Time to sit up

THERE are very few countries in the world that have such asophisticated environmental policy as the Netherlands. Andthere are very few countries on the face of the earth that havepolluted their environment so much, as have we in theNetherlands. These two facts, of course, are interrelated.

in the Netherlands, a population of 16 million peoplehave to live together on a very limited geographical space. Thestandard of living of this teeming millions is exceptionallyhigh, and all of them share a common passion for mobility forthe sake of global competition through the international division of labour. As a result, the Netherlands have specialisedmainly in those sectors that have turned out to be more-than-average polluters: bulk chemicals, mechanised agriculture,road transport and so on and so forth.

Therefore, ironically in our country, a direct link existsbetween our well-guarded material abundance and burgeoning environmental degradation which is a ca-use for alarm. Inmost developing countries on the other hand, one can seethat it is poverty that is a root cause for alarm. And poverty is,of course, coupled with exhaustion of primary products andland, and extinction of species. The felling of trees, pollutionof rivers and the uncontrolled disposal of wastes, all these arenot only symptoms but also causes of poverty.

With the roots of environmental degradation being somuch different in the North and the South, the question thatone can ask is, if Northern knowledge, technology and opinion (which I have been asked toshare with readers of this magazineon a more or less regular basis) isuseful for people who live in theSouth. The answer is definitelypositive. But this is true only ifcertain conditions are met.

In the first case, a gratuitousexport' of ideas, policy recommendations and technologicalachievements are all not very helpful. It would be helpful if moderntechnologies which are heavilyprotected through intellectualproperty rights, would be availablemuch more easily for Southernentrepreneurs. A point to benoted is that all this technology isnestled in the hands of Westerncompanies.

And it would indeed be awrong signal if for negotiations,this noose of protection is only tightened further. But still, I wouldnot recommend the export of Western knowledge and technology as the exclusive answer tothe environmental problems that the South continues to face.

There is something else which is more important. If weconsider the world to be a global village (and who would notthese days?), and if we acknowledge the coexistence of-poverty (mainly in the South) and abundance (mainly in theNorth) to be at the heart of the deterioration of our environment, then at the end of everything only redistribution ofopportunities can be the answer to the problem.

During the United Nations Conference on Economicdevelopment (UNCED) in 1992, which was held in Rio deJaneiro, developing and developed countries together tried tonegotiate a global deal aiming at such redistribution: developing countries would take measures to curb pollution andexhaustion of natural resources in exchange for Westernsupport in their fight against poverty, through methodslike development aid, reduction of debt and liberalisationof trade.

Since UNCED, undoubtedly, the environment of the worldhas gained prominen0p on policy agendas of the North as wellas the South. But in the end, when ecology and economy haveto fight it out for 'who comes first', all too often it is economythat wins hands down. 'This is why today we risk the danger ofbuilding up frustration among all those global citizens whowere once motivated to explore the potential of a global dealthat was put down on the agenda Of UNCED.

Export of environmental knowledge and technology alone will not be enough to prevent this frustration, almost four years after UNCED and other topics dominating theinternational negotiating agenda. The senseof urgency that one could perceivein the Rio proceedings has disappeared, although the environmentalproblems plaguing different regionsof the world have not yet beensolved.

However, shortly, the international community is set to undertake its first effort to evaluatethe implementation of the commitments adopted at Rio. For NGOS,governments of nations all over theworld and international organisations alike, this is a compellingopportunity to show that theirlobbying for ecological awarenesswas not only a temporary whim, butis a lasting commitment till thenecessary results are achieved.

Max van den Berg is the director general of NOVIB, The Netherlands