________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** GLOBAL FUTURES BULLETIN #81 ---01 Apr, 1999--- ISSN 1328-5157 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia. E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This bulletin is for the use of IGFR members and GFB subscribers only and is not to be re-posted. ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** * * INDEX . Kosovo in perspective . 'Humanitarian intervention' . Kosovo background . Prevention . In defense of NATO . Balkans - where to from here ? . Cities that reduce resource use and waste . Avoiding the oil shock . Calendar * * KOSOVO IN PERSPECTIVE Professor Vojin Dimitrijevic of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights argues that the massive NATO air strikes have given legitimacy to a state of emergency by an authoritarian regime and set back prospects for democracy in Yugoslavia [1], and that only a democratic transition provides the opportunity for stability and peace in the Balkans. 'The air strikes erased in one night the results of ten years of hard work of groups of courageous people in the non-governmental organizations and in the democratic opposition, who have not tried to 'topple' anyone but to develop the institutions of civil society, to promote liberal and civic values, to teach non-violent conflict resolution. The emerging democracy in Montenegro is in peril and will be hard to maintain now' says Dimitrijevic. The total number of refugees is now over 850,000, or 40% of Kosovo's population, and continuing to grow. More than 2,000 people have died in Kosovo, at least 500 of those Serbian. Of the 15 nations on the Security Council, three opposed the military intervention - Russia, China and Namibia. Russia and China have veto power (along with the US, UK and France). While it could be argued that air strikes were inappropriate, it is important to note that China has an interest in pushing for non-interference in sovereign matters, due to its own threat to integrity from breakaway movements in Tibet and Xinjiang. Russia is a longterm ally of the Serbs, and was seeking to continue peace negotiations. It could be argued that the NATO powers broke off negotiations after presenting Milosevic with an ultimatum they knew he would not accept. Lewis MacKenzie [2] also suggests that the NATO action not only broke international law by lacking authorisation from the Security Council, but was also selective - otherwise NATO should also have intervened to protect the Kurds in Turkey, Tibetans in China, East Timorese in Indonesia, and Chechens in Russia, to name a few examples. Until recently the Serbs allowed TV cameras in Kosovo. This would not be the case for anti-Kurd operations in Turkey (a NATO member). MacKenzie suggests the Serbs are out to claim northern Kosovo where many monasteries and Serbia's heartland is, as well as mines and other natural resources, and be prepared to give up southern Kosovo which will possibly join Albania. Samuel Huntington warns that in the eyes of much of the world, if not most, the US is 'becoming the rogue superpower,' considered 'the single greatest external threat to their societies.' Realist 'international relations theory,' he argues, predicts that coalitions may arise to counterbalance the rogue superpower [3]. Such a coalition could include Russia and China. There is also evidence of some technical/military cooperation between Yugoslavia and Iraq, supported by Russia (eg ground-to-air defense systems). However, Iraq has not made major provocations during the NATO raids on Yugoslavia, as some had originally expected, to test overstretched US military resources. Michel Chossudovsky argues that the strategic interests of Germany and the US laid the groundwork for the disintegration of the Former Yugoslavia [4]. Radical economic reform as loan conditions of the IMF contributed to a massive increase in unemployment and economic contraction, which exacerbated social tensions and the ascendancy of nationalism, xenophobia and racism. Democratic institutions in Bosnia- Herzegovina act as a rubber stamp while the real power, under the Dayton Accords, lies in Washington, Bonn and Brussels [5]. However, one could argue that the deterioration of the Yugoslav economy had much to do with the disintegration of the Soviet empire (as in the case of Cuba). While most of the republics of the former Yugoslavia have become heavily indebted, failure of international financial institutions to provide loans and foreign business to invest would also have drawn criticism in the eyes of many. One criticism that could be made is that the wholesale dismantling of state enterprise was excessive, serving narrow IMF orthodoxy and the interests of transnational corporations. A more gradual reform with greater economic concessions may have helped avoid much of the (costly and wasteful) trauma the region is now suffering [6]. * [1] Dimitrijevic, Vojin Belgrade Centre for Human Rights 26 Mar 1999 [2] MacKenzie, Lewis (retired major general who commanded UN troops during siege of Sarajevo, Bosnia civil war 1992) 'Wrong alliance punishing Serbs' The Vancouver Sun, 26 Mar 1999. [3] Huntington, Samuel Foreign Affairs Mar 1999 [4] Chossudovsky, Michel 1996 http://groundwork.ucsd.edu/bosnia.html, see also Gervasi, Sean 'Germany, US and the Yugoslav Crisis', Covert Action Quarterly, No. 43, Winter 1992-93. p65 [5] Chossudowsky op cit. [6] The disintegration of the Cuban economy was also severe, yet without radical IMF economic reform. Interestingly, economic collapse in Cuba did not lead to social instability and conflict, did not lead to an increase in the (current moderate) levels of political repression and human rights violations, but has led to some economic liberalisation. On the otherhand, the risks of ethnic conflict in the Former Yugoslavia have been long known, unlike the more integrated Afro-Hispanic population of Cuba. * {2. peace and conflict resolution} * * * 'HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION' While NATO has broken international law by failing to get Security Council approval to launch an attack, NATO argues that it is merely following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which allows for 'humanitarian intervention'. But this right to intervene is based on the 'good faith' of the proposed intervenor, ie their record for respecting international law. When Iran offered to mediate in Bosnia, the proposal was ignored. Chomsky asks 'is the Iranian record of intervention and terror worse than that of the US?' [1] The US record includes: Colombia's 'drug war' (similar numbers of casualties, with refugees amounting to approx one million). US arms and training. Turkey, the largest importer of US arms in 1994 coinciding with most brutal Turkish offensive on Kurds. One million refugees to unofficial Kurd capital of Diyarbakir 1990-94. Laos, Plain of Jars - every year perhaps two thousand people are killed by 'bombies' [2], tiny anti-personnel weapons, far worse than land-mines, dropped by the US during the Vietnam war. 'Hundreds of millions' of these Honeywell devices are said to have been dropped. Iraq, 'a very hard choice', Madeleine Albright commented on US TV in 1996 when asked for her reaction to the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children in 5 years, but 'we think the price is worth it.' Current estimates remain about 5,000 children killed a month, and a total of 1m Iraqis who have died as a result of the sanctions. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile - US support (training and arms etc) for military dictatorships and death squads. Other comparisons to the 2000 killed in Kosovo which led to the NATO decision to strike [3]: Algeria - 80,000 killed Burma - gross human rights violations, genocide and ~500,000 killed since 1948. Ethiopia-Eritrea war of 1999 - ~10,000 killed Sudan - 1.5m killed since 1984 Approximately 100,000 people die per day as a result of lack of what is regarded as a human right - access to safe water, and basic food, medicine, clothes and shelter. The UN Charter drew from the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war. Since then the case of 'humanitarian intervention' has been used to justify Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia, and Hitler's occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia and put an end to the Pol Pot genocide, one of the few examples, according to Chomsky, where the plea of 'humanitarian intervention' was plausible since the UN Charter was drawn up, the US accused the Vietnamese of violating international law and backed a Chinese invasion followed by harsh sanctions. France had called for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize deployment of NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo. The US refused, insisting on 'its stand that NATO should be able to act independently of the United Nations,' State Department officials explained [4]. Leon Henkin also argues that there are strong pressures which are eroding the prohibition on the use of force. While there are countless instances of human rights violations, the use of force as a solution would only further erode international law and could be used 'by almost any state on any other'. He argues that human rights violations must be remedied by peaceful means [5]. Chomsky continues '..the right of 'humanitarian intervention' is likely to be more frequently invoked in coming years - maybe with justification, maybe not - now that Cold War pretexts have lost their efficacy. In such an era, it may be worthwhile to pay attention to ... the World Court, which explicitly ruled on this matter in a decision rejected by the US, its essentials not even reported.' [6] * [1] Chomsky, Noam 'The Current Bombings' WILPF News, 28 Mar 1999. [2] estimates of deaths range form several hundred per year to 10,000. See Chomsky op cit [3] Oberg, Jan Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF). Press Release #60, 24 Mar 1999. [4] Chomsky op cit [5] Chomsky op cit [6] Henkin, Leon quoted in Chomsky op cit. * {2. peace and conflict resolution; 33. global conventions and international law} * * * KOSOVO BACKGROUND The Balkan Peninsula was occupied by the Turkish Ottoman empire for ~500 years, since the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Serbia became the first country to gain independence in 1878. The boundaries of Serbia, Kosovo and other Balkan States have moved back and forth over the centuries. Ethnic Albanians have been living in Kosovo for at least 600 years. Today they comprise 90% of the estimated 2m population in Kosovo. (Note - Editor unsure of how quickly Albanian/Muslim population grew in recent years. Italy made Kosovo a part of 'Greater Albania' during WW2). In March 1989, Milosevic revoked Kosovo's autonomous status and imposed martial law in the region. This resurgence of Serb nationalism in turn gave rise to a non-violent protest movement including strikes, boycotts and alternative institutions, by Kosovars to recover their autonomy. But with increasing Serb aggression, the non-violent protest movement gave way to the rise of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), formerly seen by the West as a shady terrorist organisation. * {2. peace and conflict resolution; 11. ethnic relations and multicivilisations} * * * PREVENTION The deterioration of civil order could have been avoided by - less traumatic economic reform than that imposed on the former Yugoslavia by the IMF starting in the late 1980s. - the deployment of the full peace monitor contingent (2000 personnel) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as promised but not realised in 1998. This number could have been 5,000. Eventually 1000 gradually arrived with insufficient equipment, training and financial support. - applying a total arms embargo on Serbia and Kosovo - providing adequate human and financial resources into peaceful resolution of the conflict as well as to strengthening democratic institutions (at a fraction of the cost of the military campaign). - initiating a dialogue between the Serb and Albanian communities that live in Kosovo (rather than the KLA and Serbia) The OSCE (54 members) has a budget ~0.1% that of NATO (19 members). The military air strikes have already cost an estimated US$500m, and are likely to cost well over US$2b. Damage inflicted may also cost a similar amount. Then there are the costs associated with the loss of human life, of assistance and resettlement of refugees, loss of production etc. If a fraction of this money had been invested in strengthening both the economy and democratic institutions to counter the rise of ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, we may well have been able to negotiate a certain autonomy for Kosovo and avoid the rise of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), the subsequent crackdown by Serb forces, and subsequent crackdown by NATO forces. Jan Oberg asserts that '..in no other conflict has there been so many early warnings and so little preventive diplomacy. Kosovo's catastrophe was among the most predictable of all. It is intellectual nonsense that 'everything else has been tried and NATO bombings was the only option left.'' The United Nations is the most important humanitarian organisation although it has been largely ignored in negotiations to find a settlement. Expenditure by the Pentagon is said to be 20 times that of the entire budget of the United Nations [1]. Kosovo refugees (mainly Muslim / ethnic Albanian) are now estimated at 850,000 (with another potential 1 million refugees). This must be added to the total refugee numbers in former Yugoslavia which include 650,000 Serb refugees who have fled from Croatia, Bosnia and elsewhere [2]. * [1] Oberg, Jan Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF). Press Release #60, 24 Mar 1999. [2] Oberg op cit * {2. peace and conflict resolution} * * * IN DEFENSE OF NATO Did the NATO powers stumble into this no-win situation ? Did they misjudge the response of the Serb population ? Was it important for NATO to demonstrate its raison d'etre after 50 years in existence on 04 Apr 1999 (with the upcoming special NATO Summit on April 24), now that the Cold War (its original mandate) has finished ? Did NATO need to prove it is an important actor in the 'Charter for a Cooperative European Security for the 21 Century' now under consideration at the Security Forum of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Vienna) - to be finalised in Istanbul in Nov 1999 ? Some arguments that could be made in defense of the US and NATO action: The US and/or NATO cannot rush to every cause. It must pick its fights carefully, having been burnt in Somalia (and Vietnam). The Kurdish problem is problematic partly because the Kurdish community is deeply divided (and because Turkey is strategically important and necessary to maintain as an ally for reasons that transcend the Kurdish fight for a homeland). Conflict in Europe can have global implications, unlike, perhaps, the civil war in the Sudan or the violent repression in Burma. Stability in the developed world is important as it is the keystone of world order. The response of the NATO powers to the Bosnian crisis was ad hoc and largely mismanaged. NATO commitment to resolving the Kosovo crisis can be seen as a spin-off of their commitment to Bosnia. The air strikes campaign is an attempt to be more decisive. The NATO powers could not have taken preventative action simply because the are countless potential arenas of conflict, and preventative action for all of these would be costly and set unworkable precedents. In Europe alone one could identify potential conflicts between Greece and Turkey, Macedonia and Greece, in Cyprus, between UK and Spain over Gibraltar, racial tensions in Germany and France, tensions over fishing rights and agricultural subsidies, tensions in the Basque and Catalan regions of Spain etc. There is evidence to suggest that NATO was not a reluctant actor, and that a number of media reports, including at least one 'massacre' which may have actually been KLA soldiers killed in combat and then repositioned to appear as a massacre, have been fabricated or sensationalised (again, compare this to media coverage of conflict elsewhere in the world. Note: this is not to deny the many massacres and atrocities that have been committed in the region) [1]. Was the NATO ultimatum to Milosevic one that they knew he would have to reject ? Could NATO have chosen to have engaged in war to - advance German and US economic interests in Yugoslavia ? - demonstrate that NATO needs to continue to exist in order to defend peace and stability in the region. - as an arms exposition to once again test and demonstrate the superiority of US (and to a lesser extent EU) weapons over Russian technology, and promote US arms exports. - other ulterior motive - prevent Serbia driving out the majority of Kosovar Albanians through a campaign of terror, (in order to secure sovereignty over Kosovo and a coastline for Serbia). The views of NGOs may be said to have some influence in the UN and to a lesser extent the World Bank. The WTO and IMF are also preparing themselves to deal with the lobby power of broad coalitions of NGOs (also known as GrassRoots Organisations, or 'GRO's). NATO, however, has thus far remained insulated from such contact. While the Gulf War, at least, had the endorsement of the UN Security Council, the Kosovo-Serbia bombardment does not. It is possible that this NATO action will be widely regarded as a blunder in retrospect, and may mark the beginning of significant civil society interest and pressure on the future policy and actions of NATO. * [1] North, Don 'Irony at Racak: Tainted U.S. Diplomat Condemns Massacre' http://www.consortiumnews.com/. The probable fabrication of the Racak massacre was covered in Le Figaro and other German and French press. * {2. peace and conflict resolution} * * * BALKANS - WHERE TO FROM HERE ? Eugene Carroll argues that Russia should now be invited to be a mediator in new peace talks following a UN Security Council call for a cease-fire [1]. There could be a return to the plan of providing OSCE monitors to oversee repatriation of refugees, but without NATO groundtroops in Serbia. Perhaps some of the northern area of Kosovo could become part of Serbia while the rest could become an independent country after a period of transition. * [1] Carroll, Eugene Center for Defense Information, The Progressive Response 2 Apr 1999 Vol. 3, No. 12 * {2. peace and conflict resolution} * * * CITIES THAT REDUCE RESOURCE USE AND WASTE Peter Newman [1] On Ted Trainer's anti-growth arguments, GFB #80 [2] I can only say that he is right about the world's need to change massively from its present consumption patterns, but he is wrong if he thinks this is possible without a change in the economy, technology and social patterns of settlements, all of which can mean 'growth' or 'progress'. 'Growth' and 'progress' are very human words. That they can occur and not be associated with increased resource use or greater environmental impact, is the nature of sustainable development. My area is to see what this means for settlements and thus our new book 'Sustainability and Cities' [3] tries to outline how we can design cities that reduce their resource use and wastes but increase their livability. We show that there are differences in energy use by a factor of 10 or more if you look at density and transit seriously (and the denser, more transit-oriented cities are economically more efficient as well). Another matter we look at is the innovations that are occurring in urban ecology (the kinds of local community-scale efforts in recycling, energy efficiency, permaculture etc which Ted is keen to promote). We found in our global survey that the majority of these efforts that are working are based around community commitments rather than just technical fixes. Further, the majority of these are in inner areas where communities exist due to the structure of the urban form. So many of the projects in low density outer suburbs are just projects on paper, and because the urban form makes face-to-face community so difficult, they rarely get started. Our fundamental hypothesis is that unless a city is overcoming automobile dependence, then it is not being serious about sustainability. In the US I found there was a lot of talk about 'smart growth' and this tended to equate with what I was saying about sustainability. I prefer 'sustainability' as it is a more global word that has come out of the politics of what development should and should not mean. I think it is a pity Ted cannot see that it is a first step in the long haul towards largescale global change; we can never make such a change overnight just through lifestyle change. Our cities are a microcosm of the changes that are needed and are a better place to start than trying to overhaul the global economic system. The other key comment was from John McLaughlin about the IT side of cities GFB#80 [4]. Again this is a major part of our book and we do present quite a lot of data. The data can, however, only be suggestive of my hypothesis that IT is bringing our cities back in rather than dispersing them. The response that IT can mean dispersal is usually from those who have chosen this lifestyle and has mostly been an American phenomenon. I can understand why people have taken flight from US inner cities due to the crime and lack of options for schooling. However this process has not really happened in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or in Third World cities. The social problems of the inner city were not allowed to develop as they did in the US and now the process of reurbanisation is such that the wealthy now live in central and inner areas and the poor are increasingly on the urban fringe. Detailed data on Australian cities shows that the wealthy in the inner areas are part of the IT global economy, the 'symbolic analysts', those who work in 'producer services'. In our book I suggest this may be due to the way these areas were designed for face-to-face contact which is needed still in critical phases of any project development. We also speculate that the reurbanisation process would happen in US cities as soon as the inner area problems are solved. This is now happening very rapidly as outlined by Gratz in her new book 'Cities Back From the Edge'. It still has a way to go to catch up to other global cities but I see no reason why it will not continue to grow; this is a process I am happy to say is 'growth' even though it means reductions in energy use. It is also good for the economy and good for communities so I am happy to say it is a more sustainable kind of development, or in the US it is 'smart growth'! * [1] Professor Peter Newman is Director of the Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Australia. http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au [2] Trainer, Ted 'Smart growth' Global Futures Bulletin #80, 15 Mar 1999. [3] 'Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence' Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (Nov 1998). Available from the Institute for Global Futures Research: e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for prices and publication request form. [4] McLaughlin, John 'Impact of the Net on urban planning/transport' Global Futures Bulletin #80, 15 Mar 1999. * {18. urban development; 32. cyberspace revolution; 40. community development} * * * AVOIDING THE OIL SHOCK Thomas J Stubbing [1] According to projections of peaking oil production, the gap between oil supply and demand will give rise to serious trouble around 2012 [2]. We must prepare now to avoid shocks in the coming decades. 'The solar energy reaching the earth each day is more than the total energy value of crude oil reserves, past, present and future. Biomass in the form of plants and trees captures a large amount of this energy through the photosynthetic process and stores it as chemical bonds between the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up the carbohydrate plant material. In effect, biomass is solar energy stored in a chemical form.' [3] Because biomass has a high moisture content, it needs to be dried to enhance its usefulness as a renewable fuel which is where energy- efficient airless, i.e. superheated steam drying technology can assist its exploitation. Biomass It has been estimated that if 20-30% of Europe's pasture were devoted to biomass (eg fast-growing trees such as willow or poplar), it would be able to produce enough bioenergy and biochemicals to provide all that Europe currently consumes in fossil fuels. Given that much agricultural land has been taken out of production in Europe (subsidy for 15% set aside in EU ?) and North America, to avoid over-production of agricultural products (and is increasing, at least in the US), it would seem worthwhile turning it over to biomass energy production. Energy from strong sunlight in the tropics is equivalent to 2,000 dry tonnes of biomass/ha/an. In theory 10% of this can be captured through photosynthesis. In practice, fast-growing eucalypts can produce 1% (ie 20 tonnes/ha/an) while bamboo could produce up to 4% (80 tonnes/ha/an). [4] Airless Drying Technology [4] Drying processes account for ~20% of industrial energy consumption, or ~7.2% of total energy consumption [5] . Airless Drying Technology can reduce this by 50%, ie a saving of 3.6% of total energy consumption which is more than all current hydropower (~2.4%), and similarly reduce the energy requirement for drying biomass. Airless Drying Technology avoids the energy-wasteful heating of an air through-flow typical of current drying processes and enables much of the thus reduced energy input to be re-used, for example for process water heating. * [1] Thomas Stubbing, Heat-Win Ltd, promoting Airless Drying Technology. [2] Peak oil production: 1998 - Campbell, 2005 - Duncan Global Futures Bulletin #55/#56 'More on Assessing Impending Oil Shock'; 2005-2015 - Mackenzie Global Futures Bulletin #49 'Energy Perspectives' 01 Dec 1997. [3] Scott, Kenneth 'Convertech - An Economic Approach to Biomass' Convertech Group, New Zealand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. [4] Fielden, Derrick (Commonwealth Development Corporation) 'Renewable Energy World' Mar 1999 [5] <http://www.dryers-airless.mcmail.com> [6] Industry consumes ~36% of all coal, oil, gas and electricity combined, worldwide, (based on IEA figures at <http://www.iea.org/stats/files/keystats/stats/p_0303.htm>) * {4. energy} * * * CALENDAR 22 April 1999 Earth Day 24 April 1999 NATO Summit in Washington DC. Created in 1949, NATO turns 50 in 1999. 24 April 1999 various actions by peace activists at NATO nuclear bases in Europe and at NATO Summit in Washington. 27-28 April 1999 Conference 'From the MAI to the Millennium Round: Setting a Different Agenda for Frameworks on Investment and Trade' European Parliament. Public welcome. Registration: Gaby Kuppers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7-8 May 1999, 'Congress on the MAI', Basel, Switzerland 10-16 May 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace, International Peace Conference, The Hague, Holland. Web: www.haguepeace.org; E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 15-30 May 1999 Peace March 2000 for Nuclear Disarmament, from The Hague to Brussels http://www.motherearth.org/ 22 May - 22 June InterContinental Caravan (ICC) organised by Peoples' Global Action with up to 400 people from India plus 100 representatives from movements from other countries e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://stad.dsl.nl/~caravan/ 23 May - 02 June Bicycle caravan 'Money or Life' from Berlin/Dresden via Hannover (World Exposition 2000) to Cologne, and from Geneva via Basle to Cologne e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 29 May 1999 European Marches against Unemployment, Exclusion and Racism, Cologne e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://home.link-m.de/ggoetz/eurom/aktion99.htm 29 May - 02 June 1999 EU Alternative Summit - alternative economic and employment policy, education, women, environment, anti-nuclear movement, etc. 3-4 June 1999 EU Summit Cologne 3-6 June 1999 International Women's Camp, Cologne 18 June 1999 International Action Day http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/ discussion list: e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18-20 June 1999 G7 Summit, Cologne http://www.bundesregierung.de 19 June 1999 G7 Summit protest and Human Chain to cancel debt of the poorest countries. E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * * ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** The Global Futures Bulletin is produced by the Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) twice monthly. Readers are welcome to submit material such as succinct letters, articles and other useful information. Indicate whether you would like your name attached to the submitted material. All communications should be directed to the Editor, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Copyright (c) 1998 Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). All rights reserved. ________________________________________________________ ******************************************************** ******************************************************** ........................PUBLICATIONS OF THE MONTH.......................... ******************************************************** 'Millennium - Rendezvous with the Future' (1998) 166 pages Eds. Carlos Hernandez and Rashmi Mayur Includes essays by Alvin Toffler on the psychology of the future, Lester R. Brown on the urgent global need to raise grain yields, Maurice F. Strong on the passage from Rio, and Hazel Henderson on social capital and economic development. AUD$29 inc post, US$14 inc post, UKPnd 10 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************** 'The Global Commons: an Introduction' (1998) Susan J Buck 240 pages tables, figures, glossary, index. Vast areas of valuable resources unfettered by legal rights have, for centuries, been the central target of human exploitation and appropriation. The global commons: - Antarctica, - the high seas and deep seabed minerals, - the atmosphere, and - space ...have remained exceptions only because access has been difficult or impossible, and the technology for successful extraction has been lacking. New technologies that facilitate access means that management regimes are needed to guide human use of these important resource domains. Includes historical underpinnings of international law, examines the stakeholders involved, and discusses current policy and problems associated with it. Applies key analytical concepts drawn from institutional analysis and regime theory to examine how legal and political concerns have affected the evolution of management regimes for the global commons. Includes in-depth case studies of each of the four regimes. AUD$55 inc post, US$29 inc post, UKPnd 23 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************* 'Earth Summit II: Outcomes and Analysis' (1998) 192 pages Derek Osborn and Tom Bigg Foreword by Tony Blair. In June 1997, heads of government and senior representatives from over 130 countries met in New York to consider what progress had been made since the first Earth Summit in 1992, and to decide upon priorities for the future. The book presents the principal official documents agreed at the Summit alongside an authoritative analysis of where progress is and is not being made, the reasons for this, and the priorities of the parties involved. Proposes a number of original ideas on how to ensure effective preparations for the 10-year review that will take place in 2002, seeing that the 5-year review in 1997 had little impact. Derek Osborn is Chair of the United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee, Chair of the European Environmental Agency and a member of the board of the UK Environmental Agency. He co-chaired the 1997 Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) Intersessional Meeting preparing for Earth Summit II. Tom Bigg has worked for UNED-UK since its creation in 1993, focusing particularly on the work of the CSD. AUD$49 inc post, US$33 inc post, UKPnd 19 inc post. Add US$3 for post for orders outside Australia, US/Canada or UK. ******************************************************** PUBLICATION REQUEST FORM Please fill out the following and return it to e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or fax: 61 7 4033 6881, or post: IGFR, PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia My name is.......................................................................... ............ My organisation (if any) is............................................................... My e-mail address is........................................................................ My mailing address is...................................................................... ............................................................................ ............................ I wish to purchase the publication entitled: ............................................................................ ............................ My credit card is [place an X in a) or b) or c)] a)............Visa, or b)...........Mastercard, or c)..........American Express Name on creditcard is ..................................................................... Date of expiry is.......................................................................... ..... Creditcard number is .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. Amount I am paying is:................................... ****************************************************** Note: If you are paying by personal cheque from outside Australia, please add US$5 to cover bank processing charges. ****************************************************** The IGFR is a not-for-profit organisation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia. E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Futures Bulletin #81
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:56:55 -0400
