An International Jamboree

In the last week of June, heads of states and prime ministers will meet once again to review the progress that the world has made on the environmental front. The meet will be held as part of a special session of the United Nations general assembly. It will review the progress various countries have made over the last five years on the Rio conference commitments.

UNGASS, as the special session of the General Assembly is to be called, is quite likely to deteriorate into a typical UN conference generating a lot of hot air. Given that little progress has been made in either reducing greenhouse gas emissions or in protecting biodiversity, non-government organisations (NGOs) are describing the last five years not as Rio+5 but as Rio-5. While hundreds of objectives were put forward for good environmental management, protection of the atmosphere and biodiversity were two key objectives agreed upon at the Rio summit.

 

Several problems have emerged in the intervening years. For one, governments from both the North and South have repeatedly come to such meetings evincing greater interest in saving their national economies than in saving the worlds ecology. They are unwilling to accept any ecological responsibilities that will impose a heavy economic burden on them and so end up negotiating for minimum strictures at the lowest possible cost.

The United States government, for instance, is the biggest offender in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It would have to substantially increase its energy prices to reduce these emissions, but is extremely reticent about accepting any timebound targets for reducing these emissions. In fact the US (one of the worlds biggest users of genetic resources from the South), has not even ratified the biodiversity convention. And OPEC countries, fearing reduction in oil demand, have also opposed all moves to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.

Another problem coming in the way of working towards the Rio commitments has been the total failure of developing countries to come up with proposals on managing the worlds environment. As one observer from India put it, If Indians dont have a vision about how to manage its own environment, how can we expect them to have a vision to manage the worlds environment. Quite true, but in the existing scenario, countries like India adopt a standard obstructionist policy to every proposal, inevitably put forward by the North.

The first principle of southern global green diplomacy seems to be: Be difficult. The standard line is: We did not create the problem, you did. So why are you asking us to do anything?

The response from the North is: But with your economic growth and changing consumption patterns, even if you are not an environmental criminal today, you will be one tomorrow. On reading between the lines it becomes clear that the argument is that if developing countries do not join the effort to save the ecology, then industrialised countries alone will have to bear the cost of being environment friendly and will, thereby, become less competitive in the global economy. But with public opinion building up in favour of doing something, leaders in the North are under tremendous pressure to act.

As a result, negotiations quickly turn into business deals. Developing countries churn out the standard line: We are prepared to do anything you want but give us three things a grace period to make the change, promise of technology transfer and financial assistance. The North agrees, knowing full well that it is not going to part either with the money or the technology. The South happily signs on the dotted line. Newspapers publicise the agreement and everybody goes home happy. Five years later, someone else has to explain the non-action.

The biggest reason for such an irresponsible attitude towards international commitments lies in the very process by which they are drawn up. Most of these agreements (rather business transactions) are finalised in faraway capitals, with very little or no media reportage of the actual negotiations. As a result NGOs, activists et al have very little information on what is actually happening. Nor are they in any position to influence discussions. Thus, governments are under no pressure to weigh their words.

For instance, does anybody know what the Indian delegation said at the Commission on Sustainable Developments annual meeting which concluded in New York this April?

The entire international environmental process has thus become extremely non-transparent (even though technically NGOs can attend the meetings). But there is a lot at stake. Not only do we have to ensure good environmental management for our survival but we also have to do it in a just and fair manner.

The civil society of every nation will have to empower itself and make its government accountable and responsible. And they will have to make a special effort to monitor what is happening in the national and global environment scenario, analyse the fine print and push governments to take appropriate positions. It is certainly a tall order but in a globalising world there are no simple options.