IDAHO COMMUNITY GROUP REQUESTS PUBLIC MEETINGS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS FALLOUT COMPENSATION

The Snake River Alliance called on the National Academy of Sciences today to hold a public meeting in Idaho to discuss expanding the scope of legislation intended to compensate individuals who became ill due to exposure to radiation from nuclear weapons testing fallout at the Nevada Test Site. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), passed in 1990, provides for financial compensation to people who lived “downwind” from above ground nuclear tests in the Nevada desert or to miners who worked underground in uranium mines.

Currently, the federal government compensates only those downwinders who lived in one of 21 rural counties in Nevada, Arizona, and southern Utah during specified time periods and who suffered from multiple types of cancer. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council is now looking at whether Congress should be expanded to include additional geographic areas, other types of cancers, and other “classes of individuals.” A public meeting to address these questions has been scheduled for Thursday, July 29, in Salt Lake City. Testimony from downwinders was to be taken, but the list of those wishing to testify has grown so large that not further scheduled testimony will be taken.

According to the National Cancer Institute four of the five counties with the highest I-131 exposure from nuclear weapons testing fallout are in southern Idaho. NCI’s data indicate certain Idaho counties received doses as high as 15 Rads.

“The US response to the health damage our own nuclear weapons tests have caused our own people, though less than robust, has been an important effort to redress some of the harm,” said Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Snake River Alliance. “Some of that harm has occurred in Idaho, and the people of this state deserve to participate in your deliberations.”

From 1945 to 1992 the US tested 1,030 nuclear weapons, 911 of which were at the Nevada Test Site. Two hundred and fifteen of the 1,030 US nuclear tests were atmospheric; 815 were below ground.

As a result of this testing, communities across the country were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research estimates that, “80,000 people who lived in or were born in the United States between 1951 and 2000 will contract cancer as a result of the fallout caused by atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.”

States, Conservation Groups File Brief Challenging Bush Administration’s Global Warming Policy(A)

WASHINGTON, DC-A coalition including 11 states and 14 environmental groups today filed a brief in a case challenging the Bush administration’s continued failure to confront global warming. The plaintiffs are targeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s unprecedented ruling that summarily disavowed the agency’s long-standing Clean Air Act authority to regulate global warming emissions. The states, cities, and groups challenged EPA’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

“EPA’s policy reversal is a crude attempt by the Bush administration to tie its own hands, and then claim that it is powerless to address the critical issue of global warming,” said David Bookbinder, Washington Legal Director for the Sierra Club.

On August 28, 2003, EPA officials reversed long-standing policy with an administrative ruling that denied authority to control heat-trapping emissions like carbon dioxide, claiming they do not meet the Clean Air Act definition of a “pollutant.” The ruling came in response to a 1999 petition by the International Center for Technology Assessment, Greenpeace, and other environmental organizations asking the EPA to comply with the law, which requires the agency to protect Americans against all harmful pollutants, including emissions that damage the climate.

“The Bush administration tried to say yet again that it’s not their job to fight global warming. In fact they have both the legal and moral responsibility to tackle global warming pollution,” said Bookbinder.

After many delays, the EPA eventually opened a public comment period on the petition, receiving approximately 50,000 comments-the vast majority supporting the call for action against global warming. More than three years later, however, the Bush administration had still refused to act. In 2002, the groups sued the EPA for its failure to respond, which led to the decision being challenged.

“When emissions contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health and welfare, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to step in,” said Earthjustice attorney Howard Fox, co-counsel for Sierra Club in this suit. “By taking a pass on global warming emissions, EPA is evading a clear duty to act against a serious air pollution menace.”

Today’s filing come on the heels of the California Air Resources Board’s draft rule that would implement a state law requiring automobile makers to reduce global warming emissions from new cars and light trucks beginning in 2009. Inaction by the Bush administration has forced states to take the lead in reducing global warming pollution. California is leading the way to curbing global warming emissions, with seven Northeastern states planning to implement the California rules when they become final.

States, territories, and other governments challenging the EPA’s decision are American Samoa, the City of Baltimore, California, California Air Resources Board, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, the City of New York, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Environmental groups joining the challenge are Bluewater Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Read the brief online here: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/6-04/globalwarmingbrief.pdf

Conservation Groups Sue to Protect California Spotted Owl(A)

San Francisco, CA – The Center for Biological Diversity and four other groups, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today for wrongfully denying protection for the California spotted owl under the federal Endangered Species Act. The suit challenges the Fish and Wildlife Service’s February 10, 2003 decision denying protection for the owl, which was in response to a petition filed by the groups. The owl, which inhabits old growth forests in the Sierra Nevada, is threatened by logging on Forest Service and private lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to protect the owl was based on the assumption that the owl’s habitat would be largely protected by the Clinton Administration’s Sierra Nevada Framework, a plan that restricted logging of old growth forests to protect the owl’s habitat while allowing thinning of forests around communities. However, the Bush Administration issued a rule January 22, 2004 substantially weakening the plan. The Bush plan allows triple the logging in the Sierra Nevada and removes most protections for the owl and old-growth forests.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relied on the Framework to deny protection for the owl, even though they knew these protections were on the Bush Administration’s chopping block,” states Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “This decision flies in the face of common sense.”

The Clinton-era Sierra Framework provided protection for the owl, while at the same time allowing for substantial progress towards reducing risk of destructive forest fires, by protecting fire resistant medium and large trees across the landscape, and focusing fuel treatments around communities where they are needed most.

“The Clinton-era Sierra Framework put an emphasis on protecting communities and the environment. But that balanced approach was gutted by the Bush administration’s determination to triple logging in the Sierra,” states Greg Loarie, an attorney representing the groups from Earthjustice. “The California spotted owl will not survive when the chain saws are cut loose in old-growth habitat. The owl deserves protection now.”

Unlike the northern and Mexican subspecies, the California spotted owl has never been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Like its cousins, however, the California spotted owl is closely associated with old-growth forests. According to studies, old-growth forests in the Sierra Nevada have declined by as much as 90 percent. Such habitat loss is believed to be a factor in poor survival of adult California spotted owls, which were found by a Forest Service study to be dying at a faster rate than the listed northern spotted owl. “The California spotted owl is headed for extinction and needs protection under the Endangered Species Act,” concludes Greenwald.

The decision to not list the California spotted owl is characteristic of an Administration that is bent on undermining the Endangered Species Act. The Bush Administration has listed the fewest number of species in history, averaging just nine species per year for a total of 31 species. By comparison, the Clinton Administration listed 394 species in its first term. The Bush administration has issued more negative listing decisions (35) than it has listed species.

Plaintiffs in today’s case include the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife.

Read the Complaint online: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/5-04/CSOComplaint.pdf

Citizens Seek Habitat Protection for Endangered Pacific Island Bird

Honolulu, HI– Earthjustice, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, filed suit in federal district court today against the Bush administration for violating the federal Endangered Species Act by refusing to establish protected “critical habitat” areas for the endangered Rota bridled white-eye, a forest bird found only on the western Pacific island of Rota in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

“The Rota bridled white-eye is a stunning example of the Department of Interior’s systematic failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The white-eye declined by 90% while the government twiddled its thumbs and worried about politics for 24 years. Now the white-eye is at death’s door and the Bush administration is refusing to protect its habitat.”

Conservation groups petitioned the Department of Interior to put the white-eye on the endangered list in 1980. The Department of Interior agreed that the species was declining and, in 1982, with 10,763 birds left in the wild, identified the white-eye as a candidate for listing. The species continued to decline unprotected for over two decades until Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity secured a series of court orders forcing the Bush administration finally to list it as an endangered species.

By the time the white-eye was listed as endangered in January 2004, its numbers had declined 90%, to just 1,092 birds. In the final listing rule, the Bush administration identified habitat loss and degradation as primary causes of the species’ dramatic decline. Nonetheless, it refused to map out and protect “critical habitat” areas as required by the Endangered Species Act.

“Without critical habitat in place, there is no way to ensure that the federal government won’t destroy the forest habitat the Rota bridled white-eye needs to avoid extinction,” explained Earthjustice attorney David Henkin. “That’s why Congress insisted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designate critical habitat at the same time a species is listed as endangered. The Service’s refusal to protect the Rota bridled white-eye’s critical habitat illegally undermines a fundamental goal of the Endangered Species Act: to protect the ecosystems on which endangered species depend for their continued survival and eventual recovery.”

Conservation Groups Sue to Protect California Spotted Owl (A)

San Francisco, CA – The Center for Biological Diversity and four other groups, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today for wrongfully denying protection for the California spotted owl under the federal Endangered Species Act. The suit challenges the Fish and Wildlife Service’s February 10, 2003 decision denying protection for the owl, which was in response to a petition filed by the groups. The owl, which inhabits old growth forests in the Sierra Nevada, is threatened by logging on Forest Service and private lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to protect the owl was based on the assumption that the owl’s habitat would be largely protected by the Clinton Administration’s Sierra Nevada Framework, a plan that restricted logging of old growth forests to protect the owl’s habitat while allowing thinning of forests around communities. However, the Bush Administration issued a rule January 22, 2004 substantially weakening the plan. The Bush plan allows triple the logging in the Sierra Nevada and removes most protections for the owl and old-growth forests. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relied on the Framework to deny protection for the owl, even though they knew these protections were on the Bush Administration’s chopping block,” states Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “This decision flies in the face of common sense.” The Clinton-era Sierra Framework provided protection for the owl, while at the same time allowing for substantial progress towards reducing risk of destructive forest fires, by protecting fire resistant medium and large trees across the landscape, and focusing fuel treatments around communities where they are needed most. “The Clinton-era Sierra Framework put an emphasis on protecting communities and the environment. But that balanced approach was gutted by the Bush administration’s determination to triple logging in the Sierra,” states Greg Loarie, an attorney representing the groups from Earthjustice. “The California spotted owl will not survive when the chain saws are cut loose in old-growth habitat. The owl deserves protection now.” Unlike the northern and Mexican subspecies, the California spotted owl has never been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Like its cousins, however, the California spotted owl is closely associated with old-growth forests. According to studies, old-growth forests in the Sierra Nevada have declined by as much as 90 percent. Such habitat loss is believed to be a factor in poor survival of adult California spotted owls, which were found by a Forest Service study to be dying at a faster rate than the listed northern spotted owl. “The California spotted owl is headed for extinction and needs protection under the Endangered Species Act,” concludes Greenwald. The decision to not list the California spotted owl is characteristic of an Administration that is bent on undermining the Endangered Species Act. The Bush Administration has listed the fewest number of species in history, averaging just nine species per year for a total of 31 species. By comparison, the Clinton Administration listed 394 species in its first term. The Bush administration has issued more negative listing decisions (35) than it has listed species.

Plaintiffs in today’s case include the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife.

Read the Complaint online: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/5-04/CSOComplaint.pdf

Earthjustice Presents 2004 ‘Human Rights and the Environment’ Report to UN

The International Program of Earthjustice, a US-based environmental law NGO, submitted its annual issue paper on “Human Rights and the Environment” today at the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The report supports the broadening of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights.The report is available at: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/4-04/2004UNreport.pdf

The 2004 “Human Rights and the Environment” report presents a review of recent developments and case studies in the area of human rights and the environment at the international, regional, and domestic levels. The report also provides a comprehensive list of domestic constitutional provisions relating to human rights and the environment.

“Nations and legal systems around the world are working to establish and protect the right to a clean and healthy environment as a basic human right,” said Marcello Mollo of Earthjustice, author of this year’s report. “The UN Commission on Human Rights can, and should, advance the right to a healthy environment until it is seen as an international standard worthy of inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Some Highlights of this Year’s Report:

· The World Health Organization published a report entitled, “The Right to Water,” in which an entire chapter is dedicated to an explanation of water as a human right. The report recognizes that the lack of safe water is a cause of serious illness and that contaminated water harms human health. The report also acknowledges a connection between healthy environmental conditions and the human right to health.

· In November 2003, an independent review of extractive industries commissioned by the World Bank was released. The review recommended that the World Bank stop financing oil and coal projects in developing nations. The review also recommended that the World Bank phase out oil production projects and start investing in renewable energy resource development, emissions reducing, and clean energy projects. Extractive industries are known to cause significant environmental damage with long-lasting effects on human rights conditions in affected areas.

· The Canadian Supreme Court applied the polluter-pays principle and upheld an order by the Quebec Minister of the Environment directing Imperial Oil to undertake a soil contamination study. The court found that the minister’s power to order studies like that required of Imperial Oil applies the polluter-pay principle, which it found “firmly entrenched in environmental law in Canada” and also recognized at the international level, for example, in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

· In January 2004, the Chilean Court of Appeals ruled that the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) failed in its duty to protect rare alerce trees from illegal logging and wrongfully withheld information about its enforcement efforts. A Chilean citizen had requested that CONAF explain its efforts to control illegal exploitation of the alerce on his private property. CONAF denied his request, stating that disclosure would compromise its investigations. The Court of Appeals rejected CONAF’s argument, stating that the principles of transparency and citizen control of public agencies required disclosure.

· Of the 191 nations in the world, there are now 109 national constitutions that mention the protection of the environment or natural resources. One hundred of them recognize the right to a clean and healthy environment and/or the state’s obligation to prevent environmental harm. Fifty-three constitutions explicitly recognize the right to a clean and healthy environment, and 92 make it the duty of the national government to prevent harm to the environment.

The Case for Linking Human Rights and Environmental Protection

This report shows the repeated and increasing recognition of a human rights-based approach to environmental protection as a prevailing international legal norm.

International, national, and non-governmental institutions now dedicated to protecting human rights should recognize the connection and provide mechanisms to address the human rights implications of environmental problems.

Bush Administration Illegally Delays Protection of Pacific Fisher(A)

The Bush administration announced today that the Pacific fisher, a rare relative of the otter and mink and denizen of old-growth forests, warrants protection as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, but is precluded by other higher priority listing actions. The finding was issued in response to a petition filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign.

The ESA allows the administration to delay listing a species by declaring it “warranted but precluded” if it can demonstrate other species are more in need of protection and hence a higher priority for listing, and that they are making expeditious progress towards listing these other species. Neither applies in the case of the fisher.”The Bush administration’s further delay of protection for the fisher is illegal,” said Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We intend to fight the decision in court.”

The administration is allowed to declare a species warranted but precluded if and only if it can demonstrate it is making expeditious progress towards listing other species. The Bush administration, however, has the poorest listing record of any administration since the ESA was passed. To date, the administration has listed only 29 species. By comparison, the Clinton administration listed 394 species during its first term. The Bush administration is the only presidency in the history of the ESA not to have listed a single species except in response to petitions and/or lawsuits by scientists and environmental groups. The Bush administration is also the first presidency to deny listing for more species (36) than it has listed. Clearly, the administration is not making expeditious progress toward listing species.

At the same time the administration is dragging its feet on protecting the fisher, it has substantially weakened protections for its late-successional forest habitats. In the Sierra Nevada, the administration gutted the Sierra Nevada Framework, a plan that was in part designed to protect the fisher, and in the Northwest, the administration weakened protections for old-growth forests through rule changes that removed the Survey and Manage Program and weakened the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan.

“The Bush administration will stop at nothing to please its friends and campaign contributors in the timber industry,” said Craig Thomas, executive director of the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, “even if it means driving species to extinction and allowing further degradation of west coast forests.”

Because of a combination of logging of old-growth forests and historic fur-trapping, the fisher has been extirpated from all of Washington, most of Oregon, and half its range in California. It is now found in two populations, one in northwestern California and extreme southwestern Oregon, and another in the southern Sierra Nevada. Endangered status for the fisher would require protection for old-growth forests, benefiting the entire ecosystem. It would have provided funding for research and boosted efforts to reintroduce the fisher into Oregon and Washington.

Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice who represented the groups on the suit to force Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision today, said, “Californians are right to be concerned when the Bush administration ignores science showing fishers need protection now. At the same time the Bush administration is rewriting the rules to triple clearcutting in forests where the fisher lives.”

BACKGROUND

Fisher description and natural history

The fisher has a long, slender body with short legs. Its head is triangular, with a sharp, pronounced muzzle and large, rounded ears. Fishers are mostly brown, with a long bushy tail. Males range up to 47 inches in length, while females typically reach only 37 inches. Fishers run in a bounding gait, with their front feet leaping forward together, followed by the back feet. Unlike other carnivores, such as cats and dogs, fishers walk on their whole foot.

Contrary to its name, the fisher does not eat fish. The name probably relates to a poor translation of the name for the European polecat, which is a relative of the fisher and is called the fitch ferret, fichet or fitche. Instead of fish, the fisher has a diverse diet, preying on small mammals, snowshoe hare, porcupine, birds, carrion, fruit, and truffles. Because it is the only animal that regularly preys on porcupines, which often kill or damage small trees, the timber industry reintroduced the fisher to many parts of the U.S., including the southern Cascades of Oregon. The fisher kills porcupines with repeated bites to the face, devouring the porcupine via the quill-less underbelly. Where fisher reintroductions have been successful, porcupines have indeed declined in number.

The Petition to list the Fisher

The petition to list the fisher was filed by a coalition of 17 groups on November 28, 2000. According to the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to determine whether a species warrants listing within twelve months of receiving a petition. Today’s finding is thus nearly two and a half years late and comes only after the groups, represented by Earthjustice, obtained a court order forcing the agency to make a decision.

The groups on the original petition included: Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Environmental Protection Information Center, Forest Interest Group, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Plumas Forest Project, Predator Conservation Alliance, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Siskiyou Project, Siskiyou Action Project, and Yosemite Area Audubon.

New Reports Expose Hidden Failures of US Anti-Drug Policy in Colombia(A)

Washington, DC, and Oakland, CA, February 26-The Washington-based Latin America Working Group (LAWG), the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), and Earthjustice today released analyses of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and the recent State Department certification to Congress regarding the aerial drug eradication program in Colombia. The US Department of State usually releases its annual report on Andean cultivation of coca and poppy plants, the base materials for cocaine and heroin respectively, in early March. In line with recent reports from the United Nations, State Department figures will likely show a significant drop in Colombian coca production during 2003. Together with the State Department’s December 2003 certification, which claims that the eradication program complies with environmental and human health controls imposed by Congress, the agency is expected to assert that this information represents the success of its intensive aerial fumigation program, which was stepped up in 2000 after the passage of the $1.3 billion Plan Colombia. However, the documents released today reveal some of the unspoken failures and hidden costs of the eradication program: 1. The LAWG report identifies human and environmental effects of aerial spraying, the increase of coca cultivation in other regions, and the failure of the policy to meet its main stated goal: reducing cocaine availability in the United States. 2. The AIDA and Earthjustice analysis highlights numerous deficiencies of the State Department report to Congress and reveals an anti-democratic trend in Colombian governance associated with the spraying program. When viewed in this context, the State Department figures can be seen as largely a public relations effort, not confirmation of an effective counterdrug policy. “The US aerial spraying policy is spiraling out of control,” said Anna Cederstav with AIDA and Earthjustice. “With so much invested in the program, facts that contradict the campaign’s ‘success’ are ignored, at high cost to the Colombian environment and US taxpayers. Now the State Department wants to spray in Colombia’s National Parks-will they ever stop?” “At best, fumigation has caused a temporary dip in coca cultivation levels in Colombia,” said Lisa Haugaard, executive director of the Latin America Working Group. “But the fact remains that fumigation has failed at its main goal-reducing cocaine availability and use here at home-and has devastated small Colombian farming communities in the process. The entire policy needs to be reconsidered.” Among the documents’ main conclusions: · The fumigation policy has failed to make even moderate headway toward achieving its stated goal: reducing the availability of cocaine in the United States. Despite significant outlays-Colombia has received nearly $3 billion from the United States since 2000, much of which is used for the spraying program- reports from the State Department, the Office on National Drug Policy, ONDCP, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse indicate that the price, availability, and purity of cocaine in the United States have remained virtually unchanged since Plan Colombia was signed into law. · Focusing on short-term reductions in coca cultivation in Colombia masks longer-term negative trends: coca cultivation is moving. The United Nations Development Program warned this year that the recent drop in cultivation merely represents the “fundamental lag time… while crops are reestablished throughout the region.” From December 2000 to December 2002, almost 630,000 acres of land in Colombia were fumigated. State Department figures from 2002 found a resulting 15 percent decline in Colombian coca cultivation, but also showed a 23 percent jump in Bolivian cultivation and an 8 percent jump in cultivation in Peru. Even within Colombia, spraying has spurred a balloon effect, spreading cultivation to provinces and regions previously free of coca, including Colombia’s highly biodiverse national parks. The State Department has signaled its intent to begin fumigating Colombia’s National Parks later this year. · Aerial spraying is an extreme and controversial method of fighting drugs, with significant human costs. Even though fumigation was prohibited in Bolivia and Peru, US anti-drug efforts in the 1990s resulted in a decline in coca production in those countries. In Colombia, an absence of short-term food aid or long-term development aid for poor farmers and their families has exacerbated hunger and desperation when food crops are fumigated along with drug crops. Over 6,500 farmers filed complaints with the Colombian government’s Ombudsman between late 2001 and October 2002, alleging that they lost their legal crops to spraying; to date, only five have been compensated by the United States. According to a Colombian government survey, an estimated 50,000 people, roughly 15 percent of the population in Putumayo, left the heavily sprayed province in 2002. Without adequate alternative development assistance, many began growing coca elsewhere. Interviews with residents suggest that others have been forced into the ranks of the guerrilla or the paramilitaries, who offer steady pay. · There is little basis for the State Department’s certification to Congress that the spraying program “does not pose unreasonable risk of adverse effects to humans or the environment.” The eradication spraying does not comply with label conditions for correct use of the herbicide, and there has been no impact assessment that supports the conclusions drawn by the State Department. Rather than complying with the congressional conditions, the Department worked with the government of Colombia to weaken the environmental management plan and environmental requirements for the program. True Costs of a Failed Policy The State Department’s reliance on short-term indicators in individual countries to measure the success of its eradication program masks the failure of this costly policy. According to the State Department’s annual reports, coca cultivation in the Andean region has stubbornly hovered at around 200,000 hectares since 1988, despite massive appropriations from the United States. The LAWG report recommends a change in the criteria used to evaluate US anti-drug policy, stating, “we need to assess regional and international, not country, production levels… and focus less on outputs and more on the ultimate desired outcome-decreased drug consumption in the United States.” By those standards, US fumigation policy has been a resounding failure, and should be immediately and thoroughly reevaluated. The AIDA analysis recommends that the US Congress withhold funds for the aerial spraying program in Colombia until the State Department demonstrates full compliance with the US congressional requirements. “The US Congress should not continue supporting a policy that is both ineffective, and that poses severe risks to vulnerable communities, threatening key environmental ecosystems and the national parks in Colombia, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world,” says Astrid Puentes, Legal Director for AIDA. The LAWG report is available on the web at: http://www.lawg.org/docs/extremes.pdfThe AIDA and Earthjustice analysis is available on the web at: http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=plancolombia

Lawsuit Challenges State’s Decision to Allow Farm Pollution(A)

Today, environmental and fishing groups took the public’s longstanding battle against farm pollution to court. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, challenges the Central Valley Regional Water Board’s decision to exempt more than 25,000 growers from clean water laws and also includes claims against the State Water Board for upholding the decision. The lawsuit asserts that the agencies violated California’s core water quality laws and the California Environmental Quality Act, which require the agencies to issue permits for substantial discharges of pollution and to assess the environmental impacts caused by agricultural runoff. The groups ask the Court to vacate the exemption and to order the agencies to regulate the agricultural industry as required by law. “There is hardly a Central Valley river or stretch of the Delta that is not degraded by agricultural pollution,” said Earthjustice’s Mike Lozeau, an attorney for the groups. “The State’s clean water act is supposed to protect and clean our waters, not protect and shield agribusiness from having to clean up their massive pollution.”The environmental and fishing groups have presented evidence demonstrating that the controversial permit exemption allows runoff containing pesticides, nitrates, and heavy metals from over seven million acres of farmland to contaminate hundreds of miles of streams and rivers, natural habitat, and the drinking water of millions of Californians. “The waiver exempts agriculture from regulations applicable to everyone else. It doesn’t require agribusiness to reduce a single pound of pollution, implement a single pollution prevention measure or meet a single water quality standard,” said Deltakeeper Bill Jennings of Waterkeepers Northern California. “The Water Boards seem to be trying to outrun the Bush administration in fleeing from the enforcement of environmental laws.”The State Water Board upheld the Central Valley’s decision in January of this year. The lawsuit alleges that both the Central Valley Board and State Water Board’s decisions essentially provide a special-interest exemption from state permit requirements for one select group of polluters. Among other things, the decisions deliberately fail to generate adequate funding for enforcing the program; fail to reduce pollution by refusing to put in place basic controls, timelines, or performance standards; and continue to hide the ball with individual discharger identity and accountability. In issuing and upholding the decision to exempt, neither agency responded to the volumes of scientific documents and expert testimonies in evidence, which show that the adopted monitoring program is inadequate and will fail to protect water quality. “The decision sets a statewide precedent of ignoring Californians’ need and overwhelming support for clean water,” said Linda Sheehan, Director of The Ocean Conservancy’s Pacific Office. “Californians rightfully expect clean beaches, fishable rivers and safe drinking water. By contrast, the state’s decision ignores California’s growing water crisis and fritters away the limited supply we have left.” Agricultural runoff is one of the largest sources of water pollution in California; as such it is depleting California’s invaluable and rapidly-dwindling supply of clean water and harming human health as well as fish and wildlife habitat. “Innovative growers up and down the state have already demonstrated economically viable, environmentally friendly farming practices; it’s time for the rest of the industry to step up,” said David Beckman, Senior Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The coalition filing the lawsuit includes Deltakeeper (a project of Waterkeepers Northern California), Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Environment California, and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.For more on this issue visit:www.cleanfarmscleanwater.org

American Electric Power, Cinergy agree to report to shareholders(A)

CERES investor members and allies — including Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, Christian Brothers Investment Services, Trillium Asset Management, Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Pension Boards of the United Church of Christ, the United Church Foundation, and the Presbyterian Church USA — achieved an important victory today with American Electric Power (AEP) and Cinergy, two of the top emitters of carbon dioxide emissions in the electric power sector. AEP and Cinergy agreed to the shareholders’ proposals that the companies report publicly about how they are responding to growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions. Both companies agreed to the shareholders’ requests that a committee of independent directors oversee the report. As a result, the shareholders will withdraw the resolutions facing the two companies. This agreement sends a clear signal that other electric power companies and companies in other key sectors — oil and gas, autos, insurance, etc. — should start responding now to shareholder requests for greater disclosure on climate risks. Shareholders have filed 28 resolutions as part of the 2004 proxy season. This victory opens the door for further discussion with companies and investors about whether the best strategy for companies is continuing the current uncertainty on carbon dioxide standards or to provide certainty through a national mandatory cap on emissions. CERES and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility are co-coordinating the global warming shareholder campaign that seeks to increase shareholder value by proactively addressing the global warming challenge. If you are a member of the media, please contact Nicole St. Clair (stclair@ceres.org) or 617-247-0700 x20. For additional information on the announcement, please contact CERES Director of Outreach Dan Bakal (bakal@ceres.org) or 617-247-0700 x13. See below for press release and an article that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal. Additional articles appeared today in the Columbus Dispatch and Cincinnati Enquirer. Note: CNN Headline News will feature this news on Feb. 19 at 2:45 EST and again at 3:40 EST, 4:40 EST, and 5:40 EST).

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, CINERGY AGREE TO REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS ON RESPONSES TO RISING PRESSURE TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS, OTHER EMISSIONS Both companies assign independent board committees to issue reports on current and possible future regulatory scenarios and potential company responses. Shareholders expect other companies will follow

NEW YORK, N.Y.///February 19, 2004/// In response to shareholder proposals for greater transparency on how companies are planning for potential constraints on carbon dioxide and other emissions, electric power giants American Electric Power and Cinergy have agreed to report publicly about on how they are responding to growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions. The company reports will assess the impacts of and potential responses to a number of policy scenarios, including various proposals in Congress and existing state legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other emissions. Both companies agreed to the shareholders’ request that a committee of independent directors oversee the report. As a result, shareholders will withdraw resolutions facing the two companies. The resolutions focus on the potential risks to shareholders posed by the company’s CO2 emissions, the primary greenhouse gas linked to global warming. They were filed at American Electric Power [NYSE:AEP] by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds and co-filed by Christian Brothers Investment Services, Trillium Asset Management, Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Pension Boards – United Church of Christ, and the United Church Foundation, and at Cinergy Corp. [NYSE:CIN] by the Presbyterian Church (USA). Similar resolutions have been filed at additional electric utilities and other companies by shareholders associated with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of 275 religious institutional investors and CERES, a coalition of investors and environmental groups. The resolutions’ proponents believe that the public reports to shareholders, which were agreed to by AEP and Cinergy following discussions with the investors, will raise the benchmark for disclosure of and action on climate change risks, and heralded the decisions as precedent-setting. Denise Nappier, Treasurer, State of Connecticut, said: “These landmark agreements are an important milestone for shareholders, one that we hope will be emulated by corporate leaders across this industry, and across many industries. The consequences for companies that do not act responsibly and take steps to assess and mitigate risks posed by climate change can be just as devastating to shareholders as the corporate scandals of the past few years. We look forward to reports that will provide shareholders with essential information we need to make informed investment decisions.” Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, Associate for Mission Responsibility Through Investment, Presbyterian Church, said: “Shareholders have been raising this issue since the early 1990s, so it’s significant that we’re working together to cooperate on an action plan. Cinergy made a forward-looking announcement last year with their pledge to reduce emissions; we’re hoping that this report will also be a leading example of risk assessment and disclosure that can be taken up by other companies.” Both companies expressed their willingness to work collaboratively with the shareholders on addressing the emissions issue. American Electric Power agreed to print the resolution in its proxy, with a statement describing the company’s decision to “accept and comply” with the resolution. The proxy statement will also outline the parameters of the company’s report. Cinergy will describe the collaborative effort on the report in the Letter to Shareholders in its 2003 Annual Report. Dale Heydlauff, Senior Vice President, Governmental and Environmental Affairs, AEP, said: “We reviewed their proposal and concluded that their request for an emissions assessment and report was reasonable. We view it as consistent with the hard work we are doing to make environmental improvements while keeping our power plants competitive.” Jim Rogers, CEO, Cinergy, said: “Cinergy has undertaken several initiatives to establish its leadership in social and environmental policy. We are partnering with Environmental Defense on our greenhouse gas emissions reduction pledge and we are delighted to join with the Mission Responsibility Through Investment to produce another effective collaborative process on these crucial public policy matters.” The agreements come on the heels of increasing pressure on the electric power industry to address the issue of coming carbon constraints. Similar resolutions last year garnered the support of Institutional Shareholder Services, a group that advises institutional investors on proxy voting, resulting in record high votes – an average 23% vote in favor- with 27% of shareholders voting for such disclosure at American Electric Power. Although last year’s resolution was successfully challenged at the SEC, Cinergy announced in September, 2002 that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions five percent below 2000 levels by 2010 and freeze them through 2012. Mindy Lubber, Executive Director, CERES, said: “This is an historic breakthrough for shareholders who care about corporate governance and good disclosure of long-term risks to their investments. The agreement opens the door for a discussion about the best corporate strategy in creating certainty for companies who will surely be affected by the growing world consensus to limit carbon dioxide emissions.” She continued: “We look forward to working with these and other companies to provide leadership to the electric power and other industries in learning to assess, and mitigate, the enormous challenge of climate change and its associated economic risks.” WALL STREET JOURNALFebruary 19, 2004Page A8 AEP, Cinergy to Disclose Details On Ways to Cut Carbon Dioxide By JEFFREY BALL Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL In a nod to the notion that U.S. global-warming regulations are inevitable, two of the nation’s major electric utilities say they will disclose what they are doing to prepare for them — including estimates of how those regulations could hit the companies’ bottom lines and consumers’ wallets. The Bush administration opposes calls for restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases widely believed to be contributing to global warming. But the announcements by American Electric Power Co. and Cinergy Corp. mark a strategy shift by the two companies amid signs that global warming is becoming a higher priority among both politicians and shareholders. Shareholder activists say they expect the companies’ reports to estimate how AEP’s and Cinergy’s financial performance could be affected by global-warming regulations being considered in Washington. Still, it is far from clear whether the numbers AEP and Cinergy produce will be specific enough to satisfy the companies’ shareholder critics. The companies also are likely to use the reports to bolster their argument that stringent restrictions would impose huge costs. AEP and Cinergy are two of the nation’s biggest carbon-dioxide emitters, both because they produce so much electricity and because they produce most of it by burning coal. Last year, AEP and Cinergy successfully fought shareholder resolutions demanding that they disclose more information about the financial risk they would face if the U.S. implemented any of a number of global-warming regulations under consideration, although at AEP the resolution got a surprising 26.9% of the vote. Cinergy announced Wednesday, and AEP is expected to announce today, agreements to produce public reports detailing what actions they are taking to reduce air emissions, including carbon dioxide and other suspected “greenhouse gases.” In exchange for those pledges, shareholder activists have agreed to withdraw more loosely worded resolutions recently filed against the two. “As we look out, I believe that it’s more likely than not that we’ll live in a carbon-constrained world,” said James E. Rogers, Cinergy’s chairman and chief executive officer. “We think we have a significant risk because we burn so much coal, so we want to start hedging our bets.” These two agreements don’t portend an end to the global-warming fight. Environmental activists say they plan to use the agreements to pressure others to follow suit and to press their case for a global-warming emissions cap. “What it says is that these companies recognize that they need to prepare for a carbon- constrained world, even if that’s not going to happen tomorrow,” said Dan Bakal, director of outreach for the Coalition of Environmentally Responsible Economies, a Boston-based environmental group that has been coordinating the filing of the shareholder resolutions. But Michael G. Morris, AEP’s chief executive, said his company acceded to the shareholders’ request because AEP believes its report will demonstrate that burning coal is vital to ensuring a continued supply of inexpensive electricity. Coal-fired electricity plants, which provide a big chunk of the nation’s electricity, “are the lowest-cost energy providers to our customers. If C(O2) mandates come down the road, we will live with them.” Both AEP and Cinergy recently pledged voluntarily to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by specific percentages.