From Rio to Johannesburg - a lost decade

The twenty years from 1972 to 1992 saw a remarkable change in the way in which mankind views its relationship with the planet it inhabits. Because of the rapid development of technology, human activities impose much greater stresses on the earth's resources than ever before, imperilling the livelihoods of future generations. At the same time, technology and economic prosperity provide to an unprecedented extent the means for protecting the environment and for repairing the environmental damage done. The implications of the complex interdependence between the environment and development were highlighted in two UN events of seminal importance ? the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (1972) and the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development (1992). The Rio summit launched important global agreements. The Climate Change Convention requires developed countries to cut down their "greenhouse gas" emissions in order to avoid the danger of global warming. The Biodiversity Convention provided an approach for conserving vital biological resources. Agenda 21was an ambitious action plan for promoting sustainable development on a global basis. Agreement was reached on the basic principles of sustainable development. A separate set of forestry principles was also agreed. The developed countries agreed to provide "new and additional" financial resources, over and above existing ODA flows though specific amounts were not pledged. World leaders are meeting in Johannesburg to review progress and, in the words of UN officials, to "bridge the implementation gap." The record of the past decade is disappointing. One of the few concrete follow-up measures to the Rio agreements was the conclusion in 1987 of the Kyoto Protocol, which set numerical targets for the emission reductions required of developed counties under the Climate Change Convention. Regrettably, however, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the US, has decided to turn its back on the accord. Australia has followed the American example, Canada is hesitating and Russia will not take a decision on ratification till the end of the year. It was hoped earlier that the entry into force of the protocol could be announced at Johannesburg but this will not be possible while Russia delays ratification. Agenda 21 suffered from a congenital infirmity. It failed to identify in specific terms the sources of financing of its ambitious programmes. It was, therefore, more of a wishlist than an action plan. Not surprisingly, there is a yawning gap between the aspirations of Agenda 21 and actual achievements to date. Most developed countries have failed to deliver on earlier promises of financial assistance. They had accepted a UN target of contributing 0.7 per cent of their GNP as Overseas Development Aid (ODA) to developing countries. At Rio, they agreed to provide, over and above ODA flows, "new and additional" financial resources for environmental protection. Far from meeting these targets, most donor countries have drastically reduced their aid budgets. Total ODA flows have declined from 0.35 per cent of GNP in 1972 to a mere 0.22 per cent in 1997. The promise of "new and additional" financial resources exists only on paper. What results can we realistically expect from Johannesburg? The prospects are not promising. A ministerial conference was held in Bali in July to hammer out an agreement but it made little headway. We can of course rely on UN wordsmiths to finally craft a grandiloquent declaration which will paper-over unresolved differences but this is likely to be stronger on rhetoric than substance. Many developed countries are simply not prepared to shoulder their responsibilities in addressing global environmental problems on the basis of the universally accepted principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". As a result, the Kyoto Protocol dealing with Climate Change is yet to enter into force. Nor has it been possible to make progress towards negotiating an international regime for ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity and its components. In a concerted move to seek commercial advantage, developed countries have proposed numerous formulations on perceived inter-linkages between trade and environment. The attempt is to give a push to their post-Doha WTO agenda. The developing countries have rightly objected to the slew of one-sided propositions. As a result, this section of the Johannesburg draft is littered with "square brackets" (indicating lack of agreement). On ODA, the summit will merely reiterate the agreement arrived in the Monterrey summit, held in March. This accord echoes the 0.7 per cent target but in such weak terms as to drain it of any residual operational significance. The major "innovation" at Johannesburg will be a supplementary "Type 2" agreement. This will consist of a long list of voluntary cooperation initiatives agreed between non-state partners (NGOs, private companies, etc.) or between a non-state entity and a government body. CEOs of multinational corporations and heads of other non-state institutions will actually participate in summit Round Tables. The list of "Type 2" accords is being compiled by the conference secretariat and it will not be negotiated at Johannesburg. It will be impressive in length even though it is unlikely to make more than a symbolic contribution to sustainable development. The real significance of the "Type 2" approach is that it will almost certainly be used as a beachhead for redefining the concept of "new and additional " financial resources. The Monterrey accord covered ODA flows, not "new and additional" flows. Nor is Johannesburg likely to make concrete provisions for such funds. The only non-ODA funds that are expected to emerge from it will be of the "Type 2" variety. This can easily open the door to a redefinition of "new and additional" flows to mean `Type 2' projects. Developing countries must ensure that this terminological redefinition is expressly excluded in the documents emerging from the summit.