Control inercial derivativo más control droop sin reserva (E3)

Severe foreign debt and dependency on a narrow range of exports to earn the foreign exchange to meet their debt obligations make developing countries particularly susceptible to aid conditionalities. The debt of the 40 poorest countries is, on average, more than four times their annual export earnings and in excess of their annual gross national products. Thirty-three African countries have unsustainable debt levels. One-half of export earnings of Africa goes to service debt, and 30 African countries have had to reschedule their debts. The declining exchange rate of devel- oping countries also has an inflationary impact making imports more expensive and often reducing investment and output.

Structural adjustment loans (SALs) became popular after 1980 when the first such loan was made by the World Bank. More than 50 countries received such loans in the 1980s, and they became a major part of the Bank’s development assistance program during this period. They allowed the Bank to play an active role, in theory, in helping developing countries overcome structural weaknesses in their programs for rapid development. SALs often introduced severe conditionality in clauses that allowed the lender to directly influence policy and institutions in the debtor states. An ambitious program of debt relief was instituted in 1997 by the World Bank and the IMF. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative combined substantial debt relief and policy reform to allow greater focus on poverty reduction and economic growth. It is used specifically in cases where tra- ditional debt relief mechanisms are inadequate.

The EC also began linking environmental protection and economic assistance in the 1980s. It entered into a series of agreements with some 70 African, Caribbean, and Pacific states (ACP). They signed the Lome IV Agreement on December 15, 1989, which included a chapter, Title I, specif- ically devoted to protection of the environment and conservation of nat- ural resources deemed to be fundamental objectives of the Agreement. Art. 33, Lome IV. There were some objections to efforts to impose envi- ronmental conditionality, and the Lome Agreement was revised November 4, 1995, in Mauritius. Later, the EC-ACP states replaced Lome IV by an Agreement on Partnership between ACP and EU states, signed in Cotonou on June 23, 2000. The Agreement calls on the states to take into account questions related to the transport and disposal of hazardous waste (Art. 32.1.d), but otherwise does not discuss environmental matters.

The OECD also adopted measures to link environmental protection to development assistance. It recommended an environmental checklist for development assistance, calling on member countries to ensure that bilat- eral and multilateral development assistance takes into account environ- mental considerations in the identification, planning, implementation, and evaluation of those development projects that are proposed for fund- ing. OECD Doc. C(89)2(Final), Mar. 2, 1989, 28 ILM 1314 (1989).

On a unilateral level, in U.S. domestic law, the so-called “Pelosi Amend- ment” seeks to enhance environmental protection abroad by requiring the U.S. Executive Director for each multilateral development bank (includ- ing the World Bank), to refrain from voting in favor of any proposed action by the bank that would have a significant effect on the human environ- ment, unless an environmental assessment has been prepared and circu- lated to the bank and other interested organizations at least 120 days before the date of the vote. 22 U.S.C. § 262m-7. The assessment analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives can be prepared by the borrowing country or the lending institution and must be made available to the board of directors of the institution. Absent com- pelling circumstances, the assessment must also be made available not only to the bank, but to affected groups and local non-governmental organiza- tions. In effect, the Pelosi Amendment extends the National Environ- mental Policy Act’s (Pub. L. No. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970) broad coverage to multilateral development bank operations.

In a related development, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a 60-year-old independent agency that finances overseas sales of U.S. goods and services, has incorporated environmental considerations into its lending policies. The Bank guarantees loans for U.S. exporters and repayment of loans by foreign purchasers of U.S. goods and services and often provides credit for risks commercial banks will not accept. In 1995, as required by statute, the Bank adopted a detailed set of Environmental Guidelines to consider the environmental consequences of proposed transactions prior to approv- ing export finance. 12 U.S.C. § 635i-5; Export-Import Bank of the United

States Environmental Procedures and Guidelines, effective Feb. 1, 1995. Applicants are required to submit for evaluation information about the project’s environmental impacts. The Guidelines establish standards for air quality, water quality, waste management, and noise for projects in spe- cific industry sectors (e.g., mining, pulp and paper, energy). Certain trans- actions that do not raise significant environmental issues are exempt from review procedures. Projects that do not meet all the environmental guide- lines are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Bank’s Board of Directors, taking into account mitigating effects and circumstances. Financing may be conditioned on the implementation of mitigating measures.

The U.S. Congress also directed the U.S. Overseas Investment Cor- poration (OPIC) to take account of the environmental effects of projects in determining whether to provide insurance, financing, or reinsurance for a development project. OPIC provides insurance for American invest- ments in new ventures and expansions of existing enterprises, including protection against limits on repatriation of local currency, expropriation, and political violence. Congress has directed OPIC “to the maximum degree possible,” consistent with its development purposes, to refuse to “insure, reinsure, guarantee or finance any investment in connection with a project which the Corporation determines will pose an unreasonable or major environmental, health, or safety hazard, or will result in the signifi- cant degradation of national parks or similar protected areas.” 22 U.S.C. § 2191(n). OPIC screens all investment requests to determine whether they meet environmental standards and requires major projects to prepare an environmental impact assessment.

Non-governmental organizations introduced another form of debt link- age with environmental protection with an innovative program that allows developing countries to pay off part of their external debt by committing themselves to invest such funds in environmental protection. These “debt for nature swaps” have been undertaken by private foundations, commer- cial banks, and a few national government policies. In October 1990, the United States included debt-for-nature swaps in the “Enterprise for the “Americas” initiative. Congress also approved conversion of debt into nature conservancy projects.

Despite generalized concern with environmental protection, develop- ing countries continue to view such conditions as constraints on develop- ment opportunities and national sovereignty, as well as a disguised form of protectionism. Rio Principle 12 reflects these views in advocating a “sup- portive and open economic system” that avoids “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade” in the use of trade measures for environmental purposes and calling for measures to be adopted on the basis of “international consensus.”