OAS I: Environmentalism

Michael Borger

YMUN Taiwan
@ymuntaiwan

Letter from the Dais

Dear delegates,

Welcome to the fifth iteration of Yale Model United Nations Taiwan (YMUNT)! My name is Michael, and I am thrilled to serve as the Director of the Organization of American States. Coming from both a small suburban town in New Jersey and the vibrant metropolis of São Paulo in Brazil, I study Global Affairs and Ethics, Politics & Economics, with concentrations in international development and comparative political economy. I am also a Human Rights Scholar at Yale Law School’s Schell Center for International Human Rights. The crux of my work has been centered around Latin America, specifically how and why policy-makers make the decisions they do.

As part of the Yale International Relations Association (YIRA), the umbrella organization for YMUNT, I have served as Director-General of Operations for our 40th college conference, the Security Council Simulation at Yale (SCSY); as Under-Secretary-General of Regional Bodies for our 44th flagship Yale Model United Nations conference; and as Under-Secretary-General of Delegations for Yale Model United Nations China.

Aside from conferences, I teach international relations theory and case studies for Hemispheres, edit for the Yale Review of International Studies, and serve on YIRA’s Executive Board as the YIRA Secretary to oversee all our programmes. Further, I am involved with the Executive Boards of the Yale Globalist (an international relations magazine), the Yale Economic Review, the Yale Undergraduate Legal Aid Association, and Dwight Hall at Yale (a public service organization). In my residential college, I manage our coffee shop called the Acorn, and my specialty drink is an iced dark chocolate mocha. My current obsessions include a television show called the Good Place, other Netflix programs, corgis, and trivia games.

Soon, we will all convene to discuss the pressing need of greater environmentalism in Latin America and the threat of unstable governance in Venezuela. This topic guide has been designed to help you learn about these two issues, but I encourage (and expect) you to do some outside research alongside what I have presented here. To provide a starting point, I have included some links and questions to consider. Of course, I am also happy to answer any questions and help you research more effectively.

I eagerly await meeting you all in and out of committee. In exchange for the insight I can provide into Yale, these important concerns facing Latin America, and what else that might interest you, I am excited to learn from you all as students, debaters, and global citizens. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at michael.borger@yale.edu.

Best wishes,

Michael Borger

Role of the Committee

This committee will be charged with presenting comprehensive proposals on how to best tackle the two issues presented in this guide. Since this is a regional organization rather than an international organization, this committee is better suited to addressing the situation more closely. Unlike international institutions such as the United Nations, a regional organization such as the Organization of American States can focus more on specifics. Regional organizations are less likely to get stuck in lackluster, stagnant debates of basic premises and consensus-building.

In these regional organizations, general agreements oftentimes already exist. This could be perhaps attributed to the greater homogeneity in member states. In other words, members have more in common governmentally, socioeconomically, and culturally than they do different. As a result, they many times share a foundation off of which they can build together.

In the case of environmentalism, the role of the committee will be to understand how to best protect the Earth, conserve the natural resources the Americas possess, shield citizens from the negative effects of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and more. The committee will want to look to past international and regional treaties and agreements, consider countries’ economic motivations, discuss sustainable development practices, and other salient items.

With the Venezuelan Crisis, the specific issues are admittedly a bit more thorny. Because Venezuela is a sovereign state, the committee’s ability to coerce the current government into improving its treatment of citizens is limited. I would highly recommend reading over parts of the OAS Charter and listening to speeches by the OAS Secretary-General Luis Almagro to better understand the committee’s role in improving the situation in Venezuela. In particular, I suggest reading Part One, Chapters I (Nature and Purposes), II (Principles), III (Members), and IV (Fundamental Rights and Duties of States). I would be happy to clarify any questions you might have on the wording of this Charter, as part of the debate will, in fact, revolve around the permissibility of OAS coercion or intervention in a member state given the guidelines on sovereignty, which is a key point of tension in international affairs.

In short, I want you to treat this as the next Summit of the Americas. Although the 8th Summit will be held in Lima, Peru on April 13 and 14 this year, and its main discussion will center around “Democratic Governance Against Corruption,” let us imagine that this is the real 8th Summit, and that the actual topic is: “Sustainable Human Impact,” examining our impact on one another (e.g. through politics in Venezuela) and the Earth.

History of the Committee

In 1826, Simón Bolivar, a South American revolutionary leader, convened the Congress of Panama. From June 22 to July 15, Latin American leaders from the new republics that had gained their independence came together with the intention of creating a universal policy towards Spain, a former colonial motherland and the empire from which many of these republics had descended. Representatives of Gran Colombia, the United Provinces of Central America, and Mexico came together. Chile and the United Provinces of South America refused to participate, as did the Empire of Brazil, which was waging war against Argentina over the area that is modern-day Uruguay. Paraguay was not invited, while Great Britain attended with observer status. The United States, embroiled in its own debates about slavery, eventually conceded to send two delegates, but one died en route to Panama and the other only arrived after the conference had concluded.

Albeit this Congress was arguably the first step towards greater Latin American integration, many scholars point to the First International Conference of American States in Washington D.C. in October 1889 as the start of periodic meetings and conferences. At the United States government’s request, countries from the Americas began reconvening to deliberate over inter-American business rules, universalize dispute settlement processes, and encourage more trade across countries in the hemisphere. Eighteen American states participated, and they comprised the “International Union of American Republics, for the Prompt Collection and Distribution of Commercial Information” which would be headquartered in Washington D.C. Understandably, they shortened the name to “Pan-American Union.” After revisions were introduced, the Union became the foundation for what would become the OAS Secretariat. Alongside the Pan-American Union, other institutions were established, including the Pan American Health Organization (1902), the Inter-American Children’s Institute (1927), and more.

The Congress’s first recommendations included provisions of government extradition across countries. Additionally, it announced that conquest did not create rights, and it outlined rules for arbitration before American states resorted to war with one another. Representatives of the system achieved greater commercial integration, strengthened interstate legal ties, and founded different specialized institutions.

In 1948, at the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogotá, Colombia, 21 States had convened to adopt the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (the Pact of Bogotá), and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. Since 1948, the OAS Charter has been ratified on four occasions via Protocols of Amendment: in Buenos Aires (1967), Cartagena de Indias (1985), Washington D.Cc. (1992), and Managua (1993).

In the decades following the Charter’s ratification, these Conferences of American States continued to meet at different times. Notably, other side conferences took place, too, including special meetings such as the Meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Conference on Inter-American Problems of War and Peace in Mexico City, Mexico (1945); the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1947); and more. The passing of the OAS charter also heralded the establishments of the Inter-American Development Bank (1959), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1979), and other institutions that intended to fortify cooperation in the region.

In 1970, after the 1948 OAS Charter had been ratified, the Conferences of American States were substituted by the Organization of American States General Assemblies. One iteration of the OAS General Assembly will be the committee you will find yourself in soon.

Topic History

UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTALISM IN A GLOBAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

With global warming, increased pollution, and changing ecosystems, taking steps to reduce the human impact on the environment has become a leading concern for countries and citizens around the world. Environmentalism is a broad ideological movement that advocates for greater protection of the environment, including its land, its water, and the organisms found in it. It examines the political, economic, and social actions that have contributed to environmental destruction, including carbon emissions, deforestation, and more. Because these actions can be taken on global, regional, national, local, and even individual levels, the concept of environmentalism is relevant to everyone.

After the Cold War ended in 1991, attention turned to how the world’s resources could be salvaged and conserved. Major topics of study have been how governments, institutions, markets, and societal norms decide or influence on how people protect their environments. In addition, various scholars have disputed how cultural associations, religious beliefs, and political divisions factor into shaping individuals’ perceptions of environmental efforts.

For countries to become more ecologically friendly, they rely on several techniques. Many have passed laws for their people and companies to follow. Some have transitioned to more sustainable sources of energy, as opposed to traditional fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. Research and investments in advanced technologies have improved efficiency in power generation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, protected forests and endangered animals from possible extinction, and contributed to more ecologically friendly habits. Yet, much has yet to be done, especially on an international level. With the world population growing rapidly, energy consumption, poor distributions in food and other resources, and fossil fuel depletion have all posed threats to global sustainability.

International efforts have been put forth on several occasions to champion better practices in protecting the environment, especially since human impact has become increasingly more obvious. In the 1970s, few countries had their own environmental regulations, much less international treaties with accompanying conservation guidelines. But, by the 2010s, hundreds of bilateral, multilateral, regional, and even international agreements have addressed the effects of human contributions to climate change, natural resource depletion, and more. Now, to ensure that they are following the rules or guidelines established by international agreements, many countries have created their own environmental agencies, passed legislation, and more. Moreover, international institutions such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace monitor the progress countries make toward meeting international goals (ie. Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals, etc.) and national objectives.

The Organization of American States, for example, has created its own Department of Sustainable Development to help states craft and implement appropriate policies for water management, biodiversity preservation, climate change mitigation, and environmental law compliance. In 2015, the OAS’s Summit of Americas Mandates on the Environment in Panama City produced directions for countries to “continue and strengthen hemispheric efforts geared toward making progress in the areas of sustainable development and climate change.”

In terms of broader international efforts, there are notable steps that should be examined. Held between June 5 and 16, 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm produced the Stockholm Declaration, which is considered to be the first document in international environmental law to uphold the right to a healthy environment. Along that vein, states agreed to be held responsible for the environmental repercussions of their actions. With seven proclamations covering a multitude of global environmental issues, this Declaration is divided into twenty-six principles, each designed to help states accomplish environmental objectives. Though the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries boycotted the conference since East Germany was ineligible to participate under its non-UN full member status, the conference was an important milestone with 70 out of 122 existent countries attending. Yet, alongside an Action Plan consisting of 109 recommendations and a comprehensive Resolution, these 26 Principles have been integral in not only furthering the environmental agenda, but also understanding the natural linkage between human impact and economic development that for so long had gone unspoken.

Following the Stockholm Conference, the United Nations established its own Environment Programme (UNEP), tasked with promoting international cooperation on environmental protection and recommending policies to be followed. Its work has been important in ensuring that treaties are passed and respected. One such example is its resolution titled “Cooperation in the Field of the Environment Concerning Natural Resources Shared by Two or More States” which enshrines into environmental law the principles of respect toward conservation, harmonious use of natural resources, and good faith. A few years after, in the early 1980s, the UNEP launched its first (of several) Montevideo Programmes, which would periodically review the effectiveness of environmental law in changing countries’ behaviors.

In 1982, the United Nations passed a World Charter for Nature, which set out to instruct countries on conservation efforts. Not only did it outline some of the shared principles of the Stockholm Conference, but it also clearly demarcated the relationship between human involvement and the environment, though much of the climate science available nowadays was obviously not considered. It was instrumental in understanding that conservation efforts had to necessarily prioritize nature over certain human concerns. Five years afterward, the Charter was supplemented by the 1987 “Our Common Future’ Brundtland Report, which was named after the Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the 1983 World Commission on Environment and Development. As the Commission had been an independent body, the subsequent Report managed to encompass further priority areas, including population and food security, biodiversity, human settlements, and more. In recognizing the complex relationships between peace and international security with development and environmental protection, the Report also helped define what sustainable development looks like within the global context going forward.

Ten years after the World Charter for Nature and twenty years after the Stockholm Conference, countries convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the Conference on Environment and Development. Between June 3 and 14, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, or the Rio Conference, brought together 176 states, over 50 intergovernmental organizations, and thousands of corporations and non-governmental organizations. It generated three important non-binding instruments of environmental protection. First, the Rio Declaration was created as a compromise between developed and developing countries, with the understanding that countries had to cooperate while also recognizing a balance of objectives between environmental protection and economic development, especially in less-developed regions. With 27 Principles, it remarked that states possess the sovereign right to exploit their own resources, so long as their activities do not cause harm to the environment of other states. Further, it established two important principles used in sustainable development: the Precautionary Principle and the Polluters-Pay Principle, in Principles 15 and 16, respectively. The second non-binding instrument was the Agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainable economic development that contained an international consensus on best practices. It also included dimensions of public participation in the environmental protection process as well as financial and funding considerations. Lastly, the Statement of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests was produced. This document is highly relevant in the context of the OAS, considering the Amazon Rainforest’s presence in many Latin American countries, including the Rio Conference host, Brazil.

Five years after Rio, there was a Rio + 5 Conference in New York that led to little progress. The Rio + 10, however, hosted in Johannesburg, South Africa, gave rise to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, which established new commitments to eradicating poverty, improving trade and health, and more. In particular, it underscored the three pillars of sustainable development: economic development, social development, and environmental development. The Rio + 20, or The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held on June 20 and 21, was a continuation of the original Rio Conference, but instead with 183 countries represented and over 50,000 participants. Rio + 20 focused on learning how to build a green economy that relies on sustainable development and poverty alleviation efforts, as well determining how to bolster international coordination and institutional frameworks for sustainable development. The Conference produced a document called “The Future We Want” which renewed countries’ commitments to economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable development. This document expresses a 283-part common vision for the world that covers a host of considerations that countries have and must consider in their journeys ahead.

Other agreements and steps have been similarly formative. The Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030) are and will be important in guiding countries toward meeting several objectives in critical areas such as education, health, and the environment. The 1987 Montreal Protocol, for instance, serves as an example of a highly successful environmental treaty. In banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and other ozone-depleting chemicals, which were responsible for creating a hole in the Ozone layer, the Protocol was an international collaborative effort that resulted in great net gains. Understandably, however, removing the ozone-depleting chemicals did not pose a huge threat to countries’ economies. This contrasts starkly to fossil fuels, for example, since countries depend heavily on them for significant economic activity. Thus, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an unsurprising failed attempt at reducing the world’s carbon footprint. It signaled that countries were willing to work together and depend on one another’s actions to reduce carbon emissions, but when expected to contribute individually, they refused or performed poorly.

Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCC), the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement delineates how greenhouse gas emissions will be mitigated as well as how the world will adapt and finance these new efforts starting in 2020. With 195 UN members signed onto the document, the Agreement aims to minimize the threat of a global temperature rise by keeping it below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. All 197 UNFCC members have either signed or accepted the 2015 Paris Agreement, though on June 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the Agreement under his administration’s “America First” ideology. Under the Agreement, the earliest possible date for the actual withdrawal of the United States is in November 2020, the same month that his term ends. Conversely, in July 2017, French Environment Minister Nicholas Hulot announced France’s five-year plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, and he stated that France would both cease to use coal in producing electricity after 2022 and invest four billion Euros in improving energy efficiency.

                                           CURRENT SITUATION

The OAS’s Mandates

Coming from OAS Summits of the Americas, or conferences for American state leaders, OAS Mandates tackle important areas of concern for the Western Hemisphere. There are Mandates on Agriculture, Education, Justice and Rule of Law, Labor, Trade, and more. For this committee, familiarize yourself with the Mandates of the following: Environment, Energy, Social Development, and Sustainable Economic Growth. The most important parts are covered presently, but please read them on the OAS website, too, in order to see the exact language representatives agreed upon. Nuanced understandings of how environmental issues connect to Cultural Diversity, Disaster Management, Gender Issues, Indigenous Peoples, and other Mandates will also prove useful, although not necessary.

Note: In the Mandates, you will see that several Summits will be referenced, and these will appear through the names of the Declarations or Plans of Action in which the individual Mandates have been produced. For instance, Mandates found in the Declaration of Port of Spain, 2009 will have resulted from the 5th Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

 Environment

The OAS Mandate on the Environment covers issues of biodiversity, climate change, environmental management and protection, and more. The 1994 Plan of Action in Miami laid the cornerstone of the OAS’s environmental progress. It recognized that environmental management is crucial for sustainable development, and provided corresponding frameworks, national legislation, and collaborative regulations. This includes consolidating countries’ institutional and technical capacity in providing remedies for pesticides, lead contamination, pollution, waste and sanitation, and accessibility to safe drinking water, amongst other areas.

Additionally, the 1994 Plan stressed the need for the participation of non-governmental actors and international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In promoting environmental integration across the Americas, the Plan noted that economic goals should align with environmental objectives, too, along with intergovernmental and interagency cooperation through legal enforcement, information exchanges, and technology collaboration. The Plan especially stressed the need for increased public and private financing for new technologies. Through cleaning ecosystems, using primarily renewable resources, and producing energy sustainability and sufficient, countries are able to conserve the environment for future generations.

At the 1994 Summit in Miami, OAS countries also underscored that the Western Hemisphere contains most of the world’s biodiversity, and they called on one another to intensify efforts. Sustainable practices had to be incorporated into existing sectors of a countries’ economies, such as forestry, agriculture, and fishery. Implementing some sustainable practices, however, would inhibit countries from taking advantage of their terrestrial, marine, and coastal resources.

More than twenty years later, the 2015 Summit of the Americas in Panama City went even deeper in elaborating on what countries should do to conserve environmental resources. Countries agreed that they should continue to strive toward lessening the effects of climate change, including higher average global temperatures, rising sea levels (in particular, their impacts on Small Island Developing States), and more unpredictable weather patterns. The management of forests and other protected areas, as well as the survival of endangered and migratory species, are now even more urgent.

The next steps will include improving inter-country environmental protection collaboration, disseminating information on the best methods of conserving resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting endangered species, and figuring out how humans can work with, rather than against, the environment.

Energy

With respect to energy, there are several key issues that the OAS outlines. One of the most important is determining sources of producing and obtaining clean energy. As the 2009 Declaration of Port of Spain mentions, clean energy will be crucial to creating new markets and jobs, as well as encouraging countries to adopt policies that are both economically and environmentally sustainable. But, a major source of contention is what exactly clean energy looks like, since definitions can differ across those promoting changes our energy consumption. This will serve as a point of debate in our committee as well, with delegates representing governments that possess different agendas and views. For example, Bolivia stated in its footnote for the 2009 Declaration of Port of Spain that its view on the expansion of biofuels might harm the availability of food, increase deforestation, and displace certain peoples; however, it did “recognize the need to seek and use alternative, environmentally friendly sources of energy, such as geothermal, solar, wind energy, and small and medium-sized hydroelectric plants.” These sources of energy are only a few that are conventionally, though not always, considered clean.

Furthermore, the question of clean energy also relates to whether a source of energy is renewable. Energy is deemed renewable when its usage can be replenished within a given timeframe. Again, however, the definitions are murky, since the time frame needed for replenishment is hotly debated. The OAS, in the past, has emphasized the need to develop more renewable energy technologies, which can include investments, research, and other strategies. Yet, not all sources of energy are available to all countries equally or at the same time. Consequently, the OAS has looked to energy-sharing or energy-trading systems, intergovernmental cooperation, and other forms of energy distribution to assist countries where renewable energy is more difficult to produce due to financial, geographic, and other constraints.

Aside from clean and renewable energies, the OAS cannot ignore the large presence of fossil fuels, specifically coal, natural gas, and crude oil. For one, many countries and their industrialization processes have depended upon fossil fuels for decades, if not centuries, so the transition from fossil fuels to renewable or clean energies might be a huge leap or burden. This is especially true for the less economically developed countries in the region that have historically struggled to modernize their infrastructure such as transportation, sewage, and electrical systems. Asking countries to adopt policies that ban or reduce fossil fuels because of the fuels’ carbon emissions might be challenging. For this reason, the OAS noted in the 2015 Summit of the Americas that countries have “specific needs and circumstances” that must be taken into account when trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption and encourage clean or renewable energy.

Energy is also critical to improving living standards. Because of prices and access, however, many people in underserved or under-resourced communities depend less on ecologically-friendly energy sources. Instead, they rely often on fossil fuels. Going forward, an important concern will be the equity of energy and inclusion of those who have limited access to energy that is better for the environment. Governments will need to address how to spread clean or renewable energy to areas that have received little environmental attention, do not have the resources available to them, or simply do not know what technologies might assist them in clean or renewable energy production.

Social Development & Sustainable Economic Growth

Social development is the progress made in reducing poverty, addressing areas of social exclusion, and ensuring that improvements in standards of living are felt across a country. Environmental concerns heavily intersect with social development, as environmental concerns such as carbon emissions, fossil fuel dependence, and so on disproportionately impact poorer communities. Because poorer communities oftentimes lack the necessary environmental tools, they face the high socioeconomic and environmental costs of harmful actions.

In the 1998 Declaration of Santiago, OAS countries said “overcoming poverty continues to be the greatest challenge confronted” by the Western Hemisphere. Despite some growth across the continent, poverty still leads to improper nutrition, lackluster social services, and inadequate social institutions. The impacts of deforestation, climate change, and other environmental concerns are magnified by the inequality and social exclusion seen across the Americas.

Social development accompanies environmental improvements, and vice versa, since improvements in living standards can only be realized when families can live healthier and happier lives. Yet, some believe that environmentalism and social development are incompatible, due to the fact that environmentalism and sustainable economic growth have been at odds historically.

Sustainable economic growth is by far one of the trickiest subjects the world is currently debating. How to ensure that countries can grow economically without damaging the environment has been heatedly debated for decades. As mentioned previously, many see economic growth and environmentalism as mutually exclusive. Whereas improvements in living standards (ie. social development) and environmentalism seem to go together, economic growth and environmentalism appear to be incompatible. Typically, it is thought that in order for the economy to grow or industrialize, a country must use more of its resources, oftentimes depending on fossil fuels or non-renewable sources of energy for production. Consequently, for a country to become richer, the costs are levied on the environment through greater pollution, deforestation, and natural resource depletion.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

The first seven questions are those that we will cover most extensively. The last four questions (questions 8-11) are supplementary questions that might help you accomplish more comprehensive resolutions. However, those four questions are not the primary focus of the debate, which should be centered around questions of protecting the environment, fostering clean and renewable energy, promoting social development, and encouraging sustainable economic growth.

What is environmental law, and how does it guide countries to adopt certain actions? What can this committee do to encourage or discourage certain actions? Remember to treat this committee as the next Summit of the Americas, so think carefully about what precedents other Summits have set.

What is clean or renewable energy? Is there a difference? Should countries be required or encouraged to adopt clean or renewable energy practices?

What are the best ways to reduce pollution? Consider carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases, and the use of fossil fuels. Would it be more effective to punish those who pollute or reward those who do not?

What types of policies exist for pollution reduction? Consider how pollution reduction policies have worked in other contexts, including cap and trade schemes, quotas, and pollution licenses for companies.

With deforestation and other forms of natural resource exploitation, how can countries discourage or even stop companies from exploiting the environment for economic gain? Is there a threshold for how much governments should permit or tolerate environmental exploitation in order to achieve economic growth?

How can we improve standards of living (ie. social development) while also encouraging more environmentally-friendly actions and sustaining economic growth? Is it possible?

What does sustainable economic growth look like in practice, and how does it relate to environmental impacts?

What policies and practices should countries adopt to reduce the impacts of climate change?

Considering their relatively small contributions to climate change, Small Island Developing States in the Caribbean and other areas are affected disproportionately by rising sea levels. How should the OAS account for these countries? Should countries that are most affected be compensated by those who have polluted the most? Should countries that are most affected be left to fend for themselves, receive assistance from the OAS, or implement certain proactive measures?

How can we best protect endangered animal and plant species that are threatened by human activity and changing environmental conditions? Should we attempt to preserve biodiversity, and if so, what are the pros and cons of different biodiversity conservation policies? If not, why not?

Consider other factors of environmental management such as pesticides, lead and other toxic chemicals, waste and sanitation, and more.