9:51 AM Apr 7, 1997

UNITED NATIONS: SPIRIT OF RIO HAS VANISHED

New York 7 Apr (Martin Khor) -- The Commission on Sustainable Development begins its fifth session here on Tuesday (8 April) with the task of assessing the progress (or lack of it) in implementing the Earth Summit's decisions five years ago.

The CSD's outcome will provide the basis for the review of the implementation of Agenda 21 at the Special Session of the General Assembly in June. According to UN sources, several heads of states and governments have indicated they will be present.

The CSD meets against a sombre mood among participants and, whatever the public front, the fact that "the spirit of Rio", of North-South partnership to bring about more equitable development patterns so as to tackle global environmental problems, has dissipated, if not disappeared.

The most important document before the CSD is the report of its inter-sessional working group, presented by its co-chairmen, Amb. Celso Amorim of Brazil and Amb. Derek Osborn of the U.K. The working group met on 24 Feb to 7 March. The co-chairs' report will form the basis of the CSD's negotiations.

The report begins with a review of the inequitable effects of globalisation and the increase in environmental problems. It notes that growth has allowed some countries to reduce poverty, while marginalisation has increased for others; too many countries have seen economic conditions worsen, and the total number of poor in the world has increased, and income inequality and unemployment has worsened.

Moreover, "five years after UNCED, the state of global environment has continued to deteriorate and significant environmental problems remain deeply embedded in the socio-economic fabric of nations in all regions."

However, the report does not deal in detail with the basic reasons for the failures of the post-Rio process, or how globalization has played a central role in countering sustainable development goals.

Five years after the UNCED summit, it is clear that the "Spirit of Rio" has not been converted into practical action. Instead, it seems to have faltered, and whittled down, if not away.

Despite the pledges of increased aid, instead of moving towards the target of 0.7% of GNP, the OECD's aid level has fallen from 0.34% in 1992 to 0.27% in 1995.

Moreover, a significant part of the shrinking aid pie is being diverted to East European countries, leaving the South with less.

For the Northern governments, "new and additional financial resources" to the South has become politically a non-issue, if not a "taboo" subject.

The aid decline is evidence of the lack of commitment and sincerity of Northern governments to implement the Rio agreements, and has robbed the UNCED follow-up processes and institutions, of their status and legitimacy.

There has also been no tangible progress in transfer of technology to the South, either in general or in environmentally-sound technology. Instead, since Rio, there has been much greater emphasis on increasing the rights of holders of intellectual property (mainly, corporations of the North) and a corresponding downgrading of the rights of the public (and developing countries) in technology transfer and diffusion. This is mainly the result of the Uruguay Round's TRIPS (Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement which will require member states of the World Trade Organisation to tighten their national IPR regimes in favour of IPR holders, with detrimental effects on technology transfer or local development of technology.

There is already evidence of how such patent regimes hinder transfer of environmentally sound technology to the South. There is also a danger that the emerging IPR regime (whose rules favour commercial companies) will marginalise the interests and rights of communities that developed biodiversity-based knowledge (in farming, medicinal plants, etc) whilst enabling the patenting of this knowledge by commercial companies.

The stress on IPR protection at the expense of technology transfer has, like the decline in aid, robbed the post-UNCED process of its legitimacy, since technology transfer was the second plank of what was seen as the North's commitment to facilitating sustainable development.

There has also been no significant moves in the North for basic changes to production and consumption patterns or lifestyles. Despite some efforts on the energy front for reducing emission of Greenhouse Gases (which are generally believed to be still inadequate to arrest adverse effects on climatic change), there has been in many Northern countries, a reversal of environmental policies (such as logging of natural forests in the US and attempts to weaken standards) or the lack of progress in critical areas requiring attention (such as the inadequate regulatory response to rapid development of genetic engineering).

Generally, there has been a downgrading of environmental concerns in the national agendas, as commercial interests and the need to retain "national economic competitiveness" take precedence.

In most countries of the South, environmental concerns have also not received the kind of special attention that UNCED had promised. The poorer countries remain enmeshed in problems of external debt and low commodity prices and face additional problems caused by aid decline. They are also bypassed by foreign investment flows. As a result, the lack of financial resources continue to hamper progress towards sustainable development.

In the newly industrialising countries, the pressures of urbanisation, industrialisation and high growth have put additional pressures on the environment, concerns for which have remained low compared to the imperatives of growth.

Generally, in the South, there is a lack of progress towards sustainable agriculture or in phasing out the use of toxic substances (although the North-to-South export of toxic wastes may be reduced by the extension of the Basel Convention).

As serious as the downgrading of the environment agenda, is the erosion of concern for development as a principle or as a right in the international agenda. This erosion is mainly due to the wave of economic neo-liberalism in many Northern countries and reduced concern in their political establishment for problems of developing countries.

More seriously, in the North, the more aggressive commerce-oriented and trade-oriented approach of viewing developing countries as markets (that need opening up) and as potential rivals (whose advantages should be curbed) has replaced the other approach of viewing developing countries as disadvantaged global partners requiring and deserving assistance.

As a result, the "development principle" and the "development dimension" which hitherto had been recognised as the cornerstones in North-South relations, have been challenged and eroded, not only through the decline in aid, but also in the much greater reluctance to accord special treatment or advantages to developing countries in UN negotiations.

Of particular importance, the development principle has been eroded in North-South trade relations, especially at the WTO. The "special and differential treatment" for developing countries has been eroded through the Uruguay Round. In the current on-going WTO negotiations, including on new issues, developed countries have sidelined recognition of the development needs and objectives of developing countries and insisted instead on equal treatment for both the weak and strong: for example, "a level playing field" and "national treatment" for their firms.

This contrasts with the reaffirmation by political leaders of the world, of the appreciation of the development rights and needs of the South, through the Social Development Summit of 1995, and other UN conferences and resolutions. These declarations and processes, which represent the spirit of international cooperation, are being undermined by the more legally-binding and enforceable rules of the trade system.

And instead of allowing greater development space for the South to facilitate the transition to a better environment (which was the UNCED understanding), there has been a significant narrowing of that space in the past few years.

UNCED had sought to heighten the priority for resolving the development problems in the South. These problems had to be tackled at two levels: improving the negative international economic environment; and improving domestic policies.

Although a small minority of developing countries, mainly in East Asia, have been able to take advantage of external factors to experience high growth, a majority of developing countries continued to suffer from poverty and social problems, and in some countries the situation has worsened. The external environment faced by many developing countries remains negative. The terms of trade for many developing countries has continued to deteriorate, with the prices and demand for commodity exports weakening. The debt crisis persisted. Aid volumes declined. This continued to exert a large external drain of resources from developing countries. Resources for the state continued to dwindle in many countries, reducing their capacity to face the development challenges.

Globalisation in trade and investments has had uneven results -- with few benefits (and probably net losses) accruing to many of the poorer developing countries. Development policy options were further narrowed through the WTO Agreements and structural adjustment. The negative effects on the external environment have weighed heavily on many developing countries in the past five years. Many of them were unable to gather sufficient resources and strength to overcome their pressing social problems. As a result, there has been low or inappropriate growth, reduced social development expenditures, persistence or worsening poverty, higher unemployment and greater inequities.

(This is the first of a two-part article.)