The Elusive Saviours
Chapter 2: The North and the South in the global environmental
debate
Selective awareness of the global
environmental problem in the North
Since the industrial disasters in Bhopal (Union Carbide),
Basel (Sandoz) and the nuclear power plants in Chernobyl, the rich countries
of the North have experienced a massive growth in awareness of the risks
of modern chemical technology. Most attention has been focused on the public
health risks involved in the chemical industry. This is an industry which
has developed on a large-scale right in the middle of, or close to, urban
areas. Governments have translated this increased awareness into regulations
and legislation concerning disaster plans, risk analyses and safety measures.
Take for example the European Community's post-Seveso guideline:
-
The Seveso guideline: An example of a binding regulation
The Seveso guideline was effected in the
EC in 1984, and requires that member states ensure that companies calculate
risks, develop a disaster plan and actively inform the local population.
Translated into the Dutch context: 74 Dutch chemical industries are now
obliged to inform local people of the external risks of their activities.
They had to draw up an External Safety Report which included a description
of the production process, and an analysis of the risks.
Besides the risk of industrial disasters, the 1980s
saw an increase in awareness of the problems of acid rain, the greenhouse
effect and the consequences of the hole in the ozone layer. Renewed attention
focused on the threat of extinction to many species of animals and plants
and the value of "biodiversity". It became generally accepted that not
only the immediate, but also the international environment was threatened.
For the first time, people seriously looked at what was happening beyond
their own borders and discovered that tropical rainforests - the lungs
of the world - were at risk of extinction. They discovered that the levels
of CO2 emissions were so high that the world had been
transformed into a greenhouse, and realized that CFCs were responsible
for an expanding hole in the ozone layer. People realized - as the Club
of Rome and Meadows had already discovered - that there are limits not
only to our raw materials, but also to other natural resources: soil, air,
water, flora and fauna.
The optimistic theory of sustainable
development
The gravity of the global environmental threat threw
up solutions which can be summed up in the catchphrase "sustainable development,"
which, since the publication of the United
Nations' World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our
Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report) has been
assimilated into the North's philosophy on the relationship between environment
and economy.
At the base of this concept lies the notion that
environmental conservation and economic growth can be combined, and that
ecological considerations should become integrated into all political and
economic decisions. Regarding the environment, its use, reparation and
maintenance, as "natural" capital, became viewed as not necessarily in
conflict with the aims of economic development. The North assumes that
this growth-optimistic vision can be applied world-wide.
-
Sustainable development?
The term "sustainable development" was
first introduced in 1980 in the "World Conservation Strategy", a
plan created by the IUCN and the World Wildlife Fund. It only came into
wide usage, however, after publication of the so-called Brundtland Report,
which defined it as: "development which meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs".
Sustainable means no reductions to the environmental
capital:
-
that the extent of the worlds available resources (for
example the amount of land available for agriculture) is not reduced,
-
that the system of ecological regeneration remains intact
(for example that agricultural land is given sufficient time to lay fallow),
-
and the biological diversity and resilience of ecosystems
is respected.
Theoretically, this implies an end to the dichotomy
between economic growth and a clean (or cleaner) environment. No longer
can negative environmental effects be regarded as irrelevant. Only sustainable/clean
growth is acceptable growth.
Sustainable development has become a container term.
A World Bank report noted 60 different
definitions. Ecologists describe it as the: "harmonious relationship between
the population and nature, the conservation of the integrity of ecology
and a humane existence."
Others see "sustainable" in the light of present
production and consumption. What, then, are the possibilities for keeping
this intact and/or continuing growth? Critics, particularly from the South,
argue that current activities described as "sustainable" are aimed, instead,
at growth - or serve that purpose - and will remain so as long as the problem
of poverty and unequal distribution remains.
Despite the diversity in definitions, there is a
reasonable degree of agreement as to the necessary conditions for embarking
on
"sustainable development":
-
the development and introduction of production techniques
and policy instruments which reduce pollution
-
the development and introduction of techniques for recycling
wastes and non-renewable products (closing cycles)
-
severe limitations on the total use of non-renewable
resources and the use of renewable resources (on condition they continue
to be regenerated)
-
the reduction of polluting and "natural resource-intensive"
consumption patterns.
It seems unlikely that a start will be made in applying
these conditions (particularly the third and fourth ones) in the short
term.
Global environmental problems
and consumption patterns
It is not difficult to understand the popularity of
the theory of sustainable development in the North. While it has, on the
one hand, precipitated a revolution in ideas on patterns of economic progress,
it also confirms that, in its patterns of consumption, the highly industrialized
world is addicted to growth. The theory recognizes that environmental measures
are needed to create a sustainable economy, and, at the same time, promises
that this can be achieved without loss of wealth or welfare.
It sounds too good to be true. It is a false perspective.
This is clearly illustrated by the practice of world energy management.
If we look closer at our energy supply - the best measurement of economic
growth and welfare - we see that it is not possible to maintain or even
reduce CO2 emissions in world energy production while
aspiring, at the same time, to provide every citizen in the world with
the same amount of energy per capita as the average north American citizen.
-
The unequal responsibility for the greenhouse effect
The three hundred scientists from forty different
countries that comprise the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in their report "Climate Change:
The IPCC Scientific Assessment" that the only way to avert an ecologically
disastrous warming of the earth is to drastically reduce carbon dioxide
emissions (60% relative to the 1990 level). In September 1994 the IPCC
meeting in Maastricht reaffirmed this view. <1>
The greenhouse problem is directly caused by
emissions of a number of gases including CO2, the
bulk of which are due to the large quantity of emissions in highly industrialized
countries. The so-called "stock effect" is important in looking
at the problem of CO2 emissions. This term refers
to the amount of pollution the earth can cope with before negative environmental
effects are activated, a threshhold that has long been crossed, so that,
at present, reductions in CO2 and SO2
emissions will not immediately lead to less environmental pollution and
the reversal of the greenhouse effect.
In general, drastic reductions of 70 to 95 per cent
in emissions are needed to combat environmental problems caused by the
present stock of polluting substances. <2>
The scale on which change is needed means that whole sectors will have
to change dramatically before any improvement will be seen.
Estimated cumulative industrial CO2
output by continent <3> |
In gigatons carbon and percentages |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
|
1960/1989 |
% |
1980/1989 |
% C of A |
Far East |
6,903 |
3 |
3,077 |
45 |
Central economies in Asia |
12,114 |
6 |
5,385 |
44 |
Middle East |
3,586 |
2 |
1,538 |
43 |
Africa |
4,520 |
2 |
1,538 |
34 |
Eastern Europe |
47,184 |
23 |
15,385 |
33 |
Oceania and Japan |
9,932 |
5 |
3,077 |
31 |
South- and Middle-America |
7,697 |
4 |
2,308 |
30 |
Western Europe |
41,926 |
20 |
7,692 |
18 |
United States |
67,671 |
33 |
12,308 |
18 |
Northern America outside the USA |
4,877 |
2 |
769 |
16 |
Total |
206,410 |
100 |
53,077 |
26 |
The Northern and the Southern Agenda
for the 21st century
Armed with the theory of sustainable development, the
world community met at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 to draw up
a political agenda for the 21st century to end non-sustainable development
through a series of wide-ranging measures. During the preparations, it
had become painfully apparent that the agenda of the North was very different
to that of the South, in that its starting point was not redistribution
and equality, either in relation to people or the environment. In the words
of Anil Agarwal, director of the Centre for Science and Environment, New
Delhi:
"No discussion took place - in Brazil - on environment
and aid, environment and trade, environment and poverty, environment and
wealth and environment and patterns of consumption." <4>
While non-governmental organizations were deeply
involved in the preparations, the final meeting was a meeting of states,
the agencies responsible for fulfilling the agreements.
According to resolution 44/228 of the United
Nations, the conference was meant to deal with:
-
Protection of the atmosphere by combating climate change,
the destruction of the ozone layer and cross-border air pollution
-
Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources
-
Protection of the oceans and all types of seas
-
Protection and management of land supplies by combating
deforestation and desertification
-
Conservation of biological diversity
-
Environmentally sound management of biotechnology
-
Environmentally sound management of wastes, in particular
toxic wastes
At the preparatory meetings, the following "cross-sectoral
issues", or themes, relating to all of the above points, were added
to the list. Countries in the South, in particular, emphasized that in
order to come to an integrated approach, these themes had to be discussed:
-
Patterns of production and consumption
-
Access to and transference of environmentally sound
technology
-
Mechanisms of financing
-
Legal aspects
-
"Human Resource Development", in particular education
and training
-
Economic instruments
-
Guaranteed sustainable food supply
-
Institutional facilities, and new structures in order
to integrate environmental and economic development into decision making
processes
-
The improvement of the living and working conditions
of the poor in urban and rural districts by dispersing with poverty and
improving the quality of life.
The goal of UNCED
was to agree to an "Earth Charter", a sort of declaration of the
rights of the environment, draw up an action plan for the future, called
Agenda
21, and finalise two conventions, a on world-wide climate change (the
greenhouse effect) and biodiversity.
Money in exchange for a clean environment
At the UNCED
preparatory meetings, it became only too clear that the Third World's environmental
problems are closely entwined with the old problems of poverty and wealth.
Much of the poverty in the South and the resulting environmental problems
are the result of the inequitable workings of the economic system devised
by the industrialized countries of the North.
"As recent reports of the World
Bank, the United Nations Development
Programme and others show, the poor developing countries now actually
measurably subsidize the rich countries through structural adjustment and
regimes of export-led growth, inequitable barriers to trade, low commodity
prices and the now seemingly endless regime of debt repayments. All this
adds up to a considerable net resources transfer from South to North."
<5>
From the perspective of the underdeveloped and poor
countries of the South, the foremost environmental problems are the major,
everyday ecological problems caused by underdevelopment and poverty, such
as: the lack of clean drinking water, infertile soil as a result of erosion,
salinification, the decreasing level of the water table, immense air pollution
in the cities and the mounds of toxic waste in their back yards. In this
part of the world, it is a luxury to include ecological considerations
in political-economic decision-making processes. They hold the North as
first and foremost responsible for global problems such as ocean pollution
and the destruction of the ozone layer. Niala Maharaj summed up this view
as follows:
"It is your skin cancer. Solve the problem yourself.
Our problems are the measles, whooping cough and even bubonic plague."
(De Volkskrant, 9 November 1991)
Despite its raised consciousness of the global environmental
problem, the North still shows no interest in the everyday problems of
the Third World. The North still regards these as "their" problems.
For centuries, the North has treated nature as a useful resource. Only
recently has it begun to look at "Nature" as a communal area, the
so-called "global-commons". Attention is given to the pollution
of the oceans, the atmosphere, space and the poles, as well as to the destruction
of our tropical rainforests and other areas rich in biodiversity. People
in the North have recently begun to regard these areas which are essential
in the natural regeneration of the global ecosystem as "communal heritage
for humanity". They are less interested in local environmental problems.
Political discussions on solutions therefore tend to concentrate on the
global management of these areas.
Most of the commons, however, are situated on nationally
controlled territory in countries in the South. Understandably, these countries
regard any Northern involvement in the management of these areas as illicit
meddling in home affairs.
In a declaration published in Crosscurrents,
38 NGOs from 25 countries stated that they:
"were concerned that the introduction of the concepts
of 'global commons' and 'communal heritage for humanity', if they do not
include the protection of the rights of rural populations, would lead to
an increase in the amount of control exercised by the North and particularly
by transnational corporations over the natural resources of the South."
<6>
It is not surprising, against the background of economic
inequality and poverty, that governments in the South demand that the North
finances the extensive, world-wide environmental measures directed toward
the conservation of the commons.
During the preparatory negotiations for UNCED,
Malaysian government representatives stated bluntly:
"If you do not want to discuss the development
demands, we will not discuss the environment. If we die, we will all die."
<7>
-
Environmental degradation hits hardest in the South
There are several reasons why environmental degradation
hits hardest in the South:
-
Due to the burden of short-term problems, environmental
problems and particularly possible long-term environmental consequences
receive less government attention.
-
Environmental legislation in the South is generally
not as advanced as in the North and lacks in particular institutional support.
There are, in other words, too few organizations and services to control
and carry out the law.
-
One of the consequences of the poverty and inequitable
distribution of wealth characteristic of Third World countries is the absence
of effective environmental measures. The result can be disastrous. Many
people cannot read or write and cannot therefore read product instructions
and safety instructions. They do not have the tools to be able to inform
themselves of the possible dangers and problems, even if this information
is provided. Employees are often not adequately trained to understand the
dangers of work which is possibly dangerous to the environment or their
own health.
-
Another aspect of poverty in Third World countries is
the number of children working in factories and mines. Children are much
less aware of dangerous situations in their labour conditions, and they
certainly are unable to read the safety instructions.
-
Health and health care, certainly in the poorer sections
of the population, is inadequate. As a result, peoples' health is more
susceptible to the effects of environmental pollution, and victims have
less access to care.
-
Poverty also means that in many countries there are
no financial reserves for actually providing environmental protection.
Drainage systems in many areas are, for example, either badly constructed
or non-existent. The water which people rely on for their everyday use
is unclean. Toxic goods often have to be transported over badly kept roads,
with the unsurprising result of serious mishap.
-
Scarcity of finance in the South seriously hinders research
into solutions to environmental problems, so there are fewer barriers to
the establishment of certain (polluting) production activities than in
the North.
-
Generally speaking, there are fewer organizations raising
public awareness of environmental questions in the Third World. The Chipko-movement
in India (Save the Trees) and the large opposition movements to
factories which produce radioactive wastes in Thailand and Malaysia are
among the best known exceptions, but they often work under more difficult
conditions than their counterparts in the North. Most work at the grassroots
level and most have, as yet, little political say. This is largely a result
of the fact that, at least in the short term, most of the problems mainly
effect the poor.
-
A final reason for the greater susceptibility of Third
World countries to environmental pollution is the fragility of the natural
balance there. Mercury discharges resulting from gold panning in the Amazon
rainforest have been disastrous. Insecticides threaten to poison huge areas
of desert.
Is there life after UNCED?
We know what happened at UNCED.
According to the Climate Agreement, emissions of greenhouse gases will
be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2000. No agreement was reached on
specific reduction aims for decreases in the emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) and the other gases. That is a step backwards
from the 1988 Toronto climate conference, where a 20 per cent reduction
in CO2 emissions relative to a base year to be determined
in 2005 was agreed. The developed and underdeveloped world were not able
to agree on a definition of the prase "joint implementation of the convention".
It wasn't until April 22, 1994, that U.S. President
Bill Clinton signed the Biodiversity Convention
and presented it to the House of Representatives for ratification. The
Bush government had refused to sign it during UNCED,
arguing that it would restrain biotechnological development and undermine
intellectual property rights.
The Biodiversity Convention
One of the most important issues in the discussions
on the Biodiversity Convention was
the distribution of the products of biodiversity. Genetic information present
in plants and animals can be invaluable to commercial and non-commercial
biotechnological research. At the present time, however, no mechanism exists
for returning the profits made with the help of this information to the
countries and population groups which are responsible for the conservation
of the plants and animals concerned. Unfortunately, the negotiators were
not able to agree to effective, mandatory solutions. The agreement was
only able to state that parties have the right to demand that genetic material
be exported under permit, and that parties can demand a share in the profits,
either in the form of financial remuneration or in (bio)technological cooperation.
The Bush administration openly spoke of protecting
corporate interests. As "intellectual property rights" was regulated
to the satisfaction of the international (Northern) business world in the
GATT agreement of April
13, 1994, this argument was no longer relevant to the Clinton administration.
The Bush administration also argued that the proposed measures would cost
money which the US preferred to spend on combating domestic unemployment.
While some funding became available for the protection of rainforests,
the proposed Rainforest Convention never got off the ground. In its place
came the non-binding Forest
Declaration. As well-worded as the 600-plus page Agenda
21 is, unlike other conventions it does not commit its signatories
to any firm course of action and cannot live up to its subtitle: "a
blueprint for action".
The slow implementation of the UNCED
agreements
The process of implementing the watered down UNCED
conventions has been slow. In November 1992 the General Meeting of the
United Nations established the Commission
for Sustainable Development (CSD) whose first substantial meeting took
place in June 1993, when 53 member-states discussed the Secretary General's
proposal for monitoring the progress of implementation of Rio agreements
and set a deadline for its work, 1996.
Developing a financing mechanism for the implementation
of the UNCED
conventions in developing countries turned out to be a laborious process.
After 16 months of negotiations between representatives of more than 80
countries, an agreement was reached and signed on March 16, 1994 in Geneva.
The Commission appropriated the already existing Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) as the interim financing mechanism for
the UNCED
Conventions relating to biodiversity and climate change.
Various Northern countries agreed to donate a total
of to billion dollars for this purpose between 1994 and 1996. While this
is not much money in relation to the size of the global environmental problem,
it is already clear that it will be difficult to find development projects
which fulfil the criterium of "sustainable development" and profit from
this funding. See appendix 2 for these and
other critical notes on the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF).
By January 1994, of the 166 countries that
had signed the climate convention,
only 53 countries had ratified it (a minimum of 50 was needed to set the
convention in motion). These countries are eligible for participation in
the first Conference of Parties
to the Climate Convention in Berlin, which only took place in 1995
because of the slow pace of the ratification process. And ratification
is only the first step in implementing the convention. Adaptation to national
rules and regulations is the next step. It is not always clear what that
should involve as there are many vagaries and very few aspects are actually
discussed in the convention.
Meanwhile an intergovernmental commission began
negotiations for the 1995 conference. Representatives of non-governmental
organizations campaigned for the acceptance of the 20 per cent CO2
emission reduction goal set by the Toronto conference in 1988 and try to
gain clarity on the concept of "Joint Implementation". They wanted
to establish the level of participation of both developed countries and
underdeveloped countries in the reduction goals, as well as the position
of the Newly Industrialized Countries. The Conference also discussed establishing
its own financing mechanism and a system of observation. In the end, the
Berlin Climate Conference did not succeed in establishing reduction goals.
The transnational corporation as
redeeming angel
The incapacities of the world politic and the tremendous
differences in positions between the North and the South has caused more
and more governments and politicians to turn to the transnational corporate
community for assistance. But what can the transnational corporations do
if politics fail? Are they the angels of environmental redemption? Can
they fulfil this role?
The corporate viewpoint was clear and totally in
agreement with the results of UNCED,
namely, that binding global environmental measures for international
business be avoided. With the help of an extensive public relations
campaign, top managers of the world's largest corporations informed UNCED
participants and the general public that they had voluntarily chosen
to embark on the road to "sustainability". To do this they need
economic growth, free trade and open markets. Profit making and
environmental protection can be combined, they argue, in a system in which
the damage to natural resources is compensated in the cost price of goods,
and in which nature is patented. According to the influential lobbying
organization, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, this is
the road to a sustainable future.
As the Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva put it:
"Governments have distanced themselves from their
responsibilities. As of now, it is a fight between transnationals and citizens."
The international business community's
successful lobby during UNCED
The choice for Maurice Strong - a Canadian businessman
and multi-millionaire - as Secretary General of the UNCED
was an early sign of the influence of the international business community
on this conference. In the early preparatory stages, Strong appointed the
Swiss captain of industry, Stephen Schmidheiny, to be the most important
advisor for business and industry, and he approached 48 top managers, of
corporations including DuPont, Shell,
Dow Chemical, Ciba-Geigy
and Mitshubishi, to form the Business Council for Sustainable Development
(BCSD), which published a book, Changing Course before UNCED
began, outlining their proposals.
As UNCED
opened, Strong told Schmidheiny in front of scores of reporters: "No
contribution <to UNCED> has been more important than yours (i.e. BCSD)."
<8>
He also remarked that he held the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), a major lobby against binding environmental
measures, in "high esteem". Approximately half of the corporations
in the BCSD were represented on the ICC's board of directors, a board which
was partly responsible for the failure of the detailed proposals presented
by Norway and Sweden, advocating binding environmental measures, at the
preparatory meeting of UNCED
in New York. At the end, the final concept of Agenda
21 did not include any proposals controlling the multinationals, but
stressed rather the role of the business community and industry in environmental
protection and the importance of the voluntary measures they had already
taken.
In a perfect division of roles, the task of the BCSD
was to show the public the environmentally friendly face of the international
corporate community, and even to promote calculating the environmental
costs in the price of goods. Meanwhile the ICC surreptitiously lobbied
with all its might against inclusion of measures in Agenda
21 which would make this possible.
The international business community also set up
lobbying organizations on various subject areas to keep a finger on the
UNCED pulse.
An example is the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) which worked diligently
on influencing politicians who were in favour off reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions. As a result, UNCED
failed to develop a Climate Convention
obliging signatory countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
International corporations such as Asahi Glass,
Atlantic Richfield, ICI, Swatch and 3M
also influenced UNCED
in indirect and subtle ways. These corporations were the most important
donors to the Ecofund, a non-profit organization working from Washington
DC, set up to help finance the UNCED.
Global Forum, the alternative environmental conference for non-governmental
organizations, also received money from the business community.
By the time UNCED
drew to a close, functionaries of transnational corporations breathed sighs
of relief. They could now embark on a period of free-market international
environmental protection without the involvement of national governments
in their business activities. With little hindrance from environmentalists,
they were now free and well equipped to continue working through their
full agenda load for the GATT
negotiations (on the liberalization of world trade).
Spurred on by its own successes, the Business Council
for Sustainable Development, originally created as a one-off coalition
of 48 captains of industry for the duration of the UNCED
process, decided to continue operations. It now acts as the conscience
of the international business community. Hugh Faulkner, president director
of the BCSD, commented:
We will be working with other groups and sectors
to try and promote the change in policy, in corporate governance and various
areas which are preconditions to sustainable development. <9>
He referred emphatically to the GATT:
We have to make clear to the world and the politicians
that there is a higher order of public interest in this point.
Before we discuss the actual importance of GATT
for the environment, and transnational interests within this, the following
chapters will firstly analyze the involvement and the role of transnational
corporations in the creation of and solutions to the world's environmental
problems.
Summary
With their optimistic theories of sustainable development,
Northern politicians argue that it is possible to develop in a sustainable
way without risking wealth and welfare, in other words, without fundamental
changes in patterns of consumption and production. The North focuses its
attention on the problems of the commons, such as tropical rainforests,
which it views as the common heritage of humanity, essential in the natural
regeneration of the global ecosystem. Political discussions on the solutions
to global environmental problems are directed towards possible forms of
global management of these areas.
During UNCED
it became increasingly apparent that this was a false perspective. The
primary environmental problem from the perspective of underdeveloped and
poor countries in the South is the tremendous, everyday ecological problem
which is linked to underdevelopment and poverty. This takes a variety of
forms: lack of clean drinking water; infertile soil due to erosion, salification
and receding water tables; air pollution in the cities and mounds of toxic
waste surrounding human habitats. In political-economic decision-making
processes, ecological considerations are luxury items. According to the
South, the North is primarily responsible for such world-wide problems
as the pollution of the ocean and the destruction of the ozone layer. The
commons are mostly found within the borders of countries of the
South, and they resist the North's interference as unlawful meddling in
or on their national territory.
These differences in position between the North
and the South led to a situation where more and more governments and politicians
looked to the international business community rather than governments
as the redeemer. The BCSD, a one-off coalition of 48 captains of large
transnational corporations, lobbied intensively to achieve this, and by
the time UNCED
came to a close, the transnational corporations were able to draw deep
sighs of relief in the knowledge that they could embark on an era of free-market
international environmental protection without the interference of international
governing bodies.
Comments and questions are welcome:
CONTRAST Advies - Milieu
Sint Ansfridusstraat 39
3817 BE Amersfoort
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-33-4652806
Fax: +31-33-4659711
Back to the table of contents
Back to the homepage
of CONTRAST Advies - Milieu
©
CONTRAST Advies 1998 - Last change of this page: March 15, 1998