UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION: WESTCHESTER CHAPTER

What Progress Have We Made in Protecting the Global Environment?:
An Update on the Earth Summit in Rio

Chuck Lankester

3 May, 1998

---

Contents

• Introduction
• What Happened in Rio

- Convention on Climate Change
- Convention on Biological Diversity
- Convention to Combat Desertification
- Statement of Forest Principles
- Capacity 21
- Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)

• UNGASS

• Aid, Trade and Subsidies

• Conclusions

- The US Position
- The Global Perspective

Introduction

• Thanks for the invitation.
• Engaged in international environmental work in one way or another for about 30 years, although not for the past 6 years , which explains why I need a text to make sure I get the numbers correct. I will post this text on www3.undp.org tomorrow for those who may be interested. I need though to immediately correct the prestigious title you gave me in the flyer. I simply direct the Sustainable Development Networking Programme.
• I am a guest in your country, but a neighbor. And I think neighbors can speak candidly about what is occurring, and sometimes critically, so I should make it clear that I am here in my personal capacity. And I do realize this is fundamentally a supportive audience.
• I will review what occurred in Rio; examine some of the post Rio accomplishments and failures, especially regarding the four conventions and protocols, and review other initiatives in training and information technology.
• I am not going to provide details this afternoon of several other subject areas where some progress has been made to more efficiently address the challenge of making sustainable development less of an effort and more business as usual. The list would include the UN reform package proposed and under implementation by the Secretary General; progress regarding fresh water, health, making trade and the environment mutually supportive; disposal of toxic chemicals and radio-active wastes; disaster prevention; the Convention on the Law of the Sea; preparation of a set of indicators to measure progress in achieving sustainable development; and the transfer of technology.
• I will conclude with an attempted summary of the challenges facing the community of nations and the United States in particular, and offer some personal conclusions. Laying out the successes and failures is stodgy stuff and provides little opportunity to slip in some raunchy jokes to keep you on your toes. Hopefully by laying out the facts we can have a stimulating question and answer period, but in case not the infamous black helicopter is outside in the parking lot ready to whip me back to world government headquarters.

 
What happened in Rio:

We should recall the debate, intense at times, about whether Rio was to be an environmental meeting, the 20^th year after Stockholm, or a deliberate linking of environmental and developmental issues. The US lobbied vigorously for the former, but was fortunately unsuccessful.
 
In Rio 178 nations, most led by their Head of State, came together and ecologists, economists and politicians started serious discussions about development paradigms and the fate of Planet Earth. Of course there were a few other species in the wings like foresters, geneticists and planners, but those first three disciplines I mentioned were centre-stage.
 
And a parallel meeting of the NGOs, often more rambunctious, more sincere and more focused also occurred.
 
Outputs were the Declaration of Rio and Agenda 21, the latter being a comprehensive global plan of action to implement the Declaration. And each government was encouraged to prepare its own National Agenda 21 and to date some 80 have done so. I will circulate one example from China, the result of two years of work by some 52 institutions drawn from the public and private sectors, universities and research institutions, and GONGOS or government non-governmental organizations, forerunners of what will be an NGO growth industry in China.
 
Rio produced the most comprehensive and far-reaching programme ever laid out for the future of Planet Earth. And the fact that the agreements were reached by virtually all of the nations, most represented at the highest level, provides unprecedented political authority.
 
In Rio we lost our innocence. Let's start a pre and post Rio evaluation by considering the

Convention on Climate Change
 

This was a heavy item, yet despite the scientific controversy exposed there, and which continues, 150 nations signed the Convention including the USA.
 
As of March 1994, 50 nations had ratified the Convention, thus leading to the Berlin Conference of Parties in April 1995 and the initiation of the Kyoto Protocol Process. Today 160 nations have ratified, but not the USA. Since the Protocol will only come into force when 55 countries and countries representing 55% of OECD countries' emissions have ratified we are to all intents and purposes stuck, because the US counts for an incredible 40% of emissions from OECD countries. The Kyoto Protocol was opened for ratification last month, a dozen nations have ratified, many are expected to ratify shortly. US ratification is crucial.
 
It is important to note that the target of stabilizing emissions in the year 2000 at the 1990 levels presently looks as if it will be fulfilled by only three nations: Germany, which is a flawed situation since inefficient East German industries were included in their emissions calculations and the same industries have been forced to close because they cannot compete in the market-place. Denmark, a genuine case of compliance, [and a nation by the way that contributes 100 times more on a per capita basis to my organization, the UN Development Programme, than the USA]; and Great Britain, where Maggie Thatcher pretty well killed off the coal industry. The Netherlands is a possible fourth and genuine compliant.
 
The US position is complex. Strings include:

• the right to trade carbon emissions and here Russia is where the action is since they have closed or are closing many WWII industries that are not competitive in today's marketplace, yet those factory emissions, like those in East Germany, were counted in Russia's emissions load; and
• the issue of the developing countries which do not bear responsibility for today's situation and wanted exemption from controls yet which the US insists take steps to reduce their emissions.

 
And all this is clouded by better, though not irrefutable, science, and often confusing analyses by proponents and opponents of the Protocol. If anyone here was in Kyoto and witnessed the vigorous and orchestrated lobbying by US industries, armed with their daily breakfast sound-bites, you will not have been surprised by reports in the press last week of a fundraising initiative spear-headed by the petroleum industry, to lobby the American public with select scientific data that what is occurring is only a statistical aberration and there is no credible scientific evidence that climate change is occurring. Put aside cynicism: what scares me is that their war chest may dwarf the Administration's efforts to get the real message out to the American public, and I quote President Clinton in the General Assembly of the UN: "We must first convince the American people and the Congress that the climate change problem is real and immense."
 
The US Administration must labor mightily against an alliance of Western fossil fuel interests, some, though not all, of the petroleum companies and some labor unions who have been told that jobs will be lost, which is not by the way consistent with evidence to date. I will risk controversy here by predicting signature by the US to the Protocol early in 1999, following the Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in November this year, with ratification being contingent on the prognosis of the Presidential Election in the autumn of the year 2000.
 
 
To summarize, a critical component of the global Rio agenda is being held hostage by the actions of US lobby groups. Citizens need to be better informed, and quickly, and to speak-out accordingly
 
Moving now to the

Convention on Biological Diversity

Again this was a key item in the preparatory conferences leading to and at Rio, indeed like the Climate Change Convention the document was opened there for signature. In retrospect the Convention was extraordinarily ambitious, comprehensive and covered many unsolved issues, yet there was a consensus among states to "fly it by the seat of the pants" and address these issues as they became clearer, rather than withholding action. This was courageous and wise, since some issues such as trade of genetically modified organisms are still under study.
 
The Convention was thus agreed notwithstanding the belief of several developing countries that there was green gold (environmental money) in the production and sale of indigenous products of value to the consuming nations, for example the well known rosy periwinkle from Madagascar with its cancer inhibiting characteristics. In retrospect this anticipated benefit was greatly over-estimated, but the point is that the developing nations also signed despite uncertainties.
 
This convention was already ratified by December 1994 and today has been signed by 170 nations. The USA has not, however, ratified the convention. I don't pretend to fully understand the shifting tides of your debate. Initially the pharmaceutical industries were in opposition, but I understand their resistance has diminished and resistance is now centered on a well financed lobby by western ranchers who are concerned about property rights and any perceived or real threat of restrictions on their subsidized grazing rights on Federal lands.
 
The US has taken a generally proactive and positive role despite the failure to ratify. Well informed US delegations participate in debates and the US has been one major contributor to the Global Environment Fund (GEF), a forerunner of the Rio process, now spending roughly US$ 1 billion per year, of which roughly 40% goes to programmes on biodiversity. However, let me also note that US payments are roughly $270 million in arrears of the last $400 million that was pledged.
 
Before moving on, three personal observations.

• I have no idea how ratification of this convention will play out in the forthcoming 1998 or year 2000 electoral campaigns here in the USA;
• I find US institutions even less informed about this convention than the Convention on climate change; and
• thirdly, to draw attention to an article on the front page of the New York Times about 4 weeks ago which estimated one of every eight species of wild flowers in the world and one of every three in the US is facing extinction. That is very scary to me because I can recall just ten years ago the uphill battle to persuade decision makers that the loss of an estimated ten forms of life each day was already morally and technically unacceptable.

 
Those of you interested in the complexity of the process will find the Decisions of the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties interesting and I will circulate this copy.

The Convention to Combat Desertification

This was not included at Rio, but forcefully raised there by African delegations as their priority.
 
The text was adopted in June 1994 and the convention opened for signature in Paris in October 1996. The convention came into force in December 1996 with 50 governments ratifying. Today 103 governments have ratified, one notable exception being the USA. Perhaps President Clinton really discovered Africa last month and US ratification will follow. Certainly African leaders expressed their concern directly to him when they met for an hour in Botswana.
 
Reasons for US inaction are likewise difficult to pinpoint:

• concern about pressures for the US to fund corrective action, and its lower priority relevant to climate change and other follow-ups to Rio may be applicable; and
• more likely is that this convention is seen as a poor man's convention which is of marginal interest to the USA. Let me dispel that by recalling US public pronouncements and commitments to alleviate and eradicate poverty and by noting new estimates that 1.2 billion of the poorest peoples in 105 developing countries are directly impacted by increasing desertification.

 
STATEMENT OF FOREST PRINCIPLES

Preparatory Committees leading to Rio witnessed particularly acrimonious debate, and with 73 separate pairs of brackets in the
draft text requiring negotiation the prospects for agreement appeared doomed. Consensus was, however, achieved in Rio although the document was not legally binding. Many delegates felt, however, that negotiations between the developed and primarily consuming nations and the developing and producing nations had taken so many body blows that continued progress would be very difficult. And it was; until the Commission on Sustainable Development convened in 1995, follow-up was chaotic. But the CSD established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests [IPF], which brought order to the process by permitting multilateral discussions within one forum. The IPF reported back to the Special Session, UNGASS, in 1997 with over 100 recommendations for action, though the over-arching question remained whether or not a legally binding Convention could be formulated. In fact, it could not because the parties remained deeply divided on the socio-economic consequences of the sustainable management of forests, but many attending UNGASS considered the missed opportunity to be a bitter failure. But in reality, conceptual clarity on the content and the intent of any Convention is still missing, the learning process continues, and the outcome for achieving global action on sustainable forest management still hangs in the balance. But on the bright side, let it be noted that UNGASS reached consensus on establishment of an Intergovernmental Forum, effectively a continuation of the productive and constructive work of the IPF. Now the Forum must focus on whether a legally binding agreement can be reached and on a financing mechanism for implementing sustainable management practices.
 
The US position can at best be described as one of passive resistance to any binding agreement, partly again on grounds of inherent resistance to any action that hints at inter-governmental control as well as concern about the financial arrangements.
 
Slow progress on the forestry principles reflects the considerable complexity of the issues and the magnitude of their potential impact. More than half of the 1.3 billion persons living in poverty in the developing countries are forest dwellers and two billion depend on fuelwood for energy. Tropical forests contain as much as 80-85 % of our terrestrial bio-diversity, they serve as a carbon sink for CO2 emissions, and they play a regulating role in global climate. But despite these invaluable functions the sobering reality is that during the last 2 decades tropical forests have been diminished by an area equal to the size of Western Europe. Eighteen countries have lost 95% of their cover and another 11 have lost 90%.
 
In my opinion the early attainment of a legally binding Convention to protect the remainder of this precious resource is imperative.
I already referred in my introductory remarks to Agenda 21, the comprehensive corrective programme agreed to by delegates in Rio. It provided a blueprint for action in all areas relating to sustainable development of the planet, from now into the 21^st century. It called for changes in the economic development activities of all human beings - changes based on our understanding of the impact of human behavior on the environment. The call for sustainable development is not a call for environmental protection, but a call for a new concept of economic growth - one that provides fairness and opportunity for all the world's people, without further destroying the world's scarce natural resources. Here is a copy of Agenda 21 that can be circulated, and for those of you with access to the Web, you can find it at www3.undp.org.
 
Capacity 21 was launched at Rio by the United Nations Developmental Programme to assist developing countries to improve their capacity to integrate the principles of Agenda 21 into national planning and development. With the assistance of a Trust Fund of US$74 million donated by Capacity 21 partner countries, (and to which the US has contributed US$2.2 million), it helps developing countries to draw up national programmes for capacity building. Capacity building in this sense is defined as the ability of individuals, institutions and countries to make good decisions about development and to implement those decisions in an effective and efficient manner. Capacity building for the implementation of Agenda 21 is the sum of efforts needed to develop, enhance and utilize the skills of people and institutions to follow a path of sustainable development.
 
To date Capacity 21 has engaged in activities in some 70 countries and roughly the same number of countries have produced National Agenda 21 plans and established National Committees or Commissions on Sustainable Development, which report routinely to the Commission on Sustainable Development, which concluded its most recent session last Friday.
 
A related programme, for which I am responsible, is the Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP). Our objective is to address two fundamental outcomes from Rio. Firstly, the admission by governments that they have mucked up the world by failing to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development, and secondly their agreement to henceforth engage other stakeholders in the decision making processes. Stakeholders is shorthand for the NGOs, academia, the research communities, the private sector, the media and special interest groups such as those concerned with issues of gender equality, youth or the physically challenged. But unless these parties have access to relevant information and come to the decision making table on an equal footing, then the phrase "participatory process" is a hoax. So our responsibility is to build "virtual meeting places" in developing countries so all players have access to relevant information. Thus, we are introducing the Internet, providing connectivity and training, setting up websites and providing relevant content. We are now active in roughly 80 countries and have profoundly altered and improved the development process by taking advantage of the new information and communication technologies.
 
UNGASS, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session, also referred to as Rio plus Five, provided last year an exhaustive analysis of progress, and details are readily available to you through documents such as the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a copy of which I will now circulate.
 
Some saw UNGASS as a colossal disappointment; affirmation that the lofty expectations of Rio had collided with realpolitik. But for others the honest assessment that progress in operationalizing sustainable development remains poor and that a complex web of vested interests must be overcome was progress in-and-of-itself.
 

Aid, Trade and Subsidies

One great disappointment has been the lack of response by the OECD countries to the call from Rio to mobilize major additional resources to assist developing countries transit to sustainable development. Global Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 1992 was US$ 60.8 billion; for 1996, the last year for which I could find data, it is estimated at US$ 55.5 billion, so instead of the major increase called for at Rio we have an alarming decline. The reasons are many and complex: let me illustrate five today:
 

• firstly, the continued inability of governments generally to recognize that prevention is less expensive than cure. Action that thwarted intervention by UN peace-keepers in Rwanda and the price of years of intervention to recover from genocide and turmoil in the region is one terrible example;
• secondly, vast sums have been diverted to other unforeseen priorities; peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, emergency humanitarian aid to the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and assisting the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union to transit from central to market economies. ODA allocations for relief, with a concomitant drop in the allocations for longer term economic and social development, jumped from less than 2% in 1990 to 12% in 1997;
• thirdly, continued denial that the problems of the world will impact on the welfare of the USA. The outputs of Rio on climate change, bio-diversity protection, the fight against desertification and loss of tropical forests are seen as the headaches of Madagascar, Malaysia and Mali. They are not, and nor are issues of immigration, depletion of the ozone layer and outbreaks of Ebola. These are global, trans-boundary issues that in one way or another directly impact on this country, and no electric fence to the south or picket fence in the west will protect you from their impact;
• Fourthly, there is the paradox that the rich in this country have seldom felt poorer and there is continued disbelief that the improved standards of living to which we aspire are inevitably going to be negotiated and compromised. Impositions on our lifestyles and the ways we allocate our resources are already being made and will accelerate unless we voluntarily make more sacrifices. I'll give you one reason, one example and mention a strange response to challenges.

 
The reason: our atmosphere is probably already overloaded with CO2. Pollution is already serious in many Chinese cities, but imagine if China provided cheap energy to hundreds of millions of citizens using their vast resources of coal. An early scale-back of OECD emissions would be inevitable. The energy consumption of developing nations is rising with the growth of their economies, so some time ahead be prepared to invest in more insulation to conserve energy from heating and air conditioning. Invest in sweaters and T-shirts.
 
The example: here is a typical kitchen garbage bag. Our household of three typically fills four a week despite reasonably conscientious recycling. My daughter in Zurich, also with a family of three [and any day we hope to be four] tells me that since leaving the US a year ago, she now uses one per week, and each bag costs US$2.00 and can only be purchased from the local commune. She had to adjust and has quickly done so. Now she vilifies our consumerism and support of the packaging industry.
 
And one bizarre response to the recent spate of destructive tornadoes has been a proposal to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a wind tunnel to test new design standards and materials for housing. Sure technology can help, if you are lucky enough to be able to afford it, but why not address the causes, not the effects?
 

• Fifthly, there is growing subjugation to political pressures and an addiction to subsidies. Let me use this opportunity then to introduce some data about how governments subsidize unsustainable development that some of you may be unaware of, but all of you as taxpayers should be concerned about. Effective subsidies should encourage use of solar power, accelerate use of less polluting technologies and play a crucial role in promoting sustainable development. Few do; most distort fair trade, encourage pollution, exacerbate social inequities and encourage economically perverse practices. Cautious calculations estimate the annual cost of world subsidies in the four sectors of water, agriculture, energy and road transportation at US$ 700-900 billion. That's 3-4% of Gross World Product (GWP) and approximates the annual global expenditure on armaments, another of our perverse habits.

 
The results of these subsidies are numerous and include over-irrigation; mining of high-sulfur content and polluting coal to provide employment; and traffic congestion due to subsidies favoring use of personal automobiles. And going cold turkey on some of these addictions, or even slow withdrawal, is fraught with political and socio-economic minefields.
 
Time does not permit a lengthy comparison of the alternatives of aid or trade. President Clinton made much of the trade mechanism to stimulate economic and social development when he recently visited Africa. It plays well to a conservative congress and to labor, indeed stimulating trade is an essential component of the package, but it is not a panacea or a substitute for well directed economic and technical assistance. Most of the Least Developed Countries (LCD's) are in Africa, and analyses earlier this decade showed that the clarion-call for "trade not aid" was hollow, with only 2% of the benefit reaching the 47 least developed countries.

Conclusion:

The US Position:

I find it difficult to summarize the position of the United States post Rio. Certainly the record is mixed. Generous is one word that comes to mind when you think of GEF, but a variety of other far less complimentary words have been offered by other nations and especially by Western Europe.
 
It's a dilemma; here is the one superpower flexing its muscles and asking other nations to take corrective action while it is a major contributor to several problems. Is this statesmanlike, provident foresight, a rear-guard action to the inevitable, arrogance, ignorance, blackmail or any combination? Certainly I personally find the mobilization of funds by the private sector, with interest in the consumption of fossil fuels, to swamp the American public with their scientific data, to be perturbing. Likewise I found Washington's consideration to reduce gasoline prices immediately before the Berlin Conference of Parties quite shocking. Compare it with Costa Rica's imposition before Berlin of a 15% increase in the already high price of gas. And this increase had the approval of over 70% of voters with the proviso that funds would go to strengthening their National Parks Service and protecting tropical forests and bio-diversity.
 
One price of democracy is to let a thousand opinions bloom and the spinmeisters, lobbyists and lawyers who massage these opinions and personally benefit from the controversy to bloom as well. But there is growing concern, indeed some would say anger, that global and especially trans-boundary issues of such fundamental importance should be so vulnerable or susceptible to the influence of well financed groups with such blatant self-interest at stake. I have already referred to the isolationist attitude, which is wrong, futile and dangerous.
 
Some wake-up calls have already been sounded; Senor El Nino, the loss of species of wildflowers, risks of contagious diseases like Ebola, and shifting patterns for crops and pests. But in a nation that is at peace, blessed with an abundance of natural resources and a mosaic of human skills and a strong economy, it is easy to understand this position. It doesn't help of course that some consider a physical barrier necessary to repel the hordes seeking a part of the good life. Yet the spirit that we are a community of nations must prevail, and to use an old phrase, "if we don't hang together we will be hung separately."
I have come this far this afternoon without mentioning the words sovereignty or greed. Most nations have profound objections to being told how to manage their own affairs, but if the Alaskan halibut season has been reduced to two days due to over-fishing, then introspection is necessary.
 
The Global Perspective:

Fundamental change in the dynamics and the direction of the relationships between the North and the South, the have's and the have not's, is therefore needed. Shifts are slow but they are occurring and they are inevitable. The G7, shortly to meet in Birmingham (that is, the UK, not Alabama) is already a dinosaur. Notwithstanding the recent collapse of some Asian economies, it is the economies of developing countries that increasingly are driving the global economy. Yes Russia is an observer, but where are China and India? Nine of the top 15 economies by the year 2020 will be today's developing countries and it's not too early to adjust to new realities in the north-south relationship.
 
The industrial countries which have contributed mightily to today's problems must curb their demands on the planet systems and allow space for the developing countries. Thus innovative mechanisms such as the right to trade emissions are under discussion, and a thorny issue before us is to devise incentives and penalties to motivate good behavior.
 
The gap between the top and the bottom 20% of the global population has not closed despite all our efforts. Nor has it just widened. It has chasmed to 74 times in the last 30 years. But we don't just have growing disparities between nations but within nations, including the USA. These complex challenges become even more daunting and to some distasteful when you think of the implications for global controls and governance. The realities of global economic independence open new opportunities and risks for monitoring and control of our common need to achieve sustainable development. Multilateral institutions such s the UN and some of the specialized agencies are necessary to address the growing list of global problems, to set goals and standards and to hold all nations accountable. Neither the US nor the G7 can any longer dictate the agenda, although it is understandable there is resistance to even examining the roles, capacities and mandates of the processes and institutions needed to ensure cooperation and equity. The UN is not above mistakes and human failures, but these are too often seized as excuses not to surrender any authority or control over perceived national interests to any international organization.
 
The world continues to move steadily away from environmental sustainability. Our global society is being maintained by abuse of tropical forests, fisheries, biodiversity, top-soil and groundwater. We are degrading and despoiling the land, abusing the atmosphere and polluting our oceans. And the links between the resource base, poverty and injustice, civil war and global instability are evident and well understood. Innocence was an excuse in Rio, but cannot be used today.
 
The overall record of corrective action since 1992 is poor. Personally, however, and speaking as a pragmatist who usually sees the glass half full, I think we can be guardedly optimistic. And I say that sincerely and offer three reasons:
 
Far and away the most exciting development since Rio has been the explosive growth of non-governmental organizations, of communities such as your own, who are becoming involved and who are speaking out. This is our greatest hope and opportunity for corrective action. And involvement is even more intense in developing countries where it has often not been a question of choice whether or not to join the debate, but rather it is a new opportunity because of access to information and the communications revolution.
 
And many governments, though by no means all, are appreciative of the work of the NGO community and have deliberately empowered them. But a cautionary note here insofar as I think several recent conferences of the UN have hinted at the beginning of what may be termed a backlash at the involvement of NGOs. Their commitment, energy and enthusiasm is often running ahead of their respective governments ability to organize themselves and prepare their official positions. As a result some governments are clearly worried that they are losing control of the process. And they should be worried because they are losing control. It is important for these governments to catch up and correct this trend before it sets back progress.
 
Secondly, I'm optimistic because of the concern of our young people, and some are in the audience today. Our generation has screwed this planet up pretty badly, and we have saddled them with a very substantial environmental debt. Today we procrastinate because we consider corrective actions too costly or too controversial, but the next generation of leaders will be far better informed and I hope more decisive. Each voter will be able to examine the environmental track record of any candidate for elective office and we are counting on you to vote responsibly for your own sakes and the sakes of our grandchildren.
 
Thirdly, I'm encouraged because since Rio we have realized the enormity and the complexity of the issues involved, exposed many and begun serious debate on them. But to achieve sustainable development will require persistent debate, good science, even better economics, and calculated compromises over a wide range of issues. To quote from a preparatory document for the 1972 Stockholm Conference:
 
"We do not achieve balance by one line or solution but by a careful interweaving of a great variety of partial answers which added together do not produce definitive answers-nature is too dynamic for that-but give us the possibility of proceeding without disaster, correcting, reconsidering, backtracking, advancing, observing and inventing as we go."
 
It was good advice in 1972; it is even more appropriate and urgent today.
 
Thank you. I look forward to questions and the opportunity for some debate among participants.

| Brochures | Workshops | Papers | Evaluations | SIS | Guidelines |