viii) The Rio Earth Summit.

THE STORY SO FAR.

The rio Earth summit was organized by the united nations' conference on the environment and development. The unced, headed by maurice strong, [1] had been set up following united nations' discussions of the bruntland commission's report 'our common future'.

I: The Objectives of the Earth Summit.

Unced worked towards the ratification of five objectives at the rio Earth summit.

An Earth Charter.

This was intended to be a statement of principles outlining the nature of a sustainable relationship between humans, Plants and Animals, and the only Planet in the universe on which they can survive.

Agenda 21.

The aim of Agenda 21 was to lay out the social, economic and technological means for solving environmental and developmental problems. It also aimed to provide a rough timetable for the achievement of these objectives.

Climate Change Treaty.

This was supposed to be a globally binding agreement by which all countries around the world would reduce their Carbon emissions in order to freeze the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at the 1990 level.

A Biodiversity Treaty.

It was hoped this treaty would be the means of preventing the extinction of the Earth's Plants and Wildlife.

A Forest Convention.

This was intended to protect the world's Forests.

Just like the world climate conference, the Earth summit turned out to be a waste of time. The world's leaders tacitly agreed to continue destroying the Planet's life support system. Even though in its second report, published just before the summit, the ipcc scientific working group reaffirmed its earlier recommendation for draconian cuts in global Carbon emissions, nothing of any significance was decided at the summit - not even when to hold the next mega-conference bash nor at which exotic location it should be held; "By deliberate evasion of the central issues which economic expansion poses for human societies, UNCED condemned itself to irrelevance even before the first prepatory meeting got under way." ('Whose Common Future. A Special Issue' The Ecologist Vol 22 no.4 July/Aug 1992 p.122); "The Summit was a massive failure" (Sandy Irvine and Alec Ponton 'Real World' Summer 1992 p.4); greenpeace and friends of the earth regarded the Earth summit as a "crushing failure". The one exception to this condemnation of the summit was jonathon porritt who believed such criticisms were based on an, "ill-informed and unbalanced judgement." (Guardian 7.8.92. p.25).

II: The Failures of the Rio Summit.

The Earth summit failed to achieve any of its objectives.

A: The Earth Charter.

The statement of principles concerning sustainability was turned into a set of meaningless phrases called the rio declaration. This outlined 27 principles including one which "rejects the idea of banning imports of goods on environmental grounds." (Alistair Townley, 'Opportunity Knocks'). Even porritt was forced to admit that it was, "a worthless piece of eco-clap-trap." ('Two Worlds One Planet').

B: Agenda 21.

This was turned into a vast action plan but, since it is not legally binding, it is just so much wishful thinking. Even worse was that there was no agreement to monitor countries' environmental policies nor the implementation of agenda 21. "An agenda for each country to draw up Action Plans and National Strategies was also signed in Rio. Action plans should outline how the government will meet its commitments under each convention while the national strategy should detail how these commitments will be supported by key economic sectors such as agriculture, industry, energy and transport." (Hot News no.8 Winter 1993 p.2).

However, agenda 21 did set one record, "Agenda 21 is the lengthiest document - more than 600 pages - ever to be negotiated internationally." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.xviii).

C: Climate Change Treaty.

"At the Rio negotiations, nations would not even commit themselves to halt the increase in emissions, let alone reduce them. Maurice Strong repeated the 60% figure to a deafening silence from the assembled leaders, "The message has got to get through," he said at the end. "The evidence is very powerful. We are on course for disaster." (Fred Pearce, New Scientist 27.6.92. p.12-13).

The main obstacle was the united states which would not agree to a treaty setting specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, "The need to have something on the table to sign at Rio, however, led the industrialized nations to cave in to pressure from the USA, which despite emitting one quarter of the world's CO2, was loath to agree to something which the Bush administration believed would jeopardize the economy." (Hot News no.7 Summer 1993 p.2). Hence all that could be agreed was a framework convention. The united nations framework convention on climate change (fccc) was signed by 160 countries at the summit. The hope was that this framework would provide the basis for future commitments, "The Convention is a framework only - there is little in it in the way of commitments. In this respect it is similar to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, also a 'framework', but one that has achieved action through subsequent protocols. It is envisaged that the FCCC will also achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases through the agreement of protocols." (Hot News no.7 Summer 1993 p.2).

Despite the fact that no targets were set, the treaty, "is being interpreted by developed countries (sic) such as the UK, as a firm commitment to returning national emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. The article also requires developed countries to provide detailed informaton on the policies and measures required to achieve this target." (Hot News no.7 Summer 1993 p.2).

The treaty will not come into force until ratified by fifty nations. This may not happen for another few years. But even if ratified it won't be effective because there is no global body to impose sanctions against countries ignoring the agreement.

D: A Biodiversity Treaty.

This treaty provided no legal protection whatsoever for the Earth's Plant and Wildlife. The united states refused to sign because it was intent on protecting its biotechnology industry, "The biodiversity convention had more to do with the desire of transnational companies to control the market in the world's staple food crops." (Alistair Townley 'Opportunity Knocks').

E: A Forest Convention.

No attempt was made to outline plans for global Reforestation. All that was agreed was a set of meaningless Forest principles, "When UNCED began its preparations for the 1992 conference in Rio de Janeiro .. the Prepatory Committee (PrepCom) .. decided that the best course to pursue would not be to negotiate a convention for the conservation and use of forests but to adopt a set of guiding principles for a consensus on forests. The PrepCom produced a text at the end of the meeting in Geneva in September 1990 entitled, "A non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests." The only document ready for adoption at the 1992 UNCED confernce was this statement concerning forests." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna 'The Need for an International Commission on the Conservation and Use of World Forests' in Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.128). [2]

It has been argued, however, that there is still an opening for the reintroduction of a Forest convention, "The principles and relevant portions of Agenda 21 (UN Doc. A/CONF. 151/4 [Part I-IV]) .. do leave a wider opportunity to consider the need for and feasibility of appropriate international arrangements to promote co-operation on forest management." (Kilaparti Ramakrishna & George M Woodwell (eds) 'World Forests for the Future: Their Use and Conservation' Yale University Press New Haven 1993 p.xvii).

F: The Earth Summit's Submission to GATT.

Finally, and perhaps most frightening of all, was the agreement that gatt should take precedence over decisions made at the Earth summit, "The aim of the industrial countries is to have all discussion of the linkage between trade and environmental sustainability transferred to the Uruguay round of world trade talks where TNCs have already negotiated a model for environmental deregulation. Unrestricted free trade will take precedence, under Gatt rules, over environmental policy." (Kevin Watkins, Guardian 17.7.92. p.27).

Gatt has never shown the slightest interest in environmental issues, "GATT's environment working group has nominally existed since 1971, it has never met." (New Scientist 12.10.91. p.16).

The danger posed by gatt is not merely that its free marketeering will override environnmental laws but that it possesses the power to nullify laws where they clash with free trade. A recent gatt ruling stated that in effect, "environmental laws involving trade cannot extend beyond national borders." (Guardian 6.9.91. p.29); "The Multilateral Trade Organization would have powers of enforcement going well beyond the current GATT treaty, requiring countries to seize sovereignty across a wide range of policy areas. Arthur Dunkel, director general of GATT, is organizing the signing of a 436 page Final Act." (Guardian 17.1.92. p.29); "The Multilateral Trade Organization will have powers to sit in secret in trade disputes, with no right of appeal; frame economic trade issues .. and accept standards on issues such as pesticide residues or food labels made by unelected and unaccountable bodies. Control over food standards will be handed over to an unaccountable body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission." (Tim Lang Guardian 2.11.93 p.19).

ix) Post Rio Non Developments.

I: Post Rio Politics.

A: The Creation of the Sustainable Development Commission.

If third world countries were none too pleased at the ipcc scientists' recommendation for global cuts in Carbon emissions they were even less pleased by the stance of the ipcc's political working group which was heavily weighted in favour of the over-industrialized nations. As a consequence they demanded that future negotiations about the greenhouse effect should be transferred to the united nations where third world countries have more talking power, "At the insistence of developing countries demanding a stronger voice in the debate, the global warming issue has been taken out of the hands of the IPCC which has so far made all the running. It is now the responsibility of the UN General Assembly which has no expertise on the subject. The move was pressed by India, China and Brazil who are counting on Third World solidarity to ensure the coming talks are not used to curb their development in the name of the environment." (Iain Guest Guardian 1.2.91).

It was decided that a new united nations' body, the sustainable development commission, should be set up to take reponsibility for conducting negotiations over the greenhouse effect. This was a defeat for another of the world's leading environmentalists. Just as jose lutzenberger had been sacked by Earth-rapists within the brazilian government; indira ghandhi's daughter sacked by Earth-rapists within the indian government; and carlo ripa di meana sacked by Earth-rapists within the european commission; so maurice strong, whose powerful warnings about the threat posed by global warming had silenced delegates at the Earth summit, was sidelined by the new global warming body, "The Sustainable Development Commission, to be ratified by the UN General Assembly in September, will .. report to the UN's Economic and Social Council rather than directly to the more powerful general assembly. The commission is a personal victory for Gro Harlem Bruntland and a snub to Maurice Strong who had proposed an independent body." (Guardian 9.6.92. p.8). As has been pointed out earlier, gro harlem bruntland is free trade, green economic growth, Earth rapist, thatcherite.

The powers of the sustainable development commission are limited given that there was no agreement at the Earth summit to monitor countries' environmental policies nor the implementation of agenda 21. Its responsibility is to, "monitor the spending of all UN bodies and the implementation of Agenda 21. The commission will not be able to fully investigate or demand environmental reports (from countries around the world)." (Guardian 9.6.92. p.8).

B: The Ratification of GATT.

After months of intense negotiations, the uruguay round of the gatt treaty was finally ratified in December 1993. Gatt opens up the prospect of the total emasculation of all environmental laws and regulations in every country around the world. The huge number of environmental campaigns which have been fought throughout the world over the last twenty to thirty years will prove to have been in vain because of the ratification of the treaty. Millions of people who have demanded peaceful changes in the law to protect the environment will find that the huge amounts of time, effort and resources they have spent on such campaigns will have been wasted. The ratification of gatt means there is no legal means for stopping the world's Earth rapists from decimating the Planet. The only regulations to which multi-national corporations are now subject is self-regulation - and, as the city of london has demonstrated all too clearly throughout the decade of sleaze under the thatcher government, 'self-regulation is no regulation'. The directors and managers of the world's multi-national corporations will gradually become the world's unelected, undemocractic, leaders. Global power has been shifted, formally and legally, from nationally elected politicians to the directors of multi-national corporations.

In effect, the ratification of gatt is tantamount to a formal declaration of war against the Earth. When jonathon porritt criticized greenpeace and friends of the earth for arguing that the Earth summit was a "crushing failure" he left himself looking like a blithering fool. His suggestion that the world's political leaders are ahead of the general public over environmental issues is utter fantasy when these leaders' main objective has been the introduction of global free trade. His inability to discern the motivation of political leaders indicates a considerable level of naivety or, as is usual for party activists, wishful thinking. It must be dispiriting for greens who have been in the green movement for decades to have to admit that from helping to make things better, they have been irrelevant and that ecologically, the world is in a far worse state now that it was a mere two decades ago. For every step forward, the greens have been pushed a couple of million steps backwards.

a) National Deregulation to Meet the Requirements of the GATT Treaty.

John Major has been lending his personal authority to the drawing up of a deregulation bill in order to abolish all rules and regulations (including some of those protecting the environment) which infringe upon the free trade rules agreed in the gatt treaty.

II: The Steady Downward Progress of the Climate Change Treaty.

A: Ratification.

By May 1993, the climate change treaty, which needs 50 signatories for it to be ratified, had been signed by only 18 countries.

B: The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conference of Parties.

.. "work on the (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is being continued by the same UN body which negotiated it - the intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change (inc). This body is composed of countries from all over the world, not all of which have signed the convention." (Hot News no.7 Summer 1993 p.2); "The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Climate Treaty (INC) concluded its 8th session at the end of August in Geneva ... The discussions centred around technical issues of implementing the treaty, including the bodies to be set up, the methodologies to use, and the funding for the developing countries. Negotiations are leading up to what is called the Conference of the parties (COP) in Berlin in April 1995." (Hot News no.8 Winter 1993 p.2). "The Conference of Parties - the official governing body for the climate change convention, which will be composed of all signatories - will be formed after the treaty enters into force." (International Environment Reporter vol16 no.17 25.8.93 p.612).

C: National Plans to reduce Carbon Emissions.

a) The United States of America.

"In April 1993 President Clinton pledged that the country would .. lower greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000." (International Environment Reporter vol16 no.17 25.8.93 p.621). Unlike george bush, clinton is willing to adopt targets for CO2 reductions, but not those recommended by the ipcc scientists.

b) Britain

Britain agreed to provide detailed information on the policies and measures taken to achieve its voluntary target of reducing greenhouse gases emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000, "In December 1992 the UK government published a discussion document [3] which describes existing policies and measures, and outlines possible options for achieving the target. The Department of the Enviroment also held two consultation workshops that month and a conference opened by Michael Howard in May 1993. These plans cconcentrate on voluntary action by individuals, industry and the public sector." (Hot News no.7 Summer 1993 p.2).

D: Forest Issues.

a) Sustainable Forestry.

The deadlock over Forests continues. The over-industrialized nations recently demanded that third world countries adopt sustainable Forestry practices whilst refusing to do so themselves, "In Geneva this week European governments, including Britain, are demanding that tropical countries harvest timber only from "sustainably" managed forests by the year 2000. But, last week, in Helksinki, European governments, led by Britain, refused to make the same pledge for their own forests, despite a surprising announcement by the US that it will adopt the target." (New Scientist 26.6.93 p.9); "Attempts to renegotiate the International Tropical Timber Agreement collapsed in Geneva last week, after timber-growing countries in the temperate regions of the world refused to be bound by the same conditions as tropical countries. The ITTA, signed in 1983, expires next year. Countries that produce tropical timber want its successor to be a comprehensive international Timber agreement that includes wood from temperate forests. But the countries with temperate forests do not want their own timber subjected to the agreement's controls. The group is led by Canada, the US, Sweden and Germany." (New Scientist 3.7.93 p.7).

b) Forests as Carbon Offsets to IPCC Targets.

The debate over whether countries could offset proposed reductions in Carbon emissions by planting of new Forests in their own countries is still unresolved.

c) Imperial Forests as Carbon Offsets to IPCC Targets.

If anything the negotiations over Carbon offsets for Reforestation projects in other countries, i.e. third world countries, has deteriorated even further since the rio summit. Many of the over-industrialized countries are now insisting that the Forests they plant abroad should count as part of their own Carbon offsets, "The United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia said some percentage of emissions offsets achieved through joint implementation should count as a reduction in domestic emissions of the nation that funded the joint project. The EC said it felt it should meet its commitments under the treaty by actions at home to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000." (International Environment Reporter vol16 no.17 25.8.93 p.611).

d) Disputes between Global Institutions over Responsibilities for Forestry.

There are now a plethora of united nations bodies involved with Forests; the food and agriculture organization; the international tropical timber organization (which administers the tropical timber agreement); the united nations conference on trade and development; and the newly established Biodiversity convention. The negotiations over Forestry issues are currently being taken for lengthy perambulations around the plush headquarters of these global institutions. The benefit of this is that whilst it gives the public the impression that lots of hard work is being done by a multiplicity of institutions to stop deforestation, it prevents any real discussions from taking place, "UNEP suggested setting up a committee of scientists to advise it on conserving forests. Tropical countries suspected the scientists would be recruited from northern countries, and might try to limit tropical timber in the name of conservation. They prefer to deal with conservation under the UNCTAD agreement where there is less scientific scrutiny and so they killed the idea. Meanwhile, across town at the UNCTAD meeting, rich countries were telling poor countries to limit their timber exports in the name of conservation. Tropical countries promised that by the year 2000, they would log only sustainably managed forests - whatever those might be. The northerners, however, refused to make any commitment about their own forests."

III: The Ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty.

President bill clinton signed the Biodiversity treaty in October 1993 - after all, what difference did it make when the gatt treaty was due to be signed a few months later? The treaty has now been ratified, "The Biodiversity Treaty comes into effect exactly 90 days after Mongolia became the thirtieth government to sign it. Countries are expected to make a full list of their plants and wildlife and work out a strategy to stop rare ones from diasappearing altogether."

IV: Post Rio Economics.

A: GEF.

"Brazil pointed out that industrialized countries, by virtue of their wealth, have undue weight in the GEF. The fund now has "one dollar, one vote" governance by countries that donate money to the GEF."