The much-hyped Earth Summit in Johannesburg is to start later this month, but rumblings, following the preparatory meeting in Bali in May, are likely to leave the summit as yet another ‘environment’ disaster. The Earth Summit, the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development, aptly named as Rio Plus 10 — ten years after environment was put on the global agenda in Rio in 1992 — will end up being called Rio Minus 10 if, as has been the case, the big guns continue to hijack the agenda.
After the disarray at Bali, where delegates failed to agree on key issues — opening of agriculture markets and transfer of technology, the Aug. 26 to Sept. 4 gathering of delegates from 190 nations does not hold out much hope of a strong signal from the global body on environment. The weak draft plan, which lacks firm targets on major issues, disagreement over Kyoto Protocol on climate protection and setting up of clear timetables for further environment damage, will in no way be embellished upon at the Johannesburg summit. What the green lobby and the environmentalists are hoping for is agreement on development targets and clear plans of action. Even this minimal goal seems distant with the United States stating that none of the demands of the summit would be binding on it.
Amid all this a report that the British delegation to the summit includes senior company bosses whose firms have repeatedly been accused of polluting the environment, has caused much consternation. While the green lobby cried foul and attacked the British government for ‘cozying up to big business at any cost’, there are others who argue that for the negotiations to succeed, delegates from all backgrounds must attend.
While these arguments rage, a new UN finding gives the world further cause for concern. The study by Nairobi-based UNEP reveals that a blanket of pollution, called Asian Brown Cloud, three kilometers deep across South Asia is causing droughts and floods, reducing sunlight and harming agricultural production. With growing evidence of climactic changes in the world, environmentalists have repeatedly raised a specter of gloom, that’s readily dismissed by the governments. The warning by the World Wildlife Fund that two-thirds of the world’s 115 most scientifically important wildlife habitats will be destroyed for ever by the end of this century if nothing is done to halt current trends in global warming is seemingly falling on deaf ears. For ten years on, the world is still debating on what action to take on the first action plan.
The Johannesburg summit, however, could well be deemed successful if it manages to achieve action on three issues. They, according to the WWF, are: An action program giving populations in the poor countries access to clean, safe and cheap energy, a wide-ranging plan on the ecological use of water, and a change to the rules of international trade practices, taking steps to ensure that trade accords are in line with sustainable development.
But optimism is low of a successful summit as there has been no indication of agreement on issues of substance. So, like many of the previous summits, there is every likelihood of encountering a lot of piffle, but no firm commitments.
