Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Disillusionment reigned at the UN last week as five weeks of hard bargaining
over the Earth Summit came to an end with observers and delegates fearing
that the summit will achieve nothing of value. The organisers, however,
are still optimistic.

In Rio de Janeiro in June, heads of government are expected to sign
an Earth Charter laying out the rights and duties of peoples and governments
towards the planet, treaties on combating climate change and conserving
biodiversity, and Agenda 21, a 700-page document laying out a plan of action
on the environment and development for the next century.

In New York last week, pressure groups including Friends of the Earth,
Greenpeace and Third World Network, chorused that the summit was headed
for a ‘failure of historic proportions’ unless urgent action was taken.
They said the summit will fail to address key issues such as corporate pollution,
nuclear power and overconsumption of resources by the developed world.

Summit secretary general Maurice Strong put a brave face on it. ‘If
you take a look at what we’ve actually got done (it) is amazing,’ he said.
But even he admitted that Agenda 21 had been seriously watered down by governments.
‘Weasel words are creeping in,’ he said.

Many blamed the US for sabotaging the conference. Barbara Bramble, spokeswoman
for the American Citizens’ Network, a coalition of environmental and development
groups, said the White House had drawn up ‘ten commandments’ for its delegation
listing what they must avoid.

The list was aimed at stopping such things as mechanisms for settling
disputes, and codes for assessing the environmental impact of projects,
from being made binding. The American delegates were barred from accepting
the ‘precautionary principle’ – the notion that any action which might endanger
the environment should be avoided. They were told to ensure that no decisions
were made on military matters or American liability for the environmental
problems of poor countries. They were also instructed to avoid mention of
new institutions or requests for more aid.

Developing countries were also disappointed with the discussions. Kamal
Nath, India’s minister for the environment and forests, said: ‘There are
not only no promises, there are no promises of promises.’ He was particularly
angry that the crucial issue of money for environmental solutions was put
off (see ‘Who pays for the Earth Summit?’, this issue).

Discussions stalled on yet another convention. At the last set of negotiations
in Geneva a proposed convention on forests had to be abandoned. At the New
York talks, an African-led initiative for a convention to combat desertification
was suspended when developed countries refused to accept that this is a
global problem. The remaining treaties for Rio are to bediscussed in special
meetings at the end of this month.

The proposed Earth Charter is also in dire straits. Two days before
the conference ended governments had agreed only two of the 27 principles
to be signed. Seven other principles had been abandoned. Clif Curtis, a
Greenpeace spokesman, cited the deletion of issues such as the banning of
nuclear tests, as proof that the charter was’regressive, fragmented and
seriously devoid of vision’.