At an informal meeting, environment ministers of the world failed to settle differences on conservation concerns
THE second informal meeting of the world's 10 most
important environment ministers was designed to iron
out differences among them.
But when they gathered in
Agra in late February at the
invitation of Kamal Nath,
India's environment minister, many disagreements persisted.
Ministers from Brazil,
Canada, China, Germany,
India, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and
the US, and representatives
from the United Nations
Environment Prograrnme
(UNEP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the
World Bank and the United
Nations Conference on Trade
and Development attended
the two-day meeting chaired "
by India. The first meeting
was held in Magog, Canada,
in April 1993.
The Third World's suspicion
was that trade restrictions were
being imposed in the garb of environmental concerns. Nath expressed
fears of "commercially driven moves
that appear to be environment-related".
However, his German counter-part, Klaus Topfer, shot back that the
European Community was opposed
to the dumping of less-than-eco-friendly products.
Nath was insistent that trade
action was not the best way to
address environmental concerns. No
country, he said, should resort to
imposing unilateral curbs because
each country has different levels of
pollution, capacities, problems, perceptions and objectives.
Topfer maintained that similar
standards should apply to both
exports and imports. If Germany
applies strong eco-standards to its
exports, then it expects equally
strong standards applied to its imports.
Keeping in mind Nath's recent
speech in Geneva (See box), Topfer
warned of the danger of poisoning
international discussions by being
aggressive, He denied that the Green
Dot environmental standard for packaging was a
non-tariff trade barrier.
Topfer said it was only
fair that Germany
decides what imports it
should allow because
utmost care was being
taken to decrease waste
by changing consumption patterns. "All we are
insisting on is internalisation of external costs.
We are doing it. Why not others?" he asked.
The second major
issue in Agra was forests. The implementation of the forestry principles
adopted at Rio has gained importance with the Indo-British initiative
of April 1993 - established to tackle
post-Rio environmental issues -
coming to the fore.
Malaysia is going ahead with a similar agreement with Canada, after
backtracking on its opposition to the forestry convention proposed by the North, which it said was acceptable
as long as it was "an
enlargement of the forestry
principles". Malaysian minister for science and technology and the environment, Datuk Law Hieng
Ding, told Down To Earth,
"We are not against the
convention. We only say
that the forestry principles
need to be examined first."
Malaysia feels that it
should open up the debate
on the forestry convention
so that both boreal and temperate forests are included in a global
convention, a senior Malaysian official clarified.
Nath told the meeting that the
international community must prepare for urgent action on forestry
issues. The Forestry Forum for
Developing Countries convened by
him and the Helsinki Conference on
European Forests set the tone for discussions, he said. He proposed that
an inter-governmental task force be
established to ensure the implementation of the forestry principles.
The delegates also decided to
improve the working of the CSD -
the major institution set up after Rio
- through inter-sessional activities.
A senior Indian government official
explained that several countries
offered to sponsor CSD-related inter-sessional activities that direct the
implementation of Agenda 21. India
secured the endorsement of all the
countries present in Agra for the
Indo-British initiative on forests to be
considered an "official inter-sessional activity of the CSD".
There was consensus on making
CSD a high-level, political body.
Topfer - tipped to be the next CSD
chairperson - agreed with Nath that
CSD should be made a body that
"concentrates, coordinates and
comes to concrete results".
The meeting also saw the death of
the money issue, which started in
Rio. The South agreed that $2 billion
should be the minimum required to
make GEF - the fund for global
environmental problems - credible.
GEF chairperson Mohammed
El-Ashry categorically stated that the
G-77 countries cannot be rigid about
asking for more.
The South has, however, set its
sights on the chairpersonship of the
GEF governing council, but there is
still no agreement on thc representation for donor and recipient countries in the GEF council and the issue
continues to be hotly debated.
The North's stance - 14 seats
each for donors and recipients and
two seats for former communist
nations - is termed as a "very messy
UN-type arrangement". However, El-
Ashry defended GEF and said, "We
did accomplish a great deal (at
Geneva). We only need one little
push and that is clearly a political push."
Contrary to expectations, the conclave gave the tight-fisted North an
opportunity to push its points.
"Since we did not get what we wanted, let us make the most of what we
are getting," was the general spirit of the South.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.