Development strategy of the developing countries

            The relationship integrated between growth and the environment is not a new-fangled concept as it is based on intensive project appraisal and setting up new reforms based on modern technology. The monetary growth of the developing countries was one of the foremost issues in the world’s first environmental symposium, in Stockholm in 1972. The successive conference corroborated that without taking into account the development issue of the developing countries environmental issues would not be solved. The development issue of the South helped to develop the concept of ‘sustainable development’. This concept gives emphasis on development while at the same time recognises its relationship with environment. Although there exists acknowledgement of  the need to achieve a sustainable balance between environment and development,  the perspectives of the North and South differs in this respect. The North gives more emphasis on environmental protection while the South on development. Although these different attitudes create some situations of conflict between the two sides, there are number of  examples of some sort of co-operation also existing between them.

           

            In this paper I will discuss the following issues: briefly the meaning of ‘sustainable development’; the problems of developed and developing countries on the question of environment and development; North-South positions regarding sustainable development in various environmental conferences; and finally a brief comment on future North-South relations on the question of ‘sustainable development’ with some concluding remarks.

MEANING OF ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’

            ‘Sustainable development’ means promoting development with preserving the environment for the interest of present as well as future generations.(Source, Nico J, Schrijver,Course lecture on Principles of International Law for Pursuing Sustainable development and Protecting Environment, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague). Sustainable development gives emphasis on the fulfilment of the basic needs of the poor people. It aims at solving   ecological problem and poverty at the same time.In a simple phrase, it means economic development with low environmental pollution. According to Gary S. Hartshorn ‘sustainable development’ means to improve the quality of life of humans without depleting renewable and non-renewable natural resources. This contrasts with traditional development models that  stresses the increase of Gross National Product(GNP) through economic growth which is often based on rapid depletion of the natural resources base.(Source, Key environmental Issues for Developing Countries, page 398, Gary S. Hartshorn, Journal of International Affairs Vol.44/No.2,winter 1992).

            In 1987, Mrs Gro Harlem Brundtland, the chair of the  World Commission on Environment and development, produced the landmark report Our Common Future. The report which is now known as the Brundtland report, made a big impact by linking environmental and developmental issue through the concept of ‘sustainable development’. The concept came and reduced the intellectual and political gap on environmental issue between the North and South, which had been apparent since Stockholm. At that time the South was arguing for economic growth and North was arguing for environmental protection.(Source, The Greening of Machiavelli, The Evolution of International Environmental Politics, Tony Brenton, page 128, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy and environmental Programme).

           

THE PROBLEMS OF DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON THE QUESTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

           

            The view of the developing countries on the environmental issue differs substantially from that of the developed countries. According to  view from the South,  as the Northern countries are the main beneficiaries of the process of economic growth so they are responsible for the world’s environmental problem. As the South have no economic alternative,  they exploit their natural resources only for their economic development. They exploit their natural resources to deal with their poverty. For example it is very difficult to tell a rural farmer in Brazil to stop cutting the rain forest where he must grow crops to feed his family. In the developing countries, forest clearance is not essentially for timber, domestic use or export, but rather for agricultural cultivation.(Source, Key Environmental Issues for Developing Countries, Gary S.Hartshorn,page 399, Journal of International Affairs, Vol.44/No.2, winter,1992). High population growth is a serious problem for the Southern countries. It increases pressure on natural resources and creates more environmental problems. For that reason it is not very easy for the developing countries to attain ‘sustainable development’. Nafis Sadik mentioned in one of her writings that these developing countries understand the importance of protecting the environment, but are compelled to resort to environmentally unsound practices in order to survive.(Source, Towards Sustainable Development: The Critical role of Population, Nafis Sadik, page 450, Perspective of Global Responsibility). For sustainable development therefore,  developing countries need technological and financial support from the developed world.

            On the other hand, as the developed countries have already achieved their economic growth, so it is comparatively easier for them to concentrate on environmental issue.They can use alternative way which will be more  environmentally sound for them. However, they also have  their own problem. For example, the people in the developed countries do not want to assume any new burden.There exists unemployment problems in many developed countries. For these reason overseas aid is always under financial pressure in developed countries. Technology transfer is also a problem for the developed countries, as it is usually  in the possession of private companies, which usually have their own priorities about the countries to which they  can or should be advantageously be supplied to. For that reason, they do not transfer their technology at a cost that the South can afford. On the other hand, a minority of developed country still deny the connection between economic development and environmental protection.(Source, Development for the People and the Environment, Richard Sandbrook,page 403, The Journal of International Affairs, Vol.44/No.2 winter, 1991).Such countries argue that  it is difficult for developed countries to change the present patterns of production and consumption for the environments sake.

             What ever is the problem and position taken by  both the developed and developing countries, the transition of the developing countries to sustainability will require support from the developed countries. If the Northern  does not help in the development needs of the South, then the environmental issue is bound to create conflict.

NORTH-SOUTH POSITION ON ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCES

            Before the emergence of the concept of ‘sustainable development’ the development issue of the Southern countries was raised several times in international environmental conferences. In the world’s first major environmental conference, in Stockholm in 1972, the Northern environmental alarm was not shared universally.The main emphasis of the developing countries was their economic growth, not pollution. Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi emphasised that poverty was the principal problem confronting India, not pollution.(Source,The Greening of Machiavelli, The Evolution of International Environmental Politics, Tony Brenton,page 37).The South was much concerned about  possible pressure by the West to slow down their economic growth and  impose environmentally motivated restrictions on aid, investment or trade policies. They gave emphasis on  their sovereignty and the right to choose their own path of economic development. The North wanted to emphasise  the issues of marine pollution, overconsumption and global population, but on the insistence  of the South, global poverty and aid issue were also included in the agenda. Both the North and South were almost divided on the question of development. However they were successful to reach  an agreement about the creation of the United Nations Environmental Programme UNEP, to work as a unit on the environment within the existing UN structure. In order to meet the concern of the developing countries it was given a large governing council and after some argument it was sited in Nairobi.(Ibid p 48).

            As has been mentioned, the Brundtland report of 1987 provided the concept of ‘sustainable development’,which gave emphasis on economic development and environment together to sustain the growth. I will therefore now focus  on some other   important environmental conferences to see the North-South position in those conferences.

Ozone Layer

            Before the Montreal Protocol it was the believe among the scientists that the chloroflurocarbons were the  main cause of ozone depletion. Developing countries  concerns  had been of marginal significance in the Montreal negotiation. It was thought that the developing countries consumption of CFCs was small (less than one twentieth per capita of developed country consumption). A small number of developing countries were present at the early sessions of the conference. The provision written into the protocol therefore to gain their adherence was the right to a ten year delay in phasing out CFCs by developing countries. Some highly unspecified references to their demand of financial and technical assistance was also made. As the consumption of CFCs was growing rapidly in some developing countries (particularly in China and India,)  it was thought that if the threat to ozone layer really to be tackled,  the developing countries must form part of the effort. By the end of 1989, only 21 developing countries had  signed the protocol. The important developing countries were making it clear that they would only get involved in this process if the North would provide the extra finance and technology for their industries with CFC substitute. This  demand raised conflict between the North and the South.

            This North-South tension was dominant up to the 1990 London  meeting scheduled to review the Montreal Protocol. In London, it was extremely tense contest between North and the South on these financial issues. The South was trying to get  the best possible financial and technological terms, while on the other hand, the North was trying to get the South on board without vast financial and technological commitments. The final result was the agreement to establish a new fund, initially of 160-240 million US$ to be contributed by the North for use by the South. The Northern companies also assured the south about the substitute technology which would be transferred later on. All the major developing countries consequently later joined the process (ibid page-142-143).

           

Climate Change

            The developing countries view about the climate change was that the developed countries were responsible for most of the accumulated green house gases in the atmosphere. For that reason also, their opinion was that the North should provide financial assistance to the South to help them adapt to the changing climate. The united developing country approach caused difficulties for the North.The North was not in a position to accept any historic responsibility.

           

            For negotiating the climate change issue, an  International Negotiating Committee on Climate Change (INC) arranged the first negotiating meeting in Virginia in 1991.In the initial meeting the South demanded new and additional resources for their economic development. The North was very much interested to know about Southern commitments before dealing with the financial issue.No substantive result was  therefore achieved .

            In the Geneva meeting, (1991) the North and South were in a situation of confrontation on the question of creating a climate fund.The North was in favour of  using the  World Bank in this regard, but the South was against the idea.The idea of ‘pledge and review’ was rejected by the South that they should commit themselves to a process and no external could judge their domestic policies.The difference of opinion was evident  in the third session of the INC in Nairobi. The pattern was continued when the INC met for its fourth session in Geneva in December 1991. In New York (1992) the fifth session of the INC showed the same situation between the North and South. The North was pressurising the South for accepting the Global Environmental Facility(GEF) as the funding channel.The North and South were therefore in a position of conflict  in the meeting. The mood of the meeting was not improved by suggesting that if no climate change convention was negotiated President Bush would not go to Rio. At the same time to  sweeten the threat, the US announced  a $75 million aid plan  to help curb developing countries green house emission.

           

            Finally the developing countries thought that the failure to finalise the convention would postpone the prospect of  Western aid and technology to help tackle the effect of climate change  they therefore accepted the GEF as an ‘interim’ financial mechanism of the convention.

             Regarding  the issue of ‘pledge and review’, countries were required to supply information on their implementation of the convention, and a body was established to look at this infomation.At last,  agreement on the convention was achieved and it was open for signature in Rio.

           

Biodiversity

            The North-South divisions were deeper in the case of biodiversity than in the case of climate change negotiation. In the case of biodiversity the developing countries wanted to take the lead as they were rich in species. The developing countries view was therefore that the Northern concern about biodiversity did not justify any dictation to the South about how they should manage their own natural resources. In their view, action in this regard depended mainly  on the supply of Northern expertise and funding.

             In the biodiversity negotiation, the developed countries were more united than they were in the case of the climate change negotiations. The developing countries were also united in the biodiversity negotiations. The North argued firmly for the GEF(funded through voluntary contribution) and the South insisted on a special biodiversity fund( funded through compulsory contribution) compromise was finally reached in Nairobi in May 1992. Soft words with limited force were used for conservation strategies. The issue of financing channels was settled in an even more indirect way. The GEF was mandated to operate in this area on interim basis.But the question of the organisation of the GEF became one of the key battle grounds of a pre- Rio process.(Ibid 204).

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)---The Rio Process

            Before the conference, the fundamental difference between the North and South became more and more apparent particularly in the context of drafting the Earth Charter. The Northern states were looking for a set of principles which underlined the need for a modification in the economic policies of developing countries.They wanted to include environmental compulsion in Southern economic policies. On the other hand, the main principle for the South was to pursue economic development in their own way,  according to their own judgement as to what was appropriate.

            There were some differences among the developed countries regarding their proportion of overseas aid. For example the US, UK, Germany and Japan devoted low proportion (about 0.2-0.4%) of their GDP to overseas aid. On the other hand some Northern countries foe example France, the Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries,  gave  higher national priority to overseas aid(0.6-1% GDP).

            The developing countries were also not in a very unified position in the process of the conference.

            A central tension which dominated the negotiation of the document of Agenda 21(Agenda for twenty first century) was the sharing of the global responsibility for environmental action. The North wanted to avoid the historical blame for environmental pollution. It also wanted to avoid financial responsibility. On the other hand the South blamed the North’s overconsumption and lifestyles, as the major cause for environmental problems and therefore demanded financial support from the North once again. However, these problem were solved by using soft language , of course  in the final text which had  limited force.(Ibid 214).

            In the case of Earth Charter the same concerns were expressed by  both parties.The Northern countries were concerned about environment and Southern countries with their development objectives.Very skilful balance was maintained between them by incorporating language like the need for all states to pay attention to the environment and , on the other, the special needs of developing countries( and responsibilities of developed countries) with regard to global economic development.(Ibid 215-216).

            Another area of disagreement between them was the deforestation and desertification issue on the one hand, the North was in favour of a deforestation convention and South was against.On the other hand,  the South was in favour of desertification convention while North was against. As there was no solution in the discussion on these matters,  both issues were then passed to UNCED.(Ibid 216).

            In the case of finance and technology the North-South attitude was almost like all previous conferences. The developing countries demanded their green fund. The Northern countries pointed to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The closing stages of the preparatory process  saw a series of confrontation, both within the North and between North and South . Lastly, as situation did not change, so the issue passed to Rio. ( Ibid 221).

Rio

            The meeting took place in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, from 3 to 14 June 1992. In the largest environmental gathering ever,the South reiterated their demand again. The Prime Minister of Guyana said that ‘the tree of sustainable development can not flourish  in the infertile soil of poverty’. They also emphasised that as developed countries did most of the polluting, so it was their responsibility to protect the global environment. Like all other conferences  the South raised their finance and technology issue.

            In Rio, the biodiversity and  the climate change convention were signed, each by nearly 160 signatories. The Rio Declaration(formerly Earth charter) was also   adopted, as the tone of compromise was used there. The technology transfer issue was settled by using non-binding words.The Southern demand of funds were met by giving assurance that aid levels were going to rise.Lastly with the Rio and Forest Declarations( due to the Indian and Malaysian adamant attitude against the forest convention, it was decided that further international co-operation on forests were needed) the rest of  Agenda 21 was adopted at the closing session of the conference on 14 June.(Ibid 230).

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

            In Rio the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created to keep the environment and development debate at a high level at UN annually. There were question about the role of UNEP especially about why a new organisation was needed.Some thought its role would be routine like UN General Assembly. It was  also thought that an important reason for UNEP’s failure was that a number of major donor governments, most notably the United States, preferred to bypass UNEP regarding all financial matters.(Source, The United Nations and Changing World Politics, Thomas G.Weiss; David P.Forsythe and Roger A. Coate pg. 218). As the Southern influence was present in UNEP,  the North wanted to avoid it.  Some Northern countries wanted to more control over financial issues as such control had the ability to influence outcomes. (Source,The Greening of Machiavelli ,Tony Brenton, page 266).

FUTURE NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS ON ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’

            The long discussion about the environmental conferences reveals that both parties have different types of interests and problems. The agreement in  Rio was without sufficient commitments from both side. The concept of sustainable development has not been followed by both the parties. The right to achieve economic growth by the South was repeatedly  voiced in those conferences and the need for additional fund were also repeatedly raised. These demands were not sufficiently met by the North. These issues shows that the future relations of the North and the South on sustainable development depends highly on the attitude of the both the parties, though mostly on the attitudes of the North.

CONCLUSION

            This paper reveals that there are differences of opinion between the North and the South on the way of achieving sustainable development. Although there exists problems, it has also shown that some sort of co-operation exists from previous initiatives on the issue.

            It is true that some Southern countries allocates much of their hard earned money for defence purpose,but in environmental conferences they always fight for financial support. This  case is  however not true for most of the Southern countries. Most of the Southern countries are forced to overexploit the natural resources on which their future depends. For that reason, the North have to spare additional financial help to the South to face these environmental challenges.Although the North has given commitments of financial support, these have not been sufficient for achieving sustainable development. If the North provides adequate financial resources and environment  friendly technology  at a good price to the South, then the sustainable development will bring co-operation between them, otherwise  conflicts will  not only remain, but will also be exacerbated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brenton,Tony., The Greening of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International                                   Environmental Politics,The Royal Institute Of International Affairs,                        Energy and  Environmental Programme,London, 1994.

D’Orvill, Hans(ed) ,Perspective of Global Responsibility, (Sadik, Nafis., Towards                          Sustainable Development: The Critical Role of Population, ) In Honor                of Helmut Schmit on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, New York,

                        1994.

Hartshorn, S. Gary.,Key  Environmental Issues for Developing Countries, Journal of                      International Affairs, vol.44/no.2, winter, 1991.

Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, New                                     York,1987.

Schrijver, J. Nico, Principles of International Law For Pursuing Sustainable                                   Development and Protecting The Environment, Institute of Social                                Studies, the Hague.

The South Centre, Facing the Challenge, Responses to the Report of the South                                Commission,1993.

Weiss G. Thomas, Forsythe p. David, Coate A. Roger, The United Nations and                              Changing World Politics,Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford, 1994.