the same sea. And it was precisely this reason alone that the British Empire did look after its interests in the 'Horn of Africa' since the 'Berlin Conference' in 1886 in which the scramble for Africa was the agenda. Its presence was also felt strongly in Aden, Yemen, at the northern entrance to the canal. And no wonder, the same objective was proven relevant during the cold war era in which the superpowers, the Soviet Union then in the 1970s, and the United States in the 1980s did chase their sphere of influences World-wide.
It was the Soviet Union that settled in the area initially. The problem to be shared with you is, coming back to our theme, that the chemical decompositions of the stuff left by the superpower, and the effects it has had on the ecology, and subsequently on the local population there. The point of our argument is the chemical decompositions in question smell terribly, as the temperature soars higher into the 40s. This smell reaches the living things, the people, and the animals which, in turn, become sick, and eventually pass away, as a result of the toxic fumes from the chemical decompositions of the stuff left behind by the superpower, the Soviet Union. Similar problems are experienced during the rainy season in which the chemical decompositions is washed away by the waters of the rains. There is a particular direct effect on the plantations, and the fish in the sea in this time; one can plants withering out, and dead fish lying along the shore for the simple reason of the effect of the chemical decompositions of the superpower stuff on ecology. The same scenario is repeated during the American stay there in the 1980s. And we can learn from this information, the effects the stuff has had on the humans, the plants, and the ecology.
Our organization, time, and again, seeks your kind co-operation, and generous assistance, both technically, and financially, so that we, the professionals, do raise the awareness of the local population, and of the general public, about the waste of the toxic stuff, and about their effects on themselves as well as on the other living things there, in order to develop mechanisms of coping with them, realizing its existence will be the first, and the foremost thing to be understood, such as offering talking therapy, and any other appropriate advice that may deem necessary for the purpose. Your organisation will also assist us undertake doing assessments regarding the exact number of people who are experiencing the effects of the toxic waste, the degree to which they do suffer, and the scale of the problem in general. And the last but not the least point to be raised here is to develop a very professional relationship in working with your good office, so that we will fill your staff up, adept the chemical decompositions stuff, and their effect on the local populations, the general populations in particular, as air takes it away, on animals, and on ecology in general.
The issue that is quite hazardous has serious implications on the society, the economy, and the ecology. It is now wise to examine these issues one by one, and see the problems created, and perhaps put forward some tips to overcome them, opportunities permitting. This issue, socially, confines people to limited places, after obviously experienced the effects on the decomposed chemicals. It does also make them dependent on others for their movements, which again creates some undesirable effects on the part of those who are assisting. It creates discriminatory practices against the affected, by enabling the helper run away, and/or avoid to be of any help whatsoever to the being helped. The same issue affects the community economically, as the affected persons, previously being abled ones now turn into disabled, and thus burdens to be copied with in their own families. The scene is not promising either as there are no organizations that deal with, and perhaps assist the disabled individuals now. It would have been more helpful should proper organizations for rendering assistance, and support to such people were operational. There are twists, and turns in the economy
97 now, because the places evacuated by such individuals do remain empty; their roles are not taken up by others, so long as they can not function now properly, as used to initially. The last but not the least point to be made in our discussions in connection with the implications is the one it has on the ecology where living things do exist. The sad comment here is the destruction of everything including habitats in the ecology. The withering out of plants together with the dead schools of fish lying along the shore simply vindicates this point.
Conclusions: It is very professional for any groups of people working in the same field to come together, so that they pool the same information, by sharing, and/or exchanging their views on the pressing subject at any moment in time should the need is felt. It is also appropriate, by the same token, to extend helping hands to one another both technically, and financially. Our case at present is not exceptional. Our organisation, being a newly established one, needs all sorts of assistance it may get. We do, however, have a wealth of information that shapes even your august organisation for bettering your services world-wide. The idea implied here is that we need to exchange both the scientific know- why stuff, and the technical know-how issues, so that effective coworking mechanisms are put in place. We do need, frankly speaking your assistance, to be honest with you, and we are determined to provide unlimited information with you as, and when you need it. Our office does facilitate study tours for your scholars when undertaking researches along the lines touched upon. And yours will offer us some trainings, funding etc to us, as symbiosis is a good term to be followed. We are determined to work alongside you, and are ever-ready to co-operate with you, so long as we are operating from the same arena.
98 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons Report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum February, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) Contact Person of this report: Katsumi Furitsu MD. Ph. D Mailing Address: Satonaka-cho, 2-1-24, Nishinomiya, Hyogo Country: Japan Zip code: 663-8183 Phone: +81 (0)798 44 2614 Fax: +81 (0)798 44 2614 E-mail: [email protected] Katsumi Furitsu is a member of Steering Committee and Science Team of ICBUW.
About ICBUW International Office: Mailing Address: c/o CADU,Bridge 5 Mill22a Beswick
Phone: StreetAncoatsManchesterUK M4 7HR Fax: +44 (0)161 273 8293 / 8283 E-mail: +44 (0)161 273 8293 Website: [email protected] http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/
Introduction: The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons was founded in October 2003 at a conference in Belgium. ICBUW originally consisted of 17 grassroots organizations from 6 countries. ICBUW now has 92 member organizations from 25 countries worldwide.
Mission: ICBUW calls for an immediate ban on the military use of uranium, so-called ‘depleted’ uranium (DU) and other radioactive materials. We also require the clean-up of contaminated sites, medical assessment, treatment and compensation of the victims; independent investigation and long-term monitoring of affected populations and the environment. ICBUW calls on governments to disclose locations and quantities of uranium weapons used in conflict. We call for the comprehensive prohibition of the production, possession, testing, export and sale of uranium weapons. To ban uranium weapons we promote a Draft Convention.
Public Action: -ICBUW International Conferences (Brussels in 2004 and 2005, Hiroshima in 2006, New York, 2007) -Workshops and Seminars on the issue of DU weapons for UN delegates, UN organizations such as WHO as well as NGOs (New York in May 2005 and Geneva in Nov. 2005 and March 2007) - Photo exhibition and workshop at the European Parliament (Brussels, May 2007) - Friendly Fire newsletter published by ICBUW on-line three times a year - Events on the International Day of Action (on Nov. 6) every year, on “The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict” as promulgated by the UN - ICBUW’s website has educational materials and research as well as other information on it. - ICBUW supports two research projects: the “Basra Epidemiological Study” and the “Iraqi Children’s Tooth Project”
I. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons What is DU? DU is ‘nuclear waste’ produced from the enrichment process and is mostly made up of the alpha emitting isotope Uranium 238 and is depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium 235, as compared to concentrated natural uranium (NU). DU is somewhat less radioactive than NU, yet has about 60% of the radioactivity of 1 concentrated NU (NU in nature is thousands of times less concentrated). DU is mostly an alpha emitter, a very damaging type of radioactivity inside the body. DU and NU are identical in terms of the chemical toxicity, which is also a source of potential damage to the body. With regard to DU’s radioactivity, it is well known that concentrated DU is one of a number of radioactive materials, which are strictly controlled by laws in most of the countries of the world.
What are DU weapons? Uranium’s high density, combined with its pyrophoric nature, results in a high-energy kinetic weapon that can punch and burn through armor plating. Striking a hard target, DU munitions create extremely high o temperatures of more than 3000 C. The uranium immediately burns and vaporizes into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment, while the shell is penetrating the target. The uranium particles formed by this heat are unlike forms of naturally formed uranium in terms of their size (10 to 100 times smaller). These extremely small particle sizes are known to be much more toxic and more rapidly absorbed from the lungs than larger (micron-sized) particles.
DU weapons are inhumane weapons of ‘indiscriminate destruction’ Aerosolized DU dust can easily spread over the battlefield, and can be re-suspended by the winds, spreading over civilian areas, sometimes even crossing international borders. Therefore, not only military personnel but also civilians (including children who are very sensitive to such toxic substances), might inhale the fine DU particles and internalize them in their bodies. The contamination also continues after the cessation of hostilities. DU particles will remain in the environment and retain their radiation for decades and centuries if not longer. Taking these aspects of DU weapons into account, we consider that DU weapons are illegal under binding international humanitarian, human rights and environmental law and is one of the inhumane weapons of ‘indiscriminate destruction’.
Environmental and health concerns by DU weapons We do not, as yet, understand the full impact of fine particles of DU oxide on the human body. However, there is a considerable amount of basic scientific evidence from both animal and cellular studies that suggest deleterious effects on human health from inhaled DU particles through both radiological action and chemical toxicity. Therefore, many scientists have warned that the issue of DU weapons should also be discussed seriously, based on the 'precautionary principle'.1, 2 On December 5th in 2007, the UN General Assembly has passed, by a landslide, a resolution entitled 'Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium' and is calling for further research into the health effects from DU.
Peacetime concerns of DU weapons Hazardous pollution results from every stage of production and use of DU weapons, including storage, transport and testing even in peacetime. For example, in the event of a fire at a storage facility for DU munitions, DU could also burn and vaporize into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment, as it does during a military action. Aerosolized DU dust could be spread over the storage facility being re-suspended by the winds and could possibly be diffused outside the facility, spreading over residential areas. A recent study clearly indicates that the workers of the DU weapons-producing factory as well as residents living nearby were contaminated by DU.3 The contaminated area extends for a radius of more than several kilometers around the factory.4
1 The ‘precautionary principle’ has been established as one of the basic principles of ecosystem and public health protection. In the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which was adapted at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, they stated: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation; Principle 15.’ 2 “Joint Communiqué from Scientists On the UN Resolution Concerning Depleted Uranium Weapons” was sent to the UN delegations on Dec. 4th 2007, with a list of 67 scientists from around the world who signed it. It was drafted by the ICBUW science team. 3 Randall R. Parrish et al., “Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after approximately 20 years: implications for human health assessment”, Science of the Total Environment, 2007 October 30 [E-pub ahead off print] 4 N. S. Lloyd et al., “5 tonnes of uranium and town called Colonie – investigating the fate of depleted uranium particulate in the environment”, presented at Festival of Postgraduate Research, University of Leicester, 29/06/2007 2 II. Military Sites of Concern related to DU Weapons
These are the sites of concern related to DU weapons: 1. Areas where DU weapons were used during the wars and conflicts 2. Vicinity of the factories where DU weapons have been manufactured 3. Storage sites of DU weapons 4. Firing ranges where DU shells were used at military training 5. Transport of the DU weapons
DU weapon was used in the Gulf Wars in 1991 and 2003 and during the Balkan conflicts5 in 1990s. They were also allegedly used in Afghanistan.
It is reported that about 300 tons of DU weapons were used by the US and the UK during the Gulf War in 1991.6 They were used mainly in the battle filed in the desert area in southern Iraq and Kuwait. In Kuwait, after the 1991- Gulf War, it was reported that the signs of DU was detected in the sample of the solid fall-out and suspended air particulate matter, even in the cities and beaches of the Arabian Gulf, tens of kilometers from battlefields in the desert. They detected the higher uranium concentration and lower for isotopic ratio indicating the possible presence of DU in the samples.7 Iraqi doctors reported some increase of cancer incidence and mortality during the 1990s.8, 9
During the 2003 - Gulf War, it is estimated that a much greater quantity of DU munitions was used compared to the amount used in 1991. The UK reported to UNEP the places where they used DU weapons in Basra in southern Iraq including the residential areas. The US disclosed no information about the places where they used DU weapons or their amount. However, journalists and members of NGOs who visited Iraq just after the war reported that they found many tanks destroyed or hit by DU weapons.10 They identified radioactive contamination measuring high radiation level close to punched out holes possibly made by DU penetrators. Some of them brought back smear samples taken from such holes and detected DU analyzing the isotopic ratio of U235/U238, which indicating the detection of DU, in their own countries.11 It is of serious concern, that DU weapons were used even in the middle of the cities, exposing many citizens to DU. UNEP experts expected “there to be a high risk of inhaling DU dust when entering within a radius of about 150 m of such sites, unless high quality dust masks are worn. Inhalation of DU dust within this radius could result in health risks due to both the potential chemical toxicity of uranium, and to its radioactive nature.”12 They also stated, “it is important that independent scientific investigations are made if local people, military personnel, and those otherwise present in affected areas in the weeks, months and years ahead are to be given appropriate and accurate advice concerning risks to human health and the environment.”13 However, because of the political and security problems, it is still impossible to carry out the full-dress environmental and health investigation that is needed in the affected areas in Iraq.
The removal of contaminated remnants and strict monitoring of these remnants are urgently needed. It is also critical to follow up the health of the people in the affected areas and provide them with proper medical care.
5 See the report “Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Europe” submitted from the Belgium coalition “Stop Uranium Weapons!”, by Willem Van den Panhuysen. 6 Desk Study on the Environment in Iraq, UNEP, 2003. 7 Firyal Bou-Rabee, Estimating the concentration of uranium in some environmental samples in Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 217-220, 1995. 8 Yacoub, AAH, Ajeel NAH and Al-Wiswasy, MK. Incidence and pattern of malignant diseases (excluding leukemia) during 1990-1997. Medical journal of Basrah University. 1999; 17. 9 Yacoub AAH, Al-Sadoon IO, Hassan GG and Muffid Al-Hemadi. Incidence and pattern of malignant disease among children in Basrah with specific reference to leukemia during the period 1990- 1998. Medical journal of Basrah University. 1999;17. 10 Report by Naomi Toyoda, Shinano Mainichi Shinbun (newspaper), Dec. 30, 2005 [in Japanese] 11 Masaharu Hoshi, Kenichi Tanaka, International Radiation Information Center, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, Evidence that DU was Dropped in Baghdad Area, Hiroshima Appeal for Banning DU Weapons, p. 21, July 26, 2003. 12 footnote 6 13 footnote 6 3 We, ICBUW together with IPPNW14- Germany, have been and are supporting the project of an epidemiological study to be carried out by physicians and epidemiologists in Basra.15 This project is important not only to clarify the risk factors including DU exposure, but also to reestablish the proper medical system in Basra. As a part of the result of this project, a peer-reviewed paper on the development of cancer registry in Basra was published last year.16
At least 18 countries in the world now have DU weapons. In these countries as well as in the countries that have US military bases, there are environmental and health concerns from all the process related to DU weapons, including storage, transport and testing. Especially in the countries as the US, where DU weapons have been produced, there is serious contamination in and around the sites of DU weapon factories. There is a great concern for the health of workers and residents living near these sites.17
We could not cover the problems of all of these sites in the world in this collection of reports from our member organizations, because of limitation of time and information. We will continue the research on these issues. We think it necessary to draw more international attention to these issues and prohibit all the process related to DU weapons. It is critical also from the viewpoint of the environmental protection.
This time we submit the following four reports:
1. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NMI in Concord, MA, USA 2. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NLI in Colonie, NY, USA 3. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Europe18 4. Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Asian Pacific Region
14 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War 15 See ICBUW website, http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/41.html 16 Omran S Habib1, Jawad K Al-Ali2, et al., Cancer Registration in Basrah 2005: Preliminary Results, Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev, 8, 187-190, 2007, available on http://www.apocp.org/journal_of_cancer_prevention_volume_8.php 17 See the two reports submitted from US, edited by Gretel Munroe: “Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NMI in Concord, MA, USA” and “Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NLI in Colonie, NY, USA”. 18 This report does not cover the issues in UK and Italy. 4 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NMI in Concord, MA, USA Report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum February, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: Grassroots Actions for Peace, Concord, Mass., USA Contact Person of this report: Gretel Munroe Mailing Address: 9 Leyden Ave., Medford, MA 02155 Country: USA Zip code: 02155 Phone: 1-781-391-7578 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.grassrootsconcord.org
Grassroots Actions for Peace was a founding member of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) Gretel Munroe is a member of the Steering Committee and member of the Science Team of ICBUW.
I. Military sector facilities or sites of concern Site: Nuclear Metals, Inc./Starmet in Concord, Massachusetts, USA 1. Location and Size: Nuclear Metals Inc./Starmet is located at 229 Main Street in the southwest corner of Concord, MA. To the north of the 46-acre (18.6 hectares) property there are commercial and residential properties and the Assabet River which provides drinking water to the town of Billerica downstream. There are woodlands and residential properties to the south, east and west of the site. There are also commercial and industrial properties to the west of the site. 2. History: The project that became Nuclear Metals, Inc. started in a laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 1958 it was moved to its present site in Concord. Originally run by metallurgy experts, owners of the facility included Textron Corp. and Whittaker Corp. before sale of the factory to several businessmen. Nuclear Metals, Inc. made the lowest bid to the U.S. Army for a contract to manufacture depleted uranium penetrator anti-tank shells. The Army was initially opposed to the Nuclear Metals bid because the budget showed no money for remediation. But Nuclear Metals, Inc. (NMI) persevered and got the bid. NMI manufactured DU shells for 25 years, into the mid-1990’s. From 1958 to 1985 waste containing copper (from copper casings), uranium and transuranics was dumped into an unlined holding basin. Other areas of contamination also existed with time. Due to contamination of drinking water, NMI came to the attention of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) that listed NMI as a toxic site. In 1989 three Concord women learned of this and wanted to forestall removal of waste from NMI to a landfill. They succeeded in this by taking the issue to Town Meeting. More people joined the cause and an organization that later became CREW (Citizens Research and Environmental Watch) was formed. With the help of other organizations including Grassroots Actions for Peace, Toxic Action and the Military Toxics Project, after years of effort, NMI, became a Superfund site. This placed NMI/Starmet on the National Priorities List of the most toxic sites in the country. By then NMI had been renamed Starmet, a friendlier name. Starmet became a Superfund Site in June 2001. The US EPA asked the non-governmental Responsible Parties to select a contractor for the Superfund Site. They selected di maximus to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has supervised the site and the MDEP has a Project Manger there. The Responsible Parties as determined by the US EPA, were Whittaker Corporation, Textron Inc., Mony (Mutual of N.Y.), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Department of the Army. The Responsible Parties have paid out $11 million for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, 96 percent of which has been financed by the Army. The actual clean-up is estimated to take 10 years. 3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: The metallurgy project at MIT was originally a by-product of the Manhattan Project. It was under private ownership in Concord. The owners had a contract with the U.S. Army to make DU penetrator shells. Monitoring of NMI was the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC asked that NMI furnish them with a plan for decontamination of the holding basin over a period of eight years without compliance on the part of NMI19.
19 Marvin Resnikoff, “Health and Safety Impact of NMI”, Report # 2, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, New York, N.Y., October 1991, p. 2. 5 4. Mission and facilities The mission of NMI was to make money for the owners. They made DU anti-tank shells for 25 years and also were involved in the manufacture of specialty metal products. 5. Operation There were two sources of problems at NMI. First were the emissions coming out of the smoke stacks. In 1970 only 2 of 27 smoke stacks had uranium particulate filters. By 1983 40 out of 58 stacks had filters. Monitoring of the emissions was done by the NRC but frequency of monitoring and the exact number of unfiltered stacks was unknown20. The stacks were short in comparison to the buildings, leading much of the DU aerosol to fall near the plant, depending on wind direction21. The second problem for NMI was the contamination of the unlined basin and a bog as well as an unmonitored septic system which carried off water that had been used for showers for the employees. After 1985 NMI used a different method of handling waste. 6. Relationship with the Community: Senator John F. Kennedy attended the ground-breaking ceremony for NMI in 1958 and for many years, NMI had a good relationship with the citizens of Concord. NMI employees donated time and money to town organizations and charities. Many townspeople did not like the activists. There was in fact stiff resistance even against the campaign to make Starmet a Superfund Site. Opponents feared a Superfund Site would have a deleterious effect on tourism, real estate values and shops on Main Street. CREW members lobbied town officials, and state and federal officials to push for Superfund status for Starmet. Both CREW and the 2229 Main Street Oversight Committee have worked with the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection, di maximus and the EPA in monitoring the remediation process. The EPA, MDEP and di maximus have held public meetings. There is an MNI/Starmet website. II. Peacetime Concerns: 1. Quantify the overall impact NMI was licensed to have varying quantities of DU on the site. In the years 1967-1974 the maximum was 40 tons which became 1000 tons in 1981. By 1991, NMI was licensed to have a maximum of 3300 tons.22 Over the 27 years between 1958 and 1985, 400,000 pounds (181,437 kilograms) of uranium waste was allowed to settle in the unlined holding basin. During these years and later as well, uranium waste leached into the groundwater and the soil23. Overall, according to Jim West of CREW, waste was “dumped all over” both inside and outside the factory over the years. The EPA has made public the degree of uranium contamination in the ground water at Starmet. The results show figures as high as 724ug/L, 1160 ug/L and 1850 ug/L. These measurements were taken as part of the NMI Superfund Site Remedial Investigation24. The ground water figures are well over the limit of 35 ug/L used by the EPA. The EPA has not yet released the findings of uranium concentrations in the soil. A plume of contaminated water contaminated with uranium is moving underground towards the Assabet River. 2. Scope of the Impact (a) Human Health impact The Massachusetts’ Cancer Registry began in 1980. The Concord Journal in January 1991 reported that from 1982-1986, men in Concord had almost twice the rate of leukemia as in the state overall. There were also significantly more cases of multiple myeloma in Concord than in the state as a whole25. A Department of Public Health publication, “Cancer Incidence in Massachusetts 1993-1997: City and Town Supplement” found that the following cancers occurred to a greater extent than expected in Concord: Hodgkins’ Disease (males), leukemia (females), melanoma of the skin, non-Hodgkins’ Lymphoma and cancer of the pancreas26. The Japanese reporter, Akira Tashiro, in his book Discounted Casualties mentions an informal survey a Concord woman did in a neighborhood 3 km. downwind of NMI. She found that there were 54 cases of cancer in about 100 houses on 17 streets, She did the survey between 1995 and 199. Her daughter had died of cancer in 1993. Tashiro did not give her true name. People in the area did not want to talk about family members who were ill or had died and they
20 Marvin Resnikoff, “Health and Safety Impact of NMI”, Report #1, Radioactive Waste Management Associations, New York, N.Y., April 1991, p. 7. 21 ibid 22 Ibid p. 4 23 See http://grassrootsconcord.org/du_contents.htm#nuclear_metals 24 See http://www.nmisite.org/pdf/Phase1B_Groundwater_Data_Tables.pdf 25 Kyle Nitzeche, “Men’s leukemia rate twice state’s for 1982-86”, The Concord Journal, Jan. 17, 1991 26 “Cancer Incidence in Massachusetts 1993-1997:City and Town Supplement”, Department of Public Health, Boston, Mass., Nov. 2000 6 were afraid that a proper survey would reduce real estate values27. (b) Environmental Impact In 1994 CREW took soil samples from around the NMI site and had them tested by a laboratory in New Jersey known for handling radioactive contamination.. Results showed that “a maximum of 18.9 times the natural local level of DU (one pico curie) was detected from six locations ranging 300 to 1300 meters (about 330 to 1420 yards) from the company’s property”28. The unlined holding basin and the bog on the NMI property, both of which were contaminated, were not screened off from the public during much of the time that NMI was producing DU munitions. Many people passed by what was known as “the green lagoon” and dogs drank out of it and died. The unlined holding basin contamination was a major source of groundwater contamination. In addition to the bog, a small landfill, the unmonitored septic system and other areas on the Starmet property were contaminated. There were other toxic compounds on the site including beryllium. In 1997-1998 the U.S. Army paid $6 million for removal of 800 cubic yards (about 611.5 cubic meters) of contaminated earth and $8 million for the removal of radioactive material from the plant. Since Starmet became a Superfund Site, 1565 drums of uranium tetrafluoride, 1097 drums of concrete-uranium and 647 drums of other uranium waste have been removed from the property29. The buildings which even recently showed evidence of some radioactivity will be demolished. Clean-up of the Starmet Superfund Site will take an estimated 10 years. So far it has cost $25 million. (c) Economic Impact Concord is a wealthy community and its economy has not been impacted negatively. Starmet itself went into bankruptcy. (d) Social Impact There has been no beneficial or negative impact socially on the town or its people. III. Legality and Access to Justice 1. Access to Justice: In the campaign which led to Starmet’s becoming a Superfund site, CREW enlisted the support of the Concord Board of Selectmen, the MDEP, Concord’s State Representative, State Senator and Congressman, as well as the EPA. In addition CREW enlisted Radioactive Waste Management Associates to do an analysis of the problems NMI faced. Their report was useful in the campaign. In the spring of 2007 CREW put a proposal to re-zone the NMI/Starmet site to the Concord Town Meeting. The resolution, which passed, re-zoned the NMI/Starmet property as residential. The new law requires that clean-up of the NMI site adhere to residential levels. 2. Cases: No legal action per se was taken. 3.Law: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) is a chief law that applies to the NMI/Starmet site. 4.Administrative Avenues: CREW worked with the Concord Board of Health and induced them to meet with NMI. They met with them but NMI told them that they did not have the financing to clean up the contamination. CREW lobbied and worked with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The latter planned to do an investigation of Starmet in the fall of 2001, the year (June) that Starmet became a Superfund Site. A problem in the years before NMI/Starmet became a Superfund Site was lack of action taken by the NRC. NMI declined to give the NRC a decommissioning plan for which they did not have the funds. Finally, as mentioned in “Access to Justice”, the Report done by Radioactive Waste Management was probably pivotal. CREW had applied for grants and had secured enough money to hire Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates to do the investigation. However the original problem was that the U.S. Army accepted the NMI bid for manufacturing DU munitions when the proposed NMI budget made no provision for remediation.
27 Akira Tashiro, Discounted Casualties, Hiroshima: The Chugoku Shimbun, 2001, p. 47 28 Ibid 29 See http://www.crewconcord.org/pages/whats_new.html#cleanup 7 IV. Measures and Evaluation [Satisfaction with the measures used: 5 - Very Satisfied, 4 – Satisfied, 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown, 2 – Dissatisfied, 1 - Not satisfied at all, 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm]
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation is a 2. The NRC did not make NMI clean up its act.
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation is a 1 with regard to the government. The NRC did not require NMI to adhere to environmental or radiation standards. As for gaining Superfund Status for Starmet, the Overall Evaluation is a 4 or a 4-5 for the response of the MDEP, and the U.S. EPA to lobbying by CREW and other activists. The Overall Evaluation of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study is a 5. 3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation is a 4 due to lobbying efforts of CREW which secured the cooperation of federal and state agencies as well as the support of politicians on the local, state and federal levels leading to Starmet’s becoming a Superfund Site. Since then, the Overall Evaluation is a 5. This includes transparency such as public meetings held annually by the EPA, di maximus and the MDEP. CREW and the 2229 Main Street Oversight Board have had good working relationships with the above. 4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation is a 1 for the period before NMI became a Superfund Site. NMI was hostile to CREW and the idea of clean-up. They declined to remediate when asked by the Concord Board of Health. NMI rebutted the Resnikoff report with unspecific complaints, eliciting a second Resnikoff report. They also did not cooperate with the NRC on the remediation issue. 5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? In the summer of 2007, a fire broke out at Starmet. The Concord Fire Department responded immediately. The Concord Fire Department gets a 5 as an Overall Evaluation. 6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation is a 5. The authorities running the Superfund Site have had meetings with the town monitoring organizations, CREW and the 2229 Main Street Oversight Board as well as holding public meetings. 7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation is a 5. See answer to 6. The NMI site website has information about the Superfund Site. 8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? (1) Name of program: NMI/Starmet Superfund Overall Evaluation is probably a 5 Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; Definitely has this. (b) fiscally executable; The program has been financially covered up to now. (c) technologically executable; Definitely. 9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates? Overall Evaluation is a 5 or a 4. CREW is satisfied with what has been done with the Superfund Site. Question does not really apply to the case of NMI. 10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation a 4 or a 5. According to Jim West of the Technical Assistance Committee of CREW, they are satisfied with the way the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study has gone.
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face? 1. Local authorities: The only challenge that the Superfund may face in future years is paying for the clean-up. So far the U.S. Army has paid most of the $25 million spent on clean-up thus far. According to CERCLA, clean-up of Superfund Sites was to be paid for
8 by the Responsible Parties. However, in the past 5 or so years, the burden of paying for Superfund sites has fallen on the tax-payer rather than on the companies responsible for creating the toxic sites. So far the Army has paid most of the bills for the Starmet site. 2. Your organization: CREW is monitoring progress at the Superfund Site. 3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non- governmental organizations: Not applicable to the present situation. VI. Policy Recommendations: 1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): (1) Title of your recommendation: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Monitor Facilities Producing DU Munitions Regularly with Forceful Follow Up When Facility is in Violation (a) Recommendation to: The NRC (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation The NRC should have indicated to NMI that it would suspend their license if they did not produce a plan for remediation of the site. 2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities (1) Title of your recommendation: Emissions Data from a Facility handling Depleted Uranium To Be Available to the Public (a) Recommendation to: NMI and Mass. Department of Public Health (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation Some emissions records may be obtainable through Radiation Control at the Mass. DPH. However the public should have had easier access to this data to be informed of possible risk to human health.
3. Recommendation to the international community: Not applicable to NMI/Starmet. VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities: References: 1. “Cancer Incidence in Massachusetts 1982-1990”, Bureau of Health Statistics, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 250 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108-4691, USA 2. “Cancer Incidence in Massachusetts 1993-1997: City and Town Supplement”, Bureau of Health Statistics, Research and Evaluation, Massachusetts Cancer Registry, Department of Public Health, 250 Washington Street, Boston MA 02108-4619, USA 3. Marvin Resnikoff, PhD, “Health and Safety Impact of NMI, Report Prepared by Radioactive Waste Management Associates for Citizens Concerned About NMI” (later CREW) (Reports 1 and 2), 306 West 38 Street, New York, N.Y. 10018, USA 4. Kyle Nitzeche, “Men’s Leukemia rate twice state’s for 1982-86”, The Concord Journal, January 17, 1991 (Concord, Massachusetts, USA) 5. Akira Tashiro, Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium, Hiroshima, Japan: The Chugoku Shimbun, 2001. 6. Jim West, “DU Producer, Nuclear Metals, Inc/Starmet”, Presentation at the Fourth International Conference of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) “Uranium Weapons: Contributing to a Dangerous World”, October 2, The UN Church Center, New York, New York. (DVD#2. Available from Gretel Munroe of ICBUW, [email protected]). 7. Websites: Citizens Research and Environmental Watch (CREW): http://www.crewconcord.org NNI Superfund Site: http://www.nmisite.org Grassroots Actions for Peace: http://www.grassrootsconcord.org
9 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons, NLI in Colonie, NY, USA Report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum February, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: Community Concerned about NL, Colonie, N.Y Contact Person of this report: Thomas Ellis Mailing Address: 43 North Pine Ave., Albany, New York Country: USA Zip code: 12203 Phone: 1-518-453-8874 E-mail: [email protected]
Thomas Ellis of CCNL gave a presentation on NL Industries at the 4th International ICBUW Conference in October 2007 in New York City. Gretel Munroe of Grassroots Actions for Peace, a founding member of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) collaborated on this report.
I. Military sector facilities or sites of concern Site: National Lead Industries (NL Industries) in Colonie, New York, USA
Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: NL Industries was located on Route 5, Central Ave. in Colonie, New York, just three miles from the state capital in Albany. It was an 11-12 acre property (or 4.5 to 4.9 hectares in size). It was situated in a residential, commercial and light industry neighborhood. The site is next to railroad tracts where trains travel between New York and Chicago.
2. History: From 1958 into the 1980’s NL Industries manufactured uranium products – radiation shielding, ballast, DU projectiles (anti-tank shells) and fuel rods for experimental nuclear reactors as well as submarines. It also reduced uranium tetrafluoride to uranium metal. Lathes were used to sharpen DU rods which were first cut into sections, a process that created DU dust. The left-over chips were put into an incinerator and burned. DU particles were wafted up the smoke stack and into the air. Dr. Randall Parrish recently estimated that several tons of DU fell within a 2-kilometer radius of the factory. NL Industries was fined a number of times for having dangerous levels of emissions. In 1979 a radiation inspector new to the plant told the owners to clean up the plant or else. They did nothing so he reported them to the Albany County Health Department which contacted the New York State Health, Environmental Conservation, and Labor Departments. The plant was downsized but remained open until 1983. Emissions were monitored but the plant was in violation of the agreement they had with the authorities. In early 1984 the US Government bought the plant for $10. The job of clean-up was given to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Remission in the last few years was done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The clean-up was completed in September 2007.
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: NL Industries was privately owned. NL dealt with the U.S. Atomic Weapons Program between 1958-1968. The manufacture of DU projectiles (anti-tank shells) was done on contract with the U.S. Department of Defense.
4. Mission and facilities: The mission of the owners of NL Industries was to make money. See History: NL Industries made uranium products, including DU projectiles as well as lead products.
5. Operations Emissions from the plant were of concern. After NL Industries was reported to the authorities (see History) in 1979 with attendant media blitz, people in the community were very concerned. A report by Teledyne Isotopes commissioned by NL Industries, indicating contamination of topsoil around NL Industries caused great concern when it came to light. The State Health Department did not make the report available to the public. A reporter got hold of it through the Freedom of Information Act. Here was an example of a state organization impeding an investigation instead of backing it.
10 6. Relationship with the Community: The community was enraged by the Teledyne report showing radioactive contamination of topsoil where their children played and by the refusal of the Health Department to give them the information. Members of Community Concerned about NL (CCNL) and other activists pressed for clean-up and also for health studies. Three times members of CCNL went to NL Industries shareholders meetings and NLI tried to silence them. CCNL provided educational
II. Peacetime Concerns: Concern: 1. Quantify the overall impact The overall impact of the contamination with DU is unknown because there were no guidelines for the maximum level of emissions until the 1970’s. Between 1958 and the 1970’s clearly NL Industries put much more DU aerosols into the air than would have been allowed later on. In the 1970’s NL Industries was fined a number of times for having too high a level of emissions. Remediation of the area included the decontamination of 53 houses and the removal of some roofs. Decontamination of NL Industries itself required the demolition of the buildings as well as clean-up of the property which was thoroughly contaminated by uranium and lead. The site is now a green meadow.
2. Scope of the Impact (a) Human Health impact NL Industries discharged over 5 tons of DU aerosols into the surrounding area – on mostly residential and commercial properties. The site contained Lake Patroon where children played as well as a stream on the other side of the property where youth would hang out or fish. The site was not fenced in back and young people used to play ball there. Dr. Randall Parrish and his team recently tested over 20 former NLI workers and residents and former residents who had lived near the factory, for exposure to DU. All 5 of the former workers tested positive for DU – one worker also tested positive for enriched uranium. Ten to 20 percent of 18 residents and former residents, or up to 4, tested positive for DU. Initial estimated dose was just under 1 gram for the workers and about 6-10 mg for the residents. The results of the testing have been published30. The researchers state that these initial dosage levels fit into the Level I and Level II categories of exposure “referred to by the Royal Society (2001) and are sufficiently high to justify an investigation of the health implications in more detail and scope than has been undertaken to date”. 31The research showed that individuals exposed to DU aerosols over 23 or more years before, were carrying DU in their bodies. Dr. David Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, at the University at Albany, and a member of Parrish’s team, interviewed all the individuals who were tested for DU exposure. He asked them questions about their health and that of their families. He found a high number of cases (about 6) of auto-immune diseases. These findings are anecdotal32. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) had done a health consultation on the Colonie Site in 2004. ATSDR admitted that “the uncharacterized emissions from the NL plant were a public health 33 hazard to the community surrounding the Colonie Site." ATSDR declined to do a health study because there was no “reliable information on past exposure”.34Three state Department of Health surveys using census tracks or ZIP codes had found increased levels of lung cancer in Colonie but many of the individuals with lung cancer were also smokers. Another potential problem would have been the tracking down of people who had lived near, or worked in, the plant while it was in operation, and who had moved 35 away. These were some of the reasons why ATSDR did not want to do a health study. However the findings of the Parrish study indicate that there is now some information on DU exposure in a group of individuals who worked in or lived near NL Industries before 1980. An informal survey done by Anne Rabe on nearly 400 people found quite a number of cases of rare cancers, 36 thyroid problems and kidney problems as well as birth defects.
30 Randall R. Parrish et al., Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after ~20 years: implications for human health assessment, Science of the Total Environment (2007), doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044 31 Ibid, p.9 32 David O. Carpenter, “Depleted Uranium in Workers and Nearby Residents of the National Lead Industry Facility in Colonie, New York”, Presentation at the Fourth International ICBUW Conference, October 2, 2007, The UN Church Center, New York. 33 Health Consultation for the Colonie Site, EPA Facility No. ID NY0890137854, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Atlanta, GA 30222, p.1. 34 Ibid, p. 4. 35 Movement of people out of Colonie was mentioned at the ICBUW Conference but not by ATSDR. 36 David Rose, “’Safe’ Uranium that left a town contaminated”, The Observer, November 18, 2007, p. 5. 11 (b) Environmental Impact It is estimated that over 5 tons of DU aerosols, containing some enriched uranium as well, were dumped on Colonie between 1958 and 1982. The Teledyne Isotope Survey of 1980 found high concentrations of DU in topsoil within 600 meters of the factory. Low levels of DU contamination were found in topsoil as far away as 4 kilometers. Parrish and his team did 37 spot soil samples and found DU in soil 5.8 km. from the NL Industries site. In the remediation of the site and the area around it, the topsoil of 53 properties was excavated between 1984 38 and 1988 and some houses had their roofs removed. In all, over the 23 years of the remediation, more than 150,000 tons of soil and other contaminated residues were removed. Soil as far down as 12 meters (40 feet) was extracted. In 2006 samples were taken of soil and dust from 3 homes and a business. The soil samples were under 35 pico curies of radiation per gram, the safety standard for the NL site. Over half of the dust samples from inside the buildings were however “significantly above” the 35 pico curies and at least one dust sample was about 350 pico curies – ten times the safety standard39. In all, DU dust was found in garages, attics, and would have originally, during the years that the factory was operating, have fallen on vegetables in gardens and on kitchen countertops. DU dust was also found on other plants and bark. In the early stages of the clean-up, contaminated soil was put inside the NLI buildings. This was later bagged and shipped away. Later the buildings were demolished. Contamination by uranium and lead was everywhere on the site. The Army Corps of Engineers even found uranium and lead buried under a driveway. The remediation of the NL site was completed in September 2007 at a cost of $190 million, a cost ultimately borne by the tax-payer.
(c) Economic Impact Many workers lost their jobs in 1979-1980 when the factory had to cut back because of its emissions problem, although the factory did not close until late l983. The cost of illness borne by the individuals who became ill due to DU exposure, who worked at NL Industries or lived near by is unknown as is the number of people who became sick. How many people had to give up working due to illness is also unknown. This includes children who played in the contaminated Lake Patroon or played ball on the NL Industries site, whose lives may have been tainted with illness and whose working years would have been affected by illness.
(d) Social Impact In so far as illness restricts an individual’s social relationships, individuals who were ill as a result of exposure to DU suffered fewer social contacts. This could have been the result of being unable to work and maintain social contacts through work. In any case their quality of life has been reduced.
III. Legality and Access to Justice 1.Access to Justice: The whistleblower in 1979 had access to the New York State Labor Department, the New York Department of Health and the New York Department of Environmental Protection. The root of a major problem, the emissions from the NLI smoke stack, was not dealt with until the 1970’s when the company was fined numerous times for exceeding the emissions limit. Prior to the 1970’s there were no guidelines for emissions. The state got NLI to commission the Teledyne Isotope survey. The local Health Department concealed the results of the survey for a year and a half when a reporter got a copy of it through the Freedom of Information and wrote a front page story in his newspaper about it. This activated the community. In 1984 the U.S. government bought NLI in Colonie for $10 thus absolving NLI from paying for the clean-up. NLI was put into the Formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) under the Department of Energy (DOE). This was agreed to by Congress40. Congress also acted to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the clean-up41. As for access to justice for compensation for illnesses caused by NLI, a lawyer told the activist group CCNI that it would be necessary to first prove that DU exposure is connected to the illnesses. The Parrish study has shown that DU is in, and has been in the bodies of nearly 10 people for over 23 years. This sort of study is a first step towards getting a health study done. CCNL members went to shareholders’ meetings three times. CCNL is a health-focus group which has educational events. They monitored the clean-up. Many of them are
37 Parrish, op.cit. pp.3 and 8. 38 ATSDR 2004, p. 9. 39 Rose, op.cit., pp. 3-4. 40 ATSDR 2004 41 Ibid, p. 9. 12 ill.
The funding for the Parrish study came from the U.K. National Environment Research Council. Tom Ellis said that the state health department had been no help. Representatives of ATSDR told him that the climate of opinion in Washington was a problem and that ATSDR has a limited budget. Hopefully the results of the Parrish study will lead to more testing and to a health study.
2. Cases: N.A.
3. Law: N.A.
4. Administrative Avenues There are avenues for bringing a problem such as emissions – as well as filthy conditions at the factory. In the words of a former worker at NLI: “I worked at NK for 22 years from 1958 to 1980. When it started the place was spotless. But over the years, it got dirtier and dirtier to the point where all they cared about was making money and they 42 didn’t give a damn if it was safe or clean”. The Freedom of Information Act was another avenue for bringing pressure to bear on the company as well as being a vehicle to bring it to the attention of the public. Congress brought the DOE into Colonie and later the Army Corps of Engineers. Activists may have played a role in getting the New York State Health Department to look at cancer incidence rates although it did not lead to any health study. CCNL was able to monitor the clean-up done by the Army Corps of Engineers.
IV. Measures and Evaluation
[Satisfaction with the measures used: 5 - Very Satisfied, 4 – Satisfied, 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown, 2 – Dissatisfied, 1 - Not satisfied at all, 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm]
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? a) Overall Evaluation a 0 for NL Industries during its years of operation for giving no consideration to the environment in any way whatsoever. NL Industries was a contractor with the Department of Defense. b) Overall Evaluation a 4. Clean-up of the NLI site was thorough although at great expense
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation gets a 0. There was no public access to information during the years that NLI operated the plant. Residents did not know that uranium was being processed there.
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation with regard to health problems gets a 0. Up to now both federal and state health agencies have refused to study the problem.
4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation is a 1 because DOE brought in FUSRAP to clean up the site. However there was no cooperation between NLI or the Department of Defense, the contracting agent, with the public in Colonie. DOE does represent the military however. For many years however there was no cooperation between NLI and the residents or workers (at NLI) in Colonie.
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation for the past is a 1. The government did not hold NLI accountable for the problems at the plant. Congress put the DOE in charge of the clean-up.
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? : N.A.
42 Rose, op.cit.,p. 5. 13 7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation is a 4 for use of the Freedom of Information Act although the reporter that used this avenue was not someone attached to NLI or a resident living nearby.
8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? (1) Name of program: FUSRAP Evaluation: a 4 as clean-up was well done. Reason for your rating from the following view points. It is not possible to answer these questions.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates? : N.A.
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation is a 1. ATSDR has refused to do a health study.
V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities: They are doing nothing. 2. Your organization Present challenge is to have a health study done of people in Colonie who were exposed to DU and who are ill. Their contacts with Dr. Randall Parrish and Dr. David Carpenter were a response to this challenge. CCNL also have educational events to inform the public. 3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non-governmental organizations. The Parrish team did testing of people for DU exposure. They would like to obtain grant money to do a health study.
VI. Policy Recommendations: 1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): (1) Title of your recommendation: Uranium Manufacturing Act of 2008: Adherence to Safety and Sanitation Standards with Attention to Monitoring of All Facilities Manufacturing Uranium Products and Including Informing the Public (a) Recommendation to: The Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation It is essential to protect workers and nearby residents from environmental contamination and to protect human health. The ATSDR itself stated that the emissions at NLI were a hazard to human health. Informing the public is also vital so that they can make informed choices and can also protect their health and the environment.
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities (1) Title of your recommendation: Zoning Criteria for Plants Processing and Manufacturing Uranium Products and Monitoring Criteria for the Health and Safety of the Workers Including the Provision of Information to Workers and the Public About Possible Hazards to Human Health and the Environment. (a) Recommendation to: State Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Health, Local Authorities responsible for zoning. (b) Locating factories such as NLI away from urban areas would have, in the case of NLI, prevented the exposure to DU emissions of an unknown number of people. Strict monitoring of emissions would have prevented contamination of the environment and probably many illnesses among the public. Residents near NLI never knew that uranium was being processed there. The adherence of a factory such as NLI to local health and safety standards is vital and this includes local monitoring of such standards. Emissions from a factory producing uranium weapons should be carefully monitored. Such measure includes consideration of workers and workers’ rights in these areas.
14 3. Recommendation to the international community: N.A.
VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities: References: 1. Fourth International Conference of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, “Uranium Weapons: Contributing to a Dangerous World”, the UN Church Center, New York City, October 2-3, 2007, Presentation by Thomas Ellis in the Session, “The Contaminated and the Contaminators” (DVD #2) and Presentation by Dr. David Carpenter, “Depleted Uranium In Workers and Nearby Residents of the National Lead Industry Facility in Colonie, New York” , October 3 (DVD #3) (DVDs of the Conference are available through Gretel Munroe, [email protected])
2. Health Consultation for the Colonie Site EPA Facility No. ID NY0890137854 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
3.Randall R. Parrish et al., Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after ~20 years: implications for human health assessment, Science of the Total Environment (2007), doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044 Print version published February 2008. An on-line edition is available at http://wildclearing.com/Depleted_Uranium_Article-Parrish-etal.pdf
4. David Rose, “’Safe’ Uranium that left a town contaminated”, The Observer, November18, 2007. Available at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2212865,00.html#article_conntinue
5. Video: NL Contamination in Colonie, N.Y.: Press Conference, Site videos (Rough Clips from December 5, 2007 Press Conference and Visit to NL Industries Site). http://wildclearing.com/contamination-nl.html
15 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Europe Report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum February, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: The Belgian Coalition “Stop Uranium Weapons!” Contact Person of this report: Willem Van den Panhuysen Mailing Address: Fonteineplein 4, 9000 Gent Country: Belgium Zip code: Phone: 0032-9-256 01 45 Fax: 00 32-9-242 87 51 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.motherearth.org/du/
The Belgian Coalition “Stop Uranium Weapons” is consisted of 30 groups and organizations, which support the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBW). Among them 49 Belgian scientists, and Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels (formerly known as For Mother Earth Belgium) who has been involved in ICBUW since its foundation in October 2003.
The environmental impact of the military use of depleted uranium
Introduction Because most of the depleted uranium (DU) dust created by impacts is respirable in size (< 5 microns), DU oxides can be carried downwind for long distances. However, most of the oxides settle out within 50 meters of an impacted vehicle, and the remainder that are carried downwind would likely be dispersed into concentrations that pose little health risk. 43 The radiation emitted from DU is predominantly alpha particles. Alpha particles have a very limited range in tissue; they can't barely penetrate the external layer of the skin, and hence do not pose a hazard in terms of external irradiation. However, alpha particles are very energetic, and if emitted inside the body can damage nearby cells. Consequently, internal irradiation is an important consideration. DU inhaled or ingested may have a detrimental effect (tissue damage and increased probability of cancer) on lungs and the gut. If DU is absorbed into blood and retained in other organs, particularly in the skeleton, there is an increased probability of cancer in these organs. In environmental assessments, inhalation is usually the exposure pathway that merits primary attention. Processes such as migration through the soil, deposition of resuspended material onto crops, and transfer to groundwater might be of greater interest in the longer term. A possible exposure pathway for those visiting or living in DU-affected areas after the DU dust clouds have settled, is the inhalation of the DU particles that are resuspended through the action of the wind or human activities. It is thought that nearly 90% of DU projectiles released from aircraft in combat miss their targets. If they do, they still lie buried in the ground. And those that did hit their targets were transformed, at least partly, into aerosols. 44 Corrosion of the DU in the surface water or soil could enable soluble forms of DU to be absorbed by plants and incorporated within the plant matter for uptake by wildlife. Leached DU from the penetrators and/or fragments in the surface water potentially could be transported to groundwater and surface water, which in turn could migrate to drinking water sources and be ingested by humans, livestock, and wildlife. Wildlife that traverses a DU Impact Area may be exposed to DU from direct contact with the penetrators and/or fragments and incidental ingestion of DU or DU-impacted soils or water. In addition, wildlife may be exposed to the effects of the external radiation from the DU due to the proximity of DU (in the soil and/or water and/or sediment). Ingestion of contaminated soil could be an important exposure pathway for animals as animals typically eat more soil than humans (incidentally when licking fur or pelts or as part of their diet).
43 Fahey, Dan: Fear of Falling, Augus 4,1999, p. 22; http://doc.danfahey.com/FearOfFalling.pdf. 44 Gut, A., Vitale, B., 2003: Depleted Uranium – deadly, dangerous and indiscriminate – the full picture. Spokesman (Nottingham), p. 89. 16 Wildlife may be exposed indirectly to DU by ingestion of plants that have taken up DU or where DU has been deposited on the leaves by wind dispersion. Plants are generally poor accumulators of uranium. Concentration of uranium in plants are several orders of magnitude lower than those in the soil in which they grow. However, certain plant species (microbial species such as fungi, yeasts, algae, and other unicellular bacteria, black spruce and some forest plants, sugar beets and sunflowers, and Indian mustard) have been shown to exhibit high uptake of uranium. Nonvascular plants (mosses and lichens) generally accumulate higher concentrations than vascular plants. 45
Germany On January 19, 2001, the German Minister of Defense presented information in Parliament which he had obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense about a series of incidents with inadvertent use of DU ammunition and with DU-armored tanks involved in fires. The incidents took place at 9 places across Germany in the 1990's. 46
France Groundwater contamination likely at SICN Annecy DU manufacturing site. The facility at Société Industrielle de Combustibles Nucléaires (SICN), at Annecy (Haute-Savoie, France) is specialized in uranium metallurgy and manufacturing. It has manufactured, among others, depleted uranium penetrators for Leclerc tanks (120 mm) and MX30 tanks (105 mm). SICN is 100% owned by COGEMA. Monitoring data gathered by SICN in 2000 has been released by the Direction Régionale de l'Industrie, de la Recherche et de l'Environnement (DRIRE) to the radiation monitoring group CRIIRAD. The groundwater data shows elevated concentrations of uranium of 55 and 46,5 micrograms per litre. 47
Table 1: Known and suspected uses of DU in warfare. 48
Location Armed force shooting DU Year Number of rounds Quantity of DU At sea off the Israeli Navy 1985 Unknown Unknown Israeli coast Iraq, Kuwait US Air Force Tanks: >9,640 Tanks: >39,631 US Army 1991 Jets: 850,950 Jets: 246,602 US Marine Corps UK Royal Army Total: >286,233 Bosnia US Air Force 1994-1995 Jets: 10,800 Jets: 3,260 Kosovo, Serbia, US Air Force 1999 Jets: 31,300 Jets: 9,450 Montenegro Afghanistan US – use not confirmed 2001- Unknown Unknown Iraq US Air Force 2003- Tanks: >2,650 Tanks: >12,000 US Army Bradleys: ~121,000 Bradleys: ~10,300 US Marine Corps Jets: ~309,000 Jets: ~93,400 UK Royal Army Total (estimated): 118,000 to 136,000
45 US Army Corps of Engineers: Deer Tissue Sampling Results – Depleted Uranium Impact Area Site Characterization – Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, Indiana, August 2006; http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissti.html#JPG 46 WISE Uranium Project, DU ammunition incidents in Germany disclosed; http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissti.html#DUINCGER 47 Contrôles radiamétriques autour de la SICN à Annecy, communiqué de presse de la Commission de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité (CRIIRAD), 13 september 2001; La Gazette Nucléaire: http://resosol.org/Gazette/2001/193_194_28.html; www.criirad.org 48 Fahey, Dan (2004): The emergence and decline of the debate over depleted uranium munitions 1991-2004, chapter 2.3, table 1, p.8; http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/duemdec.pdf 17
The Balkans In May 1999 a UNEP-report noted: “One of the most dangerous consequences is pollution of underground waters. The Balkans in general, and Yugoslavia in particular, are rich with underground water resources. These waters, lying at different depths, are the most important source of drinking water.” 49 The DU post-conflict assessments in the Balkans confirm that the behavior of DU in the environment is a complex issue, and that DU can be found in soil, vegetation, water, and air in certain conditions many years after the conflict. It is a fact that regarding the issue of DU in the environment from the scientific point of view, there are still open questions, especially on the behavior of residues of DU in postconflict desert conditions. Answers are also being sought about the mobility of the DU degradation products in the ground. This means that the eventual conclusion that the assumption of only minimal health risks for people residing in a DU contaminated region, is premature, i.e. It is a conclusion based on a lack of thorough investigation. It is a fact that not all countries in a postconflict situation with a history of attack by DU ammunition have been assessed. Based on UNEP's work to date, the residue of DU munitions does not present a significant risk to human health at national levels. On a site-specific basis, the main risks are toxicological based on exposure to a heavy metal. According to UNEP the radiological risks are insignificant, and less than or equal to background natural radiation. However, based on the precautionary principle and on existing scientific uncertainty regarding the environmental behavior of DU, UNEP recommends that risk-reduction measures such as access restrictions and clean-up should be adopted. In addition, long-term monitoring of groundwater should be employed. The authorities should also be active by informing the local residents and workers at such sites of the hazards associated with collecting DU residues and other possible actions.
Table 2: Transfers of Uranium into the Biocycle 50
Amount transferred from Amount transferred from Amount transferred from Amount transferred from soil to biological material soil to biological material biological material to biological material to (daily) (daily) animal (daily) animal (daily) Soil to grazing crops Soil to vegetables Grazing crops to milk Grazing crops to meat (Bq/kg) / (Bq/kg) or (Bq/kg) / (Bq/kg) or Days/kg Days/kg (mg/kg) / (mg/kg) (mg/kg) / (mg/kg) 0,05 0,005 0,0005 0,0004
Generally, a large proportion of DU munitions fired from an aircraft miss their intended target. The physical state of these munitions once fired will vary from small fragments to whole intact penetrators, either totally or partially encased in their aluminum jackets. Penetrators that do not hit the target corrode with time, forming fragments and particles containing a variety of oxides of DU and combinations with carbonates. 51 Uranium corrosion products formed through this weathering process could be resuspended and ingested or inhaled by people staying in the zone. As a geochemical effect these corrosion products will have a different mobility in the affected soil than the original form brought into the field. A higher mobility could affect ground water in the zone earlier than a decrease in mobility. No more penetrators will be found in the Balkans grounds 25 to 35 years after release into the environment. Instead of metallic penetrators, contaminated spots in the ground will be found containing DU decomposition products. Uranium is not generally transferred effectively along food chains. The transfer factors as shown in Table 2 may be applied. As an example: A contamination of 10 mg DU/kg surface soil would result in a contamination of food plants of 0,5 mg DU/kg food plant. With a mean consumption of 65 kg food plant by a cow, this would result in a daily intake in that area of about 30 mg DU, which in turn could yield for the following day's milk a maximum of 0,0163 mg DU/kg.
49 UNEP (May, 1999): Mission Report: United Nations Inter-Agency Needs Assessment Mission to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – Environment and Human Settlement Aspects 50 HSK (Hauptabteilung für die Sicherheit der Kernanlagen), 1997. Berechnung der Strahlenexposition in der Umgebung aufgrund von Emissionen radioaktiver Stoffe aus Kernanlagen, HSK-R-41/d 51 Danesi, P.R., et al., 2003: Depleted uranium particles in selected Kosovo samples. In: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 64, 143-154. 18 Soft surfaces were found resulting in higher ground contamination than hard surfaces. In the areas of air to ground attacks with DU ammunition, the presence of DU could be measured starting already with a value clearly below the natural level of uranium decreasingly up to distances not more than 150 m from the center. Based on this finding the DU contamination can be defined as a localized ground contamination. The risks related to contamination points are the dispersion/resuspension of DU, and the direct, non-protected, contact of such points which will result in contamination. Therefore, it is advisable to remove, cover, or mark the points. UNEP found no signs of widespread contamination. At the sites investigated in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina no vehicle hit by DU could be found. All vehicles had been removed and their history remained unsolved. One single armored personnel carrier could be studied in the Serbia-Montenegro Mission. This carrier was hit by one 30mm DU penetrator. On the bases of the samples collected in the carrier a calculation showed that when a crew member had inhaled the DU particles during one minute just after the impact, this could have led to a temporary weak impairment of his renal function. In the DU assessments of Kosovo and Serbia-Montenegro, no DU contaminated buildings were recognized. In Bosnia-Herzegovina at two sites which had been heavily attacked by A10 aircrafts penetrators, fragments and DU dust were found in buildings which were still in use by the local population or army. Even though calculations showed a minor radiological risk by entering or staying for a certain period of time in the building, UNEP recommended avoiding unnecessary contamination with a number of cleanup measures easy to realize. UNEP in its assessments always included sampling and analysis of water; In Kosovo and Serbia-Montenegro, no contamination of water by DU could be found. However, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, DU contamination of groundwater was found at 1 of the 11 sites investigated. The concentration of DU in the water was low from the radiological and chemical-toxicological point of view and compared to the natural level of uranium present in the water, but was indicative of possible water contamination in the future. The finding justifies – as a precautionary action – the monitoring for DU, respectively the total uranium concentration in water used as drinking water taken inside attacked areas and 200-300 m along the direction of the groundwater flow from the attacked areas. In the UNEP Balkans investigations of air at heavily attacked sites, some samples showed clear indications of DU in the air. The levels found in the air were low, of some nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) and have been discussed in the UNEP reports in detail. UNEP in its assessments to the Balkans included sampling and analysis of bio indicators, focusing on lichen; Samples of vegetables were seldom included. A result was that some lichen showed traces of DU that indicated earlier or ongoing contamination through the air, caused by the initial phase, the attack and/or as a result of steady resuspension from contaminated ground. No vegetables contaminated by DU were found. In the UNEP postconflict assessments of Kosovo and Serbia-Montenegro, no DU contaminated buildings were recognized. Many areas that were investigated by the UNEP team had been previously investigated by local experts and/or multinational troops. At some sites these investigators found and removed penetrators. At the sites investigated by the UNEP DU Assessments Team, where about 10,000 penetrators had been fired, more than 200 penetrators, fragments, and jackets (casings) were found on surfaces, and more than 500 penetrators were discovered buried in the ground.
The current vagueness of scientific knowledge about the essential features of uranium's transformation in the environment – as indicated in the UNEP report – ought to be sufficient reason for the halting and banning of all further military use of DU (and probably civilian use too). 52 One has to keep in mind that the penetrators and the corrosion products currently hidden in the ground may be dug up during construction works in the future and as a result the corresponding risks as described above might occur, for example, construction workers without personal protection equipment, could be contaminated, and, as a consequence, internal and external doses, poisoning could result. 53
52 Gut, A., Vitale, B., 2003: Depleted Uranium – deadly, dangerous and indiscriminate – the full picture. Spokesman (Nottingham), p. 91. 53 Burger, Mario & Slotte, Henri (2007): United Nations Environment Programme Results Based on the Three DU Assessments in the Balkans and the Joint IAEA/UNEP Mission to Kuwait, in Miller, Alexandra C.: Depleted Uranium – Properties, Uses and Health Consequences, CRC Press, p. 245-247, 249, 251-256. 19
The Netherlands Since 1993, test firing with DU ammunitions has been prohibited on the firing ranges of Vliehors (Vlieland) and Noordvaarder (Terschelling), two of the Wadden Islands in the Netherlands. Vliehors is part of a vulnerable natural reserve. 54 Since 1948, the Dutch Air Force has used a part of De Vliehors for target practices with bomb dropping aircraft (training bombs and explosive bombs). NATO executed trainings with missiles and aircraft equipped with cannons. 55 Although the firing range of the Noordvaarder is out of use, the Vliehors Range is still used for target practices with F-16 bombers. It is unknown to what extent the Vliehors Range has been contaminated with dust and debris from spent DU munitions.
54 The Netherlands Ministry of Defense (April, 2, 2001): Gezondheidsrisico's van munitie met verarmd uranium. Kamerbrieven; http://www.mindef.nl/actueel/parlement/kamerbrieven/2001/2/020401_uranium.aspx 55 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, letter written by the Netherlands State Secretary of Defense, C. van der Knaap (February, 22, 2005), http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/rijksbegroting_nl/e5fe8801ebec402eb2bac4898c66ff50x386x51337x21.php 20 Peacetime Concerns of DU Weapons in Asia and Pacific Area Report to the UNEP Global Civil Society Forum February, 2008
Contact Information of this report Organizations: Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE) NO DU Hiroshima Project Contact Person of this report: Katsumi Furitsu MD. Ph. D Mailing Address: Satonaka-cho, 2-1-24, Nishinomiya, Hyogo Country: Japan Zip code: 663-8183 Phone: +81 (0)798 44 2614 Fax: +81 (0)798 44 2614 E-mail: [email protected] Website: CARE: http://www1.odn.ne.jp/hibaku-hantai/ NO DU Hiroshima Project: http://www.nodu-hiroshima.org/
CARE and NO DU Hiroshima Project have been involved in the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) since its foundation in Oct. 2003. Katsumi Furitsu is a member of Steering Committee and Science Team of ICBUW.
I. Concerns of DU Weapons at the US military bases in Japan 1. Storage of DU weapons 1) Facilities of concern (a) Kadena Ammunition Storage Area The US Kadena Ammunition Storage Area (27,190, 000 m2) straddles six municipalities, Onna Village (2,543 m2), Gushikawa City (493 m2), Naha City (8,611 m2), Kadena Town (3,479 m2), Yomitan Village (10,679 m2) and Ishikawa City (1,384 m2), in Okinawa Prefecture.56 The US military forces occupied Okinawa and started to use this area as an ammunition storage area in 1995, just after the end of the WWII. The Japanese government provided the US Army with this area in 1972, when the administrative right over Okinawa was returned to Japan, pursuant to Article VI of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. The US Air Force (the 18th Munitions Squadron) started to control this area in 1978 when the US Army shifted their storage area to Korea and Middle East. The US Air Force and Marine Corps together control this area at present. All the ammunition for the military exercises and urgent operations required at the Kadena US Air Force Base came from storage in Okinawa.57
On February 20th, 2001, Kyle Kajihiro, Hawaii Area Program Director of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)58 made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, directed to Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander in Chief Pacific, for records relating to DU weapons at US military bases in the Pacific Command Area. On August 1st, 2001, AFSC received a reply with declassified documents. The documents included records provided by the 18th Munitions Squadron at Kadena Air Force Base, which showed that the number of DU munitions stored in the Kadena Ammunition Storage Area was 398,768 at that time. Since then, no further information about exact places, numbers and conditions of the DU munitions stored in the Kadena Ammunition Area has been disclosed.59
56 Okinawa prefectural government, dep. of US bases affairs, “US military and JDF bases in Okinawa”, 2006. [in Japanese] 57 Okinawa city government, dep. of US bases affairs, information [in Japanese] is available on http://www.city.okinawa.okinawa.jp/sitemanage/contents/attach/1753/DANYAKUKO.htm 58 American Friends Service Committee: http://www.afschawaii.org/index.html 59 Presentation of Si woo LEE at ICBUW Hiroshima Conference, contact
(b) Other Storage Sites at the US military bases in Japan Any information about exact places, numbers and conditions of the DU munitions stored in other sites of the US military bases in Japan has not yet been disclosed. However, the Japanese government has officially admitted the presence of DU munitions in the US bases in Japan, though they do not specify the sites. They do not deny the possibility of DU munitions storage at sites other than Kadena.61
2) Environmental concerns In the event of a fire or an airplane crash, DU munitions stored in a military base could also burn and vaporize into an aerosol, which is easily diffused in the environment. Aerosolized DU dust could be spread over the storage area re-suspended by the winds and could possibly be diffused outside the area. Nearby residents and people using public roads close to the sites could be exposed to the DU dust as well.
3) Measures and evaluation (a) Measures of the Japanese government do not exist The Japanese government officially admits to the presence of DU munitions in US bases in Japan, although they do not specify the sites. They repeatedly answered questions from the public and members of the Diet: “We will never request that the US disclose information about the storage of DU weapons. It is their policy to never give us any information about the storage of specific weapons and the military capabilities at each US base in Japan.” 62The Japanese government has not taken any measures to protect residents near the probable storage sites in case of possible events of DU contamination.
(b) DU-related laws and regulation in Japan: In Japan, DU is strictly controlled under domestic laws [Atomic Energy Basic Law and Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law (NRRL)] because it is considered to be a hazardous radioactive material. In these laws, DU is defined as nuclear fuel. According to NRRL, those, who are to use DU in the amount exceeding 300mg, are obliged to get special permission from the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. This 300mg of DU is almost equal in amount to that used for a penetrator of only one 30mm DU shell.
During a public discussion with Japanese ICBUW members, on May 8th, 2007, an officer from the Foreign Ministry said: “The military use of DU is different from its commercial use.” Thus, Japanese government does not apply the same basis of risk assessment and regulation, when they consider the risk of DU weapons in the US bases as compared to its commercial use.
2. Past firing exercises using DU shells 1) Site of concern: Torishima US Military Firing Range Torishima is a small island (41,000 m2) in Okinawa prefecture. It is situated about 100 km (63 miles) west of the main island of Okinawa. A radius of three nautical miles (5.5 km) around the island is off limits, because of the US Military Firing Range on the island.
During the shell firing exercises carried out at the Torishima US Military Firing Range in December 5th and 7th in1995, and January 24th in1996, the US Marine Corps fired a total of 1,520 rounds of 25mm DU shells (each penetrator contains 148g of DU). This fact was revealed a little over a year later, in February 1997. The US government explained that they used DU shells “by mistake”. After that, the US military retrieved the DU penetrators, but only a total of 247DU penetrators have been retrieved.63
60 Akira Tashiro, The Chogoku Shinbun, Hiroshima, “Discounted casualties”, Special Report “DU munitions in Okinawa”, 2000, available on http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/okinawa_e/index.html 61 Answer of Junko Kawaguchi [No. 13], Foreign Minister, 156th Diet, Committee of defense and foreign affairs, 10/06/2003 [in Japanese], available on http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/sangiin/156/0059/15606100059013c.html 62 Answer from the Cabinet to the question on “Ban of uranium weapons and medical support to Iraq attacked by these weapons” [No. 56], 166th Diet, 06/07/2007 [in Japanese], available on http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/frameset/fset_c03_01.htm 63 footnote 8. 22 2) Environmental concerns About 190 kg of DU has been left scattered somewhere in the environment, in the soil and water on/around Torishima Island. During the days of the firing exercises and just after, DU dust could well have migrated on strong winds over the sea to Kumejima Island, which is situated about 25km South of Torishima.
3) Measures and evaluation Measurements of the Japanese government are not satisfactory: First of all, they could not provide the residents on the nearest island, Kumejima, with any information about the event during the exercises or after them. In May 1997, the Japanese government carried out an environmental investigation on Torishima Island to observe the retrieving activities of US military. They also carried out the environmental investigation over surrounding waters as well as on Kumejima Island. They measured the radiation dose rate in air and the concentration of uranium (some with an isotope ratio analysis of U234/U238) in the soil, water, air dust and some marine organisms. In September 1997, the assessment committee of the environmental investigation reviewed the data and concluded: “There was no detection of any increased dose of radiation or of the presence of DU contamination and there was no concern for the environment”.64 It should be noted that they took the radiation measurements more than a year after the event. No follow-up study on the environment has been done. Local authorities on Kumejima Island asked the Japanese government to provide physical exams for the people living on the island, and to continue recovering the penetrators. However, the Japanese government has taken no further measures.
II. Policy Recommendations and Civil Society Organization Challenges 1. Policy Recommendations (a) to the Japanese government and relevant local authorities: - request the US government to disclose all the information regarding DU weapons storage sites, their number and condition - take concrete measures to protect residents from DU exposure at possible events of contamination - request the US government to remove the entire DU weapons from the US bases and related facilities in Japan - strictly control metal scraps possibly contaminated by DU from the US bases - provide physical exams for the residents on Kumejima Island at the request of local authorities - carry out a follow-up survey of the environment on/around Torishima Island - request the US government to continue recovering the penetrators at the Torishima Firing Range
(b) to the US government: - disclose all the information about DU weapons storage sites, their numbers and condition - remove all DU weapons from US bases and related facilities in Japan - discontinue the release of DU contaminated scraps from US bases - continue the recovery of the penetrators at the Torishima Firing Range
(c) to the international community: - research the environmental situation around the military bases and firing ranges where DU munitions have been stored or used - promote the process to achieve “the DU weapons free zone” in each regions in the world including the Asian Pacific Region - promote the process of achieving a total ban of DU weapons, including its storage and use at military exercises
2. Our challenges as NGO - provide people with information about the hazards of DU munitions to the environment and health, in cooperation with environmental and peace NGOs at local, national and international levels
64 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Data Reviewing report of the investigation of the issue related to misused DU shells at the Torishima US Military Firing Range”, 1998, [in Japanese] available on http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/10/09/980912.htm 23 - demand that the Japanese government, local authorities and US government follow these recommendations - promote the process to achieve “the DU weapons free zone” and total ban of DU weapons in cooperation with the international community
III. Concerns of DU Weapons at the US military bases in Korea The documents declassified in 2001, also included the records provided by the 51st Maintenance Squadron Munitions Flight at Osan Air Force Base in Korea. According to the documents, the numbers of DU munitions stored in each US Air Force Base are 1,360,181 in the Suwon, 933,669 in the Cheong-ju, and 474,576 in Osan.65 The record showed a serious discrepancy between the numbers of DU shells actually confirmed by inspectors and figures on the document in each US Air Force Base. Especially on the Osan Base, 24,696 DU munitions may be missing; it also showed that some of the containers had punctures and shells were corroded.
In 1997, the US military force in Korea reported that a 120mm DU shell detonated by mis-classification at the Yeonchon explosive disposal facility in Gyeonggi Province. There was no protective measurement at the river running close to the facility and there was concern that the water might be contaminated. However, neither the US military or the Korean government carried out any environmental investigation.
According to a testimony of a US Air Force veteran, DU shells were used during firing exercises at the Maehyang-ri US Military Firing Range.66
IV. Concerns of DU Weapons at the US military bases in Hawaii According to the document which was declassified in 2001 by the US Navy to the FOIA request from the AFSC67, two DU rounds were fired in “inadvertent” discharge of Close-In Weapons System on board the USS LAKE ERIE, CG 70, on May 4, 1994, in Pearl Harbor. The document also showed that the Lualualei Naval Magazine was on the list of the sites where DU weapons were stored.
The Army and the Air Force denied the presence of DU weapons in Hawaii. However, in 2005, through the process of document discovery of a lawsuit related to Makua Military Reservation on O’ahu island, an internal Army memo that indicated DU weapons were found in Schofield Barracks’ range. The coalition of several environmental and peace group including AFSC, released the information to the media in January 2006.68 Then, the Army was forced to disclose that it found 15 pieces of DU tailing assemblies from an old weapons system. In May 2007, the Army officially confirmed for the first time that the DU tailing assemblies that were left behind in the 1960’s came from an old tactical nuclear weapon system called “Davey Crockett”.69 DU was used as ballast in the spotting rounds. The Army spoke to media that they found additional DU fragments in Schofield and the spotting rounds were possibly used also in Makua Military Reservation and Pohakuloa Training Area.70 They conducted radiological testing of soil and air samples in these areas and confirmed the presence of DU in Pohakuloa in August. The survey was inconclusive because of the heavy vegetation in Makua. The Army has not disclosed any data regarding the measurements.71 They have no plan to carry on the health survey of the people of the local community.
They said, “The Army does not currently use DU in training ammunition.” but it is still an open question.
65 Si woo LEE, “3 million DU shells in US Military bases in Korea”, No Nukes Asian Forus Japan, 2006, [Japanese translation] available on http://www18.ocn.ne.jp/~nnaf/81a.html 66 Green Korea United, “Another Vieques in South Korea”, Earth First! Journal, 2001, available on http://starbulletin.com/print/2005.php?fr=/2006/01/06/news/story06.html 67 footnote 3 68 Star Bulletin, Vol.11, Issue 6-Friday, January 6, 2006, available on http://starbulletin.com/ 69 Davey Crockett was a recoilless gun which was produced from 1960 until 1968. It could fire a filed launched nuclear bomb with a yield of 0.01 kilotons. It was a classified weapon. 70 HonoluluAdvertiser, May 11, 2007, available on http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/May/11/ln/FP705110374.html/?print=on 71 Media Release, Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, “Malama Na Koa”, Release number: 2007-08-02 24 The Civil Society Organizations’ global survey on military activities and the environment in peacetime
Purpose of this survey October 2007 marks the start of the United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) global survey on how environmental norms apply to military establishments during peacetime. This survey implements, section 20 “military activities and the environment” of the Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law for the First-decade of the Twenty-first Century (Montevideo Programme III). The UNEP would like input from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) such as NGOs, local authorities, and concerned individuals, so we are conducting this survey for CSOs. Overall these surveys will inform discussions on what international norms should guide military efforts to address environmental concerns and how laws should improve to implement them. The upcoming UNEP meetings are key opportunities for CSOs. The UNEP seeks firsthand, systematic information to inform regional workshops and the 2009 international conference. The UNEP invited us to submit comments for its first meeting, held for Africa on October 3-5th, and welcomes comments for its next meeting for Asia. To meet these opportunities, our survey will organize your response and present them with those of your peers, increasing your credibility and influence.
Plans and Progress So far we have compiled responses from African CSOs and submitted a report to the UNEP regional meeting for Africa. The UNEP circulated this report in the meeting and the UNEP Civil Society Division has posted this report on their website (http://www.unep.org/civil_society/recommendations/index2.asp). Next we will assist CSOs in Asia with a report for the Asia regional meeting. After that we will produce a global report for the upcoming Global Civil Society Forum set for February 2008. In 2009 we will publish a comprehensive report to share with participating organizations and the public in preparation for the international conference on military activities and the environment.
Schedule of UNEP global survey and relevant meetings October 2007 UNEP Africa regional workshop on this topic in Kenya (Not open to CSOs) December 2007 UNEP plans to start its global survey on this topic in other regions. January 2008 UNEP Asia regional workshop on this topic in Thailand (Not open to CSOs) February 2008 The 9th UNEP Global Civil Society Forum and the 10th Special session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Monaco In 2009 UNEP will hold an international conference on this topic (open to CSOs) Due Dates Please fill in this questionnaire as much as you can and send you answer before the listed date. January 6, 2008 We need your response by this date so we can submit a report to UNEP’s Asia Regional Meeting in January. January 31, 2008 We need your survey response by this date so we can submit it with our global report for the UNEP meetings in February. Return To: Email: [email protected] or mail to Vermont Law School International Law Society- The Sub-Committee on Military Related Environmental Concerns P.O. Box 96 Chelsea Street, South Royalton, VT, 05068, USA For Information Visit: http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/page0005.htm Questions? Email: Kaori Sunagawa at [email protected]
1 UNEP Asia Workshop Topics
Please draft a paragraph (or more) under each topic you find relevant to your organization or your experience. These answers will be sent to the UNEP regional meeting for Asia, along with your answers to the questionnaire and additional information you send to us by January 6, 2008.
“This meeting will provide a forum for governments in Asia and the Pacific to exchange information and share experiences to address the following issues arising from military/defence-related activities during peacetime:1 (a) A national environmental policy for the military/defence sector;
(b) National activities in order to ascertain that military establishments in the country conform to their national environmental norms in the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes;
(c) The contribution of the military sector in the achievement of national environmental policies, goals and objectives aiming at sustainable development;
(d) Assessments of the damage as well as the need for and feasibility of the clean-up and restoration of areas where damage to the environment has been caused by military activities.”2
1 For our definition of peacetime impacts and some examples, see page 4.
2 Quoting topic descriptions appearing in the UNEP Invitation to State officials in Africa. According to an official source, these will be the same topics discussed at the upcoming Asia meeting.
2 Military Related Environmental Concerns Questionnaire
Directions: Please complete this form as best you can. Instructions accompany each question and a sample answer can guide you as you write. Site sources of information as often as you can, and please attach or link any studies or supporting information you find relevant to this inquiry. Additional instructions appear in [bracket] form. Feel free to use more space than the form allows by modifying this document or attaching pages at the end. If you cannot answer a question at this time, have no opinion, or otherwise do not wish to respond to a question, please write that you will answer it later or leave the question blank.
Confidentiality: Please place your contact information in [brackets] if you would not like this information to be available for the public. This information is meant to help us contact you if we need to clarify what you mean by a response, or need more information.
Contact Information
Affiliation or Organization: Contact Person(s): Mailing Address: Country: Zip code: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Website:
About your Organization
• Introduction: [Feel free to describe its location, history, its members or staff]
• Purpose: [Please describe the aim of your organization’s work]
• Efforts to Inform the Public: [Please list or describe any public education programs or publications that your group provides, for example educational events, newsletters, journal articles, studies, or books]
• Public Action: [Feel free to list and describe actions your group has taken related to this issue, for example workshops, studies, or other efforts of your group.]
3 Peacetime Environmental Problems Related to Military sector activities
For the purposes of this survey, peacetime environmental problems related to military sector activities include: (1) Impacts from past warfare, (2) impacts from non-combat related military sector3 activities of the past, (3) non-combat impacts from ongoing military sector activities, and (4) non-combat impacts from planned activities not yet complete.
For example: 1. Dioxin related health problems affecting children, or abandoned munitions stockpiles and unexploded ordnance left over from a past war.4
2. Asbestos poisoning in civilian workers of a former base or childhood leukemia connected with motor pool pollution contaminating groundwater under a former base.
3. Significant global warming emissions or tree loss; soil conservation and carbon absorption from tree planting; energy, or material demands at facilities, noise, air, water, or soil pollution adjacent to military facilities, or unsafe working conditions within an installation.
4. Critical habitat loss anticipated in plans for a new military facility, people to be displaced or burdened by a new base, energy or material inputs anticipated and their impacts, or global warming consequences related to future activities.
Below we have asked you to provide answers to complete a basic description of the problem(s) you face. Please adhere to this structure as best you can because it helps us present your information.
Questionnaire Contents
Section [Basic question] Page
I. Military sector facilities or sites of concern [What is the activity?] 5 II. Peacetime Concerns [What is the impact?] 6 III. Legality and Access to Justice [What law applies?] 7 IV. Measures and Evaluation [Is the law working?] 8 V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges [What can CSOs do?] 11 VI. Policy Recommendations [How can policy improve?] 12 VII. Additional Material and Resources [Any supporting material?] 13 VIII. Additional Comments [Anything left out?] 13
3 For this survey “military sector” includes defense agencies, military forces, private contractors hired to perform defense related activities like weapons production or research, and similar organizations conducting national defense related activities.
4 For more examples, feel free to visit our collection of UNEP country reports from 1995-6, at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/UNEP%20Documents/, our Africa report, and other supporting information available on links from our homepage: http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/page0005.htm.
4 I. Military sector facilities or sites of concern You can include multiple sites if you are familiar with more than one, simply copy and paste the headings under each site name and provide information under each heading.
Site: [Please name the site or location including region and country information]
Characteristics of the site: 1. Location and Size: [Feel free to describe the site of activities causing a local impact in terms of its size and where it is in relation to local communities or natural resources.]
2. History: [Please briefly describe the history of the site – feel free to include more information than the space provides]
3. Ownership and Authority to control the area in question: [Please describe the source of military authority over the area or what enables them to cause the impact you are concerned about – for example, it there a treaty, a law, an agreement that you are aware of that gives or gave the military the right to operate in this area]
4. Mission and facilities [Please describe what kind of site or facility and what its purpose is]
5. Operations [Please describe the activities that have or continue to cause the problems you are concerned about]
6. Relationship with the Community: [Please briefly describe how the community and military have interacted – feel free to include more information than this space provides]
5 II. Peacetime Concerns: [please attach or reference any sources of data you can] You can name more than one by copying and pasting this section and filling out what you can for each concern.
Concern: [Please name a concern you can explain, and name the sites where it is a problem]
1. Quantify the overall impact (with data if available) [Please present any measures setting out the magnitude of the concern or its extent with what information is available]
2. Scope of the Impact [Please describe how many people, what wildlife, or what area has been affected by the issue you have named, with what information is available]
(a) Human Health impact [Please describe carefully, especially if you have data to contribute or have surveyed the number of people affected by ailments or injury related to your concern]
(b) Environmental Impact [Please describe any observed or studied harm to wildlife, vegetation, or the environment in general related to your concern]
(c) Economic Impact [Please describe any effect on incomes or economic activity in the area]
(d) Social Impact [Please describe any harm or benefit to the community you can relate]
6 III. Legality and Access to Justice
1. Access to Justice: [Please describe any legal or political activities that you or others you know have been able to use to address this concern, with what information is available]
2. Cases: [Please describe any legal action that has attempted to address your concern with what information is available]
3. Law [Please list any laws, treaties, norms, regulations, or ordinances that appear to address your concern or that you may want address your concern in the future]
4. Administrative Avenues [Please describe any procedures your government has made available that you can use to address your concern(s), for example notice of harmful activities, relevant information available on request, opportunities to comment on actions before agencies make major decisions affecting your area, public announcement of major decisions, and any appeal or ability to gain an explanation of a controversial decision]
7 IV. Measures and Evaluation
Please evaluate existing measures to address these impacts using 10 questions derived from principles in the NATO Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector.5
Please rate your satisfaction with these measures from 5 - Very Satisfied 4 - Satisfied 3 – Neutral, no opinion, measures are difficult to evaluate or unknown 2 - Dissatisfied 1 - Not satisfied at all 0 - Measures do not exist to support this norm
1. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures balance military readiness and national defense with environmental and social goals? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each measure (ex. satisfied)]: [please express the reason for your rating]
2. Are you satisfied with the way the government measures show a consistent application of environmental requirements to people in the military and industry? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
3. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between military forces and local authorities to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
5 See Chapter 7 (25-29) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector (Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, 1996), available at http://sba.vermontlaw.edu/groups/ils/ILS_website_files/US-SwedenEnvGuidelinesMilitary.pdf.
8 4. Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between the military and other stakeholders, including the public, to address your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating, conveying your sense of the cooperation shown in addressing each of your concerns]: [please express the reason for your rating]
5. Are you satisfied with the level of emergency assistance provided by the military to the local authorities? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating, conveying your sense of how much assistance occurs]: [please express the reason for your rating]
6. Are you satisfied with current opportunities for public participation in the decision- making process when the military or government makes decisions addressing your concern(s)? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each opportunity or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
7. Are you satisfied with the level of public access to information that the military or government produces? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Please list your rating for each avenue you can use to access information or your general sense of how much access you have]: [please express the reason for your rating]
9 8. Even a good program may be poorly implemented if it is not (a) based upon on a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable. Are you satisfied with the way the current government program addressing your problem has been implemented? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
Fill in the blank below (1) Name of program: [ ] Evaluation: [please rate 0-5] Reason for your rating from the following view points. (a) a sound foundation of information; (b) fiscally executable; and (c) technologically executable
If you have more, please continue to write below.
9. Creating an appropriate inventory of problem sources and sensitive areas can be a basic step toward developing a plan that addresses concerns like yours. Are you satisfied with current inventories in your area, of natural resources, contaminated sites, and sources of pollution where the military operates?
Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list and evaluate the policies of each country involved, as above] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
10. Are you satisfied with the extent the current government plans provide realistic solutions to your problem? Overall Evaluation: [please rate 0-5]
[Feel free to list programs and evaluate each with ratings and explanations] [Please list your rating for each measure]: [please express the reason for your rating]
10 V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges What are (1) local authorities, (2) your group, (3) other groups or individuals, doing to address this problem and what challenges do they face?
1. Local authorities [What have local authorities done, or what are local authorities doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]
2. Your organization [What has your organization done, or what is your organization doing to address the problems and what challenges do you face?]
3. Other groups or individuals such as community organization, academics, businesses, or non-governmental organizations [What have other organizations or individuals done, or what are they doing to address the problems and what challenges do they face?]
11 VI. Policy Recommendations: Looking back at your answers to the previous sections, including:
I. Characteristics of the Site, II. Peacetime Concerns, III. Legality and Access to Justice, IV. Measures and Evaluation, V. Civil Society Organization Efforts and Challenges
Please try to make one or more achievable recommendations related to each section.
1. Recommendation to the relevant national government(s): [What recommendation do you have for national government(s)? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
2. Recommendation to the relevant local authorities [What recommendation do you have for local authorities? What are your reasons for supporting your recommendations?]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
3. Recommendation to the international community: [Feel free to direct your recommendations to international organization like the UNEP and NATO, other governments or NGOs]
Please fill in the blanks below (1) Title of your recommendation: [ ]
(a) Recommendation to: [ ]
(b) Your reasons supporting for your recommendation [please explain below]
12 VII. Additional Materials and Issues related to Military activities:
(1) Please attach relevant materials (documents, articles, videos) that may support your responses, your work, or help someone understand the situation in more depth.
(2) Please provide information that you find to be helpful such as informative websites and please list any other groups or individuals who are working on environmental concerns related to military activities.
VIII. Additional Comments:
[Feel free to present any future plans you have made for addressing this concern, or feedback on the issue, the UNEP topics, this survey, or related work in general]
13