The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio was surrounded by more hype than any \nprevious environmental conference. Agenda 21, the best known product of \nRio, was described by UN Secretary General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, as a \n“comprehensive and far-reaching programme for sustainable development.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As M. Grubb et al argue in their critical assessment of the Earth \nSummit, there are “thousands of ‘thou shouldst’ commandments” in this \nhuge document. These commitments cover just about every environmental \nissue you could wish to mention, along with social issues such as \npoverty and education. However, as Grubb continues, “most are \ngeneralisations which are hard to define or measure, and hardly any of \nthem are backed up by adequate resources.”(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Boutros Boutros Ghali expected Agenda 21 to play a “crucial role” in \n“galvanising international cooperation”, ensuring a flow of new \nresources from nations participating in the Earth Summit that would \nenable them to address these many issues. But what exactly was the cost \nof Agenda 21 to be and have these costs since been met?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UN estimated the cost of implementing Agenda 21 at approximately \n$600 billion per year between 1993 and 2000. Of this, ‘the North’ \n(referring to the developed industrialised nations of the west) would \ncontribute $125 billion annually.(2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The worldwide cost of phasing out CFC production has been estimated \nat $1.8 billion between 1990 to 2008. The U.S. government clearly feared\n this funding being duplicated for other environmental crises, such as \nglobal warming, which would cause their contribution to climb into the \nbillions of dollars.”(3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To meet its target, Agenda 21 affirmed the UN goal of increasing \nOverseas Development Aid funding from rich countries to 0.7% of Gross \nDomestic Product (GDP). This would more than double their level of \ncontributions, which were approximately 0.3% of GDP. Most of the nations\n concerned accepted this (the U.S.A. being one notable exception)(4), \nalthough only a few accepted a timetable for the increase in funding to \nbe phased in. So what has happened since?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Since (the United Nations Conference on the Environment and \nDevelopment or ‘Earth Summit’), many countries have cited recessionary \npressures as an excuse to hold their aid-giving at a constant level. \nEight countries actually cut their 1992 aid budgets in real terms and \ntotal flow of aid from OECD countries remained at the same level in 1992\n and 1993\u20130.33% of OECD GNP\u2014that it has been since 1970.”(5)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The much heralded 15% Earth Increment, which is mentioned in Agenda \n21 and was supposed to have added annually between $3 billion and $5 \nbillion to IDA’s (International Development Agency) resource base, did \nnot appear when the tenth replenishment of IDA was announced in December\n 1992.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Clearly, the hope of the former UN secretary general for new \nresources has not been met. Some will put this down to the fact that \nAgenda 21 is not a legal document but merely a statement of non-binding \nprinciples. Yet the reluctance among nations to make legal commitments \nto solving environmental problems, is not the root cause of this lack of\n progress. Those agreements which have been grounded in law have still \nfailed to meet their targets, as is the case with the two agreements at \nRio which were legally binding\u2014the Biodiversity Convention and the \nFramework Convention on Climate Change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Convention on Biological Diversity <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n One issue on which Agenda 21 was backed up by a separate \ninternational agreement was biodiversity. Biodiversity is a term \nreferring to the variety among living organisms and the ecological \ncommunities they inhabit. As Agenda 21 points out:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our planet’s essential goods and services depend on the variety and \nvariability of genes, species, populations and ecosystems. Biological \nresources feed and clothe us and provide, housing, medicines and \nspiritual nourishment\u2026 The current decline in biodiversity is largely \nthe result of human activity and represents a serious threat to human \ndevelopment.(6)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Estimates of the number of species currently in existence vary \nbetween 5 million and 30 million species. Most biologists think 10 \nmillion is the best approximation. Only 1.4 million of these have been \nnamed and so there are still many undiscovered species. As is explained \nby Environment<\/em> journal,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tropical forests, predominantly in Central and South America and \nSoutheast Asia, contain from 50 to 90 per cent of all species, including\n two thirds of all vacular plant species and up to 96 per cent of insect\n species. At current deforestation rates, it is estimated that between 4\n and 8 per cent of all rainforest species would be in danger of \nextinction by 2015, and from 17 to 35 per cent would be in danger of \nextinction by 2040.(7)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clearly, tropical deforestation is one of the most important threats \nto biodiversity yet this is a problem that still persists and is even \nescalating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opened for signature in June 1992, the Biodiversity Convention was \nthe first completely international convention aimed at dealing with this\n issue. The previous regional agreements had made very limited impact. \nFor example, in an assessment of the African Convention on the \nConservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the United Nations \nEnvironment Program concluded that “the level of activity associated \nwith the Convention is low, because there is no provision for compliance\n monitoring and reporting.”(8)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Limitations of the Convention <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Convention set no concrete targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost every single provision of the Biological Diversity Convention \nspecifying the obligations of contracting parties is qualified by the \nphrase ‘as far as possible’\u2026 or similar language.(9)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This of course, leaves open the possibility of neglecting the need to preserve biodiversity when there is profit to be made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S.A. did not sign, since the convention was a threat to its \nbiotechnology industry, which uses the resources of the third world for \nits own commercial purposes. The U.S.A. is the world leader in the \nbiotechnology industry, with annual sales projected to reach $50 billion\n by the year 2000. It feared paragraphs 15 and 16 of the convention \nwhich would permit developing countries to enact laws which would force \ndrug firms to transfer patent rights to a developing country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Funding to support the Biodiversity Convention <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n By 1993, 0.3 billion from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) \nwas directed towards projects aiming to preserve biodiversity.(10) \nIronically, the World Bank has a dominant role in managing these \nbiodiversity projects. (Although, these projects represent a minute \nfraction of the $140 billion worth of leading commitments of the World \nBank.) As M.P. Wells comments in International Environmental Affairs<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without a shadow of doubt, development programs and policies either \nfinanced or influenced in some way by the World Bank have had a \nprofoundly negative influence on biodiversity during the last four \ndecades.(11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many non-governmental organisations are concerned that the GEF is \nmerely serving to put a “positive green tint on the negative \nenvironmental impacts of Bank-financed development projects.”(12) These \nprojects all concentrate upon ‘protected areas’ or ‘reserves’ and do not\n address the problem . One issue on which Agenda 21 was backed up by a \nseparate international agreement was biodiversity. Biodiversity is a \nterm referring to the variety among living organisms and the ecological \ncommunities they inhabit. As Agenda 21 points out: “once grant funds \nhave been exhausted,” explains Wells, “The subsequent success of \nprojects depends upon government conservation agencies which are weak” \nand lack the necessary financial, human, and scientific resources.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The more than 45 GEF biodiversity projects that do not include trust \nfunds face a substantial risk, if not the virtual certainty, of \nfinancial collapse as their GEF grants become exhausted in the next five\n years.(13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n