The Earth Summit

The preparatory process was from the beginning skewed primarily to deal with "environment", largely to the exclusion of "development".

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, better known as "Earth Summit" had been convened by a 1989 Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. This action by the world body was in part a result of increasing international concern on global environmental issues, as reflected in the report of the Brundtland Commission (WCED), the Montreal Protocol and a number of other conferences and conventions. In large measure, however, the General Assembly was simply reacting to rapidly growing public pressure for more action on these issues, much of it reflected in the voices of independent and non-governmental organization all over the world.

In recognition of the close linkages between issues of environment and development, and at the insistence of developing countries, the global conference was to address both sets of issues: sustainable development, in the words of the World Conservation Strategy and WCED. The date set for UNCED, was June 1992 - to mark the 20th anniversary of the first global conference on environment, UNCHE, which took place at Stockholm in June 1972.

The two year "preparatory process" for the conference included five meetings in New York, Nairobi and Geneva, plus numerous special groups and negotiations on the two major conventions, Bio-diversity and Climate Change.

Despite unprecedented involvement (and pressure) of non-governmental organisations, this preparatory process was from the beginning skewed primarily to deal with "environment", largely to the exclusion of "development" . The delegations of developed countries felt that development issues were adequately addressed in other forums, and for UNCED to succeed, it must focus on the new issues of global significance. Southern delegations, on the other hand, tried to bring the problems of development and the inter-national economy into the discussions, but were not forceful enough to succeed. In the end, the agenda was largely written by the northern delegations, naturally with a northern bias.

To complicate the negotiations further, even the "North" and the "South" were not, within themselves homogenous groups. Each presented a range of views and approaches, many of them irreconcilable. while European Governments, particularly those of the Nordics, were willing to make major policy and financial commitments for a better environment, other (like the United States) were highly reluctant to do so. Among the developing countries, there was a broad consensus that the current international economic regime is largely responsible for not only the problems of poverty but also the threats to global environmental values.

The more fundamental issues of the links between population, resources, environment and development hardly came up for discussion, except in the more philosophical moments of the debate in which the delegations of India and China were frequent participants.

The major breakthrough in the practice of international negotiations came in the gradual but inexorable growth of involvement in the official discussions by NGOs. This was the one issue in which the usual tables were turned: it was the Northern delegations who were the "good guys". Most developing countries expressed major reservations about NGOs in the discussions. However, as the preparatory process progressed , the value of substantive inputs form outside agencies became increasingly apparent and by the time of the Fourth PrepCom in March, 1992 at New York, NGOs were firmly inside the process. Many countries that had earlier resisted, even brought some NGOs on their official delegation to the Earth Summit. The Indian delegation, for instance, had five. Unfortunately, the over-emphasis on security measures, the remoteness of RioCentro and a general mistaken sense of propriety in the presence of so many Heads of States, led to a virtual closing of doors at the Earth Summit meetings themselves.

The fundamental issues that will need to be dealt with for any sustainable future were largely ignored at the Earth Summit . None of the official outcomes of the conference dealt with any of the basic changes needed in consumption and production patterns, in personal lifestyles or in value systems. The issues of population growth and urban habitats were as peripheral to the discussions as the need for new forms of education.

While everyone agreed that environmental technologies must be more widely acceptable and that financial resources to obtain these must be made available, few of those who had the technologies and financial resources made any commitment in this direction. ultimately, the major gap left unfulfilled by the Conference was the inability of the international community to recognise and act upon the basic links between poverty, resource, environment and development.

Despite a valiant and highly skilful two year effort by the Secretary General, Maurice Strong, his deputy, Nitin Desai, and their colleagues in the conference secretariat, the official conferees at Rio were not able to react meaningfully to the gravity of the issues they had met to deal with . They have proved that the future cannot be left to governments alone. the great value of the Earth summit was that it begins a whole new era in which the public and, on their behalf, independent organisation will have a growing and more central say in decision making.


by Ashok Khosla

0.

Back to Contents