Sustaining the earth?
After reaching a draft agreement on the protection of fishing stocks, delegates at the United Nations Earth Summit in Johannesburg have moved on to other contentious issues, including the provision of water. Tens of thousands of officials, politicians, activists and journalists are at the summit, which runs to September 4th
IF ATTENDANCE alone were a guide, the Earth Summit would already be guaranteed to be the most successful gathering ever. According to the United Nations, more than 20,000 delegates are signed up for what is formally called the UN Summit on Sustainable Development, now under way in Johannesburg, and which runs until September 4th. The South African government reckons another 40,000 people are there for related events running in parallel to the main summit.
But though there has been some progress, with a draft agreement on fishing stocks reached on August 27th, many issues remain to be tackled before 100 presidents and prime ministers arrive for the final stage of the proceedings which start on September 2nd.
Hot air there is by the balloon-load. Environmental groups have already been heavily critical of the summit's size, noting that the numbers going to Johannesburg will ensure it has a damaging impact on a region already facing huge environmental problems. Yet the representatives of non-governmental organisations—including environmental lobbyists and aid agencies—are the ones who will make up the bulk of the visitors to southern Africa's largest city. They hope to be able to influence the governments represented as well as the many representatives of private business.
Sceptics continue to wonder whether the summit will make any headway at all on the key issues, and whether such events are the most sensible way to tackle the issues of poverty and development. Even the agreement on protecting falling fishing stocks is limited and non-binding. Governments have pledged to take action “where possible” by 2015. Other specific issues now being tackled, including water and energy, are going to prove far more difficult.
Meanwhile, the contrast between the well-fed delegates and the millions of people in southern Africa now starving, as their region is caught once more in the grip of a famine, is striking. And while one part of the globe suffers from lack of water, others, in Asia and central Europe, have been confronting devastating floods in the past few weeks.
The extent to which global warming, or climate change, is responsible for these latest natural disasters continues to be the subject of scientific argument. Scientists and environmentalists agree, though, that the effects of floods are made worse by deforestation, building on flood plains and population growth in cities. Africa's famine is made worse by poor land-use policies in some countries, and by, for example, the land confiscation programme pushed through by President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Until recently, Zimbabwe was an important food exporter to the rest of the region—now many of its people are also starving, dependent on food aid from overseas. Hunger has, in turn, made the impact of the AIDS crisis in Africa far worse—lack of nourishment further weakens the immune systems of those infected.
But if there is broad agreement on the scale, nature and urgency of the problems, finding a consensus on how to tackle them is more difficult. There is a growing recognition among both rich and poor countries that, for example, eradicating global poverty is in everyone's best interest. The UN Millennium Development goals, agreed in September 2000, set out specific targets—including a big reduction in the number of people living in poverty and the provision of universal primary education—to be met by 2015. In many eyes, the events of September 11th last year reinforced the perceived importance of making global economic development an inclusive process.
And, on the face of it, the development agenda has been reshaped to reflect that objective. In principle, rich countries accept that they need to open markets and provide more aid to the developing world. Poor countries in turn recognise they must do more to make government accountable and transparent. In November, the Doha “Development Round” of multilateral trade negotiations was launched, with a broad and ambitious agenda. The summit on financing for development in Monterrey, Mexico, in March, saw America and Europe pledge substantial increases in aid to poor countries.
Yet, so far, there have been far more words than deeds, on both sides. Far from opening its markets, for instance, America has been sending the opposite signal. President George Bush has, this year, imposed new tariffs on many steel imports—though he did exempt the poorest countries—and approved a Congressional plan for a massive increase in aid to American farmers. This hurts the poor: subsidies for rich-world farmers depress world prices for farm products. The developing world has been unconvinced by the argument that these sops to protectionist lobbies were a price worth paying for “fast-track” presidential authority to negotiate trade agreements. Poor countries have looked on while America and Europe engage in bitter disputes about trade between themselves. For them, there is not much sign of more open markets yet.
But it is possible to argue that, as yet, developing countries have not done as much as they could to clean up their act. African countries are divided on how to put pressure on Mr Mugabe, whose government is now widely recognised to be repressive and unaccountable, his recent election victory notwithstanding. Too often, in too many countries, aid money is siphoned off by corrupt regimes.
The environmental challenges the earth summit is meant to address are even more complex. Sustainable development means achieving objectives like poverty reduction without further damaging the environment. That is a tall order, given the pressure that population growth, especially in the developing world, has already created. About 1.3 billion people—double the number of 40 years ago—live on fragile lands such as arid zones, wetlands and forests, which cannot support them. Tropical forests, for example, are disappearing at the rate of 5% a decade. The World Bank reckons that by 2050, two-thirds of the world's population will live in cities: and by 2025, three-quarters will live within 100km of the sea, putting enormous pressure on coastal eco-systems.
Yet average income in the richest countries is now 37 times that in the poorest 20 nations. How can those in the developing world be expected to take the need for conservation of energy and other resources seriously, when they watch rich nations bicker about even the modest steps represented by the Kyoto protocol on climate change?
One of the principal benefits of negotiation by summitry is that world leaders like to strut around on the world stage, and at the same time feel under competitive pressure to deliver something of substance on such occasions. The hope of those pressing for change, or at least progress, is that leaders make commitments they subsequently feel obliged to meet. The last few days of the summit, when the heads of government actually show up in Johannesburg, will therefore be critical in judging its success. Far more important, though, will be whether countries then live up to the promises they make. Judging from the record of past summits, it would not be wise to hold your breath.