 
Breakthrough for Tibet's environment at the World Conservation Congress 1996
D'Arcy Richardson*
IN October 14-23, 1996 at the World Conservation Congress in Montreal, Canada, an International group of NGOs succeeded in negotiating the first resolution ever adopted by an international body on Tibet's environment. The resolution supports cooperation between IUCN/The World Conservation Union and the People's Republic of China (PRC) on environmental matters, citing concern over the hydroelectric project at Yamdrok Tso in Tibet.
Tibetans, led by the late Panchen Lama, have voiced strong opposition to the project on both religious and environmental grounds in 1980s.
The International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet (ICLT), with significant support from Free Tibet Campaign-U.K. and a host of international environmental experts, drafted a resolution on the basis of the lake's importance as a local climate mediator, a migratory stopover for the black-necked crane, and its religious significance as a sacred lake for the Tibetan people. Although the project has already been constructed, current information from Tibet indicates that it is not operational due to technical difficulties and poor engineering. Recognizing that the project will in all likelihood go forward, the sponsors sought to mitigate potential environmental and cultural impacts through an IUCN resolution.
IUCN/The World Conser-vation Congress is comprised of 80 State members, 100 govern-ment agencies, and more than 700 NGOs. The PRC joined IUCN as a State member only two weeks before the Congress in Montreal! Every three years, IUCN convenes a Congress to review the goals set by the resolutions of the previous Congress and to adopt a new set of resolutions for the next triennial cycle. The work of IUCN emphasizes building links between State members and NGOs for more effective conservation work and providing technical expertise for the development of wildlife and resource conservation programs worldwide. Much of the work done by IUCN occurs through its commissions, including. Education and Communication, Environmental Law, Environ-mental Strategy and Planning, National Parks and Protected Areas, Species Survival, and Ecosystems Management.
This was not the first time a resolution on Tibet has been introduced for debate at IUCN. At the 1994 Congress, ntially serious environmental problems that can be addressed through IUCN activities; (4) scientific analysis of the project throws its feasibility into question; and (5) the environmental issues can be separated from what IUCN members might consider "political" issues.
The language was crafted to focus on the environmental issues related to the Yamdrok Tso project that coincide with IUCN's mission statement. These include local participation in decision- making about resource use; protection of wetlands; protection of habitat for endangered species; and environmental impact assessment of development projects. By doing so, sponsors attempted to eliminate objections that could be raised by State members about "political" matters and produce a resolution that could be widely supported.
In addition to ICLT, key sponsors and supporters of the resolution included The Wilderness Society of Australia; Friends of the Earth International; the National Association for the Conservation of Nature (ANCON) in Panama; the Danish Ornithological Society; the Netherlands Foundation for International Nature Protection; the Swedish Society for the Conservation of Nature; the Ecological Society of the Philippines; and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the U.K. With the hard work of all these organizations and many individuals, the resolution gained overwhelming NGO support by the second day of the Congress. Several State delegations also expressed support for the resolution, although it was clear that if the Chinese delegation opposed the resolution, State members would abstain on a vote and the resolution would not be passed.
The Chinese State delegation did raise objections to the language of the resolution, and sponsors entered into negotiations with the Chinese to find common ground that would preserve the original intent of the resolution but remove language that would result in the resolution's defeat in a vote on the floor. ICLT, Wilderness Society of Australia, and Friends of the Earth International participated in talks with the Chinese delegation, facilitated by an IUCN Regional Councillor for East Asia. Compromise language was approved at the eleventh hour, and the revised resolution was adopted by consensus of the Congress on October 22. The compromises are obvious in the approved text, but some surprisingly strong pieces of the resolution that remain in the language and can be used as leverage points in the future.
The negotiated resolution is much broader in scope than the original, emphasizing future cooperation between IUCN and the PRC on protection of the environment and biodiversity in China as well as addressing the specific issues regarding Yamdrok Tso. The resolution includes a commitment on the part of the PRC to consider establishing a national park at Yamdrok Tso; to work with IUCN to provide the environmental impact assessment documentation that the PRC asserts has already been developed for the project; and to work with IUCN commissions to protect the environment at Yamdrok Tso.
What this current resolution gives us is a way for IUCN as a neutral party to become involved in monitoring conservation and development activity in Tibet, as well as in China. Although the sponsors had to make serious compromises on the language in the resolution, the significance of this step cannot be underestimated. It has shown that by coming to the table with well-documented concerns and a spirit of flexibility, small steps forward can be made with widespread support. As a result of the sponsors work, we gained the support and respect of many of the 3,000 delegates at the Congress, including the IUCN Secretariat. We expect this support to remain an important force in pushing for substantive action on this resolution over the next three years, and for passing future resolutions on Tibet.
No IUCN resolutions are legally binding. The real measure of the resolution's success will be the steps that are taken over the next three years to adthe Australian Wilderness Society represented by now Senator Bob Brown of Tasmania, Australia introduced a strong resolution, asserting that the Chinese occupation of Tibet was causing widespread and serious environmental damage, and that China should return control of Tibet to the Tibetan people in order to halt environmental destruction. This resolution was hotly debated on the floor of the Congress. It received overwhelming support from the NGO side of the Congress, but, as expected, did not pass due to lack of support from State members, who argued that it was a "political" issue inappropriate for discussion at IUCN. However, this resolution educated members about the situation in Tibet, setting the stage for a success at the next Congress in Montreal.
The sponsors of the 1996 resolution chose Yamdrok Tso as the subject of the resolution because:
(1) it is a matter of continuing concern to the Tibetan people; (2) information about the project is available; (3) it is a discrete issue with potedress the issues embodied in the resolution's text. The resolution's sponsors must continue the working relationship established with IUCN in Montreal to track progress made by China and IUCN in following through on the commitments made in the resolution.
*D'Arcy Richardson is Chairperson of Environment Committee of International Committee for Lawyers for Tibet (ICLT). She is on the board of Directors of ICLT.
She can be contacted at:
ICLT, 2288 Fulton St.,Suite 312 Berkeley, CA 94704, USA.
Tel: (510) 486-0588 Fax: (510) 548-3785
e-mail: |