North and South, Poles Apart

new york, feb 26 1992 (ips/rajiv tiwari) -- defying elementary laws of natural magnetism, the south and north are poles apart on the eve of global environment and development negotiations here, which will set the stage for june's 'earth summit' in brazil.

against the backdrop of worldwide agreement on the need to protect the planet, polar perspectives have emerged on how this should be done and who must take primary responsibility for it.

for delegates from the third world, the preparatory meetings for the rio de janeiro conference on environment and development (unced), which begin here next week, provide a crucial opportunity to defend themselves from the north's plans to impose a heavy environmental burden on them.

prior to the complex, month-long round of meetings here, wide differences prevail. the north is trying to narrow its focus on conservation issues, while the south, asserting its right to economic growth, is demanding environment-friendly technology transfers and investment funds.

at stake are a global agreement on environment and development principles, the 'earth charter', and its impementation plan known as 'agenda 21' -- as well as two conventions on climate change and biodiversity.

in an engaging clash of alphabets underlying each of these areas, delegates from the south suspect the north is interested only in unced's 'e' (environment), and is ignoring the 'd' (development), though it is common knowledge which letter actually comes first.

fearful of environmental encroachment on top of other political thrusts towards setting standards for democracy, human rights and good governance, the south is asking for room to move.

in pursuit of this 'environmental space', the south centre -- the follow-up office of the south commission chaired by tanzanian leader julius nyerere -- presented a blueprint to last year's 'group of 15' developing nations summit in caracas, venezuela.

the document, 'towards a common strategy for the south in the unced negotiations and beyond', says the south's stakes in the negotiations are high and they can profoundly affect development prospects.

the centre states that if environmental concessions have to be made to the north, the south should bargain for commitments to restructure global economic relations, as the industrialised countries have so far shown little interest in a comprehensive approach to the twin subject of environment and development.

according to the paper, the north has ''promoted a narrowly defined environmental agenda, a sectoral approach to the unced proceedings, including separate negotiations on conventions relating to climate change and biodiversity, and expressed a preference for piecemeal case-by-case bargaining.''

instead, two ''fundamental strategic objectives'' should form the south's negotiating plank for a comprehensive approach on the road to rio. one should be to ensure the south has adequate environmental space for future development, and the other should be to modify global economic relations so that states could obtain the resources, technology and access to markets which would allow them to pursue a development process that is environmentally sound and rapid enough to meet the needs of their populations.

faced with well-organised initiatives promoted by the north, the south has taken time to refine its own stance and could initially do no more than engage in damage limitation exercises.

the key issues have narrowed down to insistence by the south that unced negotiations tilt towards development, with commitments by the north on debt relief, increases in official development aid, ways to promote the south's access to global money markets, the balancing and raising of commodity prices, and access to markets in the north.

the south will therefore have to ''stand firm on the principle that the development of the south can in no way be compromised by the north's pre-emption of the global environment space,'' says the south centre paper.

it adds that ''the concept of 'sustainable development'' does not mean only that the needs of the present have to be met without prejudice to the satisfaction of future needs. it means also that the needs of the north should be met in ways that do not compromise the satisfaction of the present and future needs of the south.''

frontline negotiators in the south say all this means that the north should share the burden of environmental adjustment by scaling down its over-indulgence and altering lifestyles without unilaterally putting limits on economic growth in the south.

thus, in response to demands that the south committropical forests and biodivery to insist on pledges for cutting the north's emission of greenhouse gases, and for curbing the use of toxic chemicals and the export of toxic and radioactive wastes to the south.

but the south centre paper states: ''the developing countries should firmly reject any such arrangement. the concentration of power and administration in an already powerful insitution such as the world bank, whose policy and decision-making is dominlist of factors written into fund transfers. third world governments are also concerned that they may be by-passed by multilateral and bilateral agencies in favour of non-governmental organisations.

although elements of a united position have been recommended in the south centre document, shades on the ground differ between countries, regions and interest blocs. for instance, some countries of the south are chiefly occupied in blocking the imposition of long-term environmental conditionalities are negotiating strategies.

but the numerical preponderance of the south will allow it to address the entire range of issues advocated by the south centre. as the document states: ''it is significant that this is a conference on environment and development.''

''because of this link it is possible to mount an integrated approach to the global challenges of sustainable development,'' it says.

Back...