Earth Summit’s Forest Treaty Is Pruned Back

Hopelessly divided Earth Summit negotiators edged toward a “lowest common denominator” agreement on principles for protecting and using the world’s forests Monday, postponing meaningful action on one of the most daunting environmental issues until some unknown future forum.

Environmentalists characterized both an emerging declaration on forest principles and additional language in the sweeping environmental action plan known as Agenda 21 as irreparably flawed. U.S. officials taking part in the closed deliberations did not dispute the gloomy assessment.

“We have been disappointed,” said Michael K. Young, deputy undersecretary of state for agricultural affairs, reporting that the United States had been frustrated in efforts to strengthen language under discussion for nearly five days.

Despite efforts by the environmental community and developed countries, the declaration is not expected to mention the need for a binding treaty to protect the forests of the tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. The agreement generally affirms the rights of nations to plan for and protect their own resources.

According to knowledgeable sources, efforts to write a stronger declaration were frustrated mainly by Malaysia and India, with the support of several other developing nations. They believe industrialized nations, which already have logged much of their own forests, are in no position to dictate how to protect the world’s remaining forests.

Meanwhile, with President Bush bound for Brazil and the summit later this week, the U.S. delegation on Monday was intensifying its effort to explain its position on the forest issue and other matters still being negotiated. But, as it did, Washington appeared headed for yet another controversy over its handling of summit issues.

According to sources in European delegations and the environmental community, the United States has in recent days exerted heavy pressure on Austria, Holland and Switzerland to drop their plan to produce a “like-minded nations” declaration in connection with the summit’s global warming treaty. The plan had already reached the point of collapse, but U.S. warnings that it would cause diplomatic problems angered some Europeans and re-energized sentiment to write a declaration sharply criticizing the United States for its role in weakening the global warming treaty.

At the White House, a senior official acknowledged that the Administration had made its displeasure known to the three European countries and said there is concern about their reaction. The official dismissed the suggestion that the pressure was unseemly, saying: “I don’t think we threatened to break off diplomatic relations or anything like that.”

After months of negotiations, the U.S. succeeded in winning a global warming pact without firm targets or deadlines for reducing its emissions of gases linked to possible climate warming. European officials took sharp issue with the Bush Administration’s public interpretation of the agreement, and a move was launched for the Europeans to have a last word at the summit.

For Washington, however, the European criticism reopens a controversy the United States worked hard to end a month ago. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly, head of the U.S. delegation here, said Monday the proposed declaration is a “feel-good exercise” that distracts conferees from more pressing issues.

“Climate change was supposed to be laid to rest,” he said in an impromptu interview.

But on Monday night, Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn), speaking to the summit plenary, joined those calling for revisions. Gore asked for an early meeting of treaty signatories and for adoption of an amendment “that will be effective in reducing emissions.”

During Monday’s forest negotiations, U.S. efforts to write stronger language into the agreement were frustrated because of its role in the global warming treaty and the biological diversity treaty being signed here. Both are inextricably tied to forest issues.

The world’s forests absorb carbon dioxide, which is considered the chief culprit in the possible warming of the Earth’s climate. They also are rich in the plant and animal life the biological diversity treaty seeks to protect.

After successfully fending off European demands for targets and deadlines in the global warming treaty, the Bush Administration announced it would not sign the biological diversity pact. Both are strongly supported by the major tropical forest nations.

Now the declaration of forest principles is yet another disappointment to those hoping for strong statements coming out of the summit. William Mankin of the Sierra Club said the declaration, due to be completed before leaders of more than 100 nations arrive here later this week, adds nothing to the protection of forests in either the tropics or the higher latitudes.

Despite disappointment over the document, however, neither government officials nor environmental activists consider the months of debate leading up to the summit or the negotiations here to be useless.

“The value of the summit forest discussion,” said Mankin, “is that for the first time governments of the world are sitting across the table from each other and looking at forest issues as an extremely serious international problem.”

What concerns activists is that countries opposed to international agreements on forest protection may contend no further action is needed beyond the Rio statement of principles. As negotiations on the measure continued, therefore, moves were afoot to form an international commission to begin laying the groundwork for a binding world forest convention.

The commission approach was formally proposed to the summit by Sweden, and two early advocates were already working to drum up support. George Woodwell and Kilaparti Ramakrishna of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts are advocating a commission on the model of the Brundtland Commission, whose recommendations several years ago led to the Earth Summit.

Times staff writer Douglas Jehl in Washington contributed to this story.