By Tirthankar Mukherjee
MNMA head D. Damba is not happy with the address of Minister of Minerals D. Gankhuyag at this year’s Discover Mongolia. Damba feels it was short on specifics and gave eagerly waiting investors few clear indications of how the Government felt about several issues of seminal importance. I would not blame the Minister for this. His government is still pretty new and will take time to formulate a policy that addresses existing, or creates new, momentous concerns. It is savvier for a politician to hide behind platitudes for the time being than to be too forthcoming, and then forced to put his foot into his mouth.
As we give the new dispensation in Mongolia more time to find its feet, let me write this week about another event where platitudes and speeches did not lead to anything substantive. I mean the Rio+20 summit that concluded not so long ago. Its failure to elicit any spectacular consensus has disappointed environmental activists but I do not think all is lost.Yes, it would have been great if there were broader agreements, but with almost every nation fighting for economic survival, there was a very real danger that acrimony would prevail, divisions will be formalised and the cause of sustainable development would be left in limbo. Seen that way, even negative gains appear to be a success.
To go back to the UN conference on environment and development held in Rio in 1992, among its most significant achievements was a set of fundamental environmental principles known as the Rio Declaration. These included the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, which asserted that while all countries share a common responsibility for preventing environmental degradation, the responsibility of the developed countries is greater, because of their greater historical contribution to the degradation. Another important principle stated that environmental standards valid for developed countries might be inappropriate for developing countries where these might entail economic and social costs unaffordable at the moment. The Rio Declaration incorporated the right to development. The 1992 conference also adopted crucially important conventions on two major global challenges, those posed by climate change and the loss of biodiversity, as well as an action plan called Agenda 21.
Twenty years on, environmentalists were optimistic that Rio+20 would build on these achievements and strengthen international cooperation on sustainable development. Progress on many of the 1992 agreements has fallen far short of expectation. On climate change, in particular, there has been a serious shortfall in implementation, with the result that the threat has become much more alarming.
Quite early on, however, it became increasingly clear that the developed countries were unprepared to carry out their obligations under the 1992 accords. They tried to ignore, bypass or degrade the 1992 consensus, and sought to downplay the importance of equity and the Rio principles. In a surprising reversal, they questioned the right to development as a human right, the primary importance of poverty eradication and the crucially important principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. All this was seen as an effort to transfer their responsibilities to the shoulders of the developing countries. Seeking to whittle down the developmental dimension of sustainable development, they maintained that G-77 members should look to fellow developing countries, in particular the so-called “emerging economies” such as China, India and Brazil for financial support. They rejected technology transfer except on commercial or mutually agreed terms.
This dashed all hopes of achieving real or new progress. China and G-77 were left with only two options. They could either give in to these strident demands of the developed countries, surrendering the gains achieved in 1992 and jeopardising inclusive development, or they could negotiate an anodyne, least common denominator document acceptable to all countries. China and G-77 rightly chose the latter option. So the final tally was that while developed countries made real progress impossible, G-77 and China were at least able to ensure that there was no surrender of the major gains achieved in 1992.
In a way, the status quo was maintained and the battle will be taken to another day. To wit, the Rio+20 outcome document includes a reaffirmation of the Rio Declaration, refers specifically to the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities, the right to development, and to equity (in the context of climate change). It recognizes that poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing the world today.
There was resistance from affluent countries to the incorporation of these elements, but the G-77 and China coalition maintained a united front and refused to give in. The host country, Brazil, displayed commendable diplomatic skill in fashioning a document that all countries could be persuaded to accept. All this makes Rio+20 a holding operation. The North and the South wanted to proceed in opposite directions. The developed countries wanted the summit to march backwards to the pre-1992 starting line, while the developing countries wanted to advance. The result was essentially an agreement to mark time.
The title of the Rio+20 outcome document had been decided in advance: “The Future We Want”. The contents that finally emerged failed to live up to the title, as status quo took precedence over any new vision of a future. So where do we go from here?
The outcome document launched a process for formulating a set of global sustainable development goals. A Brazilian negotiator described this decision as the “crown jewel” of the summit. It is important now for the developing countries to formulate their own proposals concerning the scope and nature of sustainable development goals. They must not allow the affluent countries to retain the initiative and play a merely reactive or defensive role in the negotiations that have been launched.
It is essential that internationally agreed sustainable development goals should meet three requirements. First, they should be equitable and in full conformity with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Nowhere is this more important than in the context of energy, which is inseparably connected with climate change. The climate change convention rests solidly on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and it must be ensured that this link is not weakened in the energy section of an agreement on sustainable development goals.
Second, sustainable consumption patterns and lifestyles must be an integral feature of the global sustainable development goals. There is a tendency on the part of some influential analysts to view development as a major cause of environmental stress or degradation. Rising living standards in poor countries are seen as a stress factor, rather than unsustainable consumption patterns in affluent societies. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gently pointed out at Rio, “Current consumption levels in the industrialised world are unsustainable.” That is absolutely right, no matter how blinkered you keep your vision.
Last but not least, the overriding priority of economic and social development and poverty eradication must inform each of the global sustainable development goals. Inclusive development must not be viewed as a threat to the environment but rather as the essential enabling factor for protecting and enhancing the environment. Development yields the resources needed to protect and enhance the environment.
I feel sorry that I have little idea of what the Mongolian-language media or the civil society are saying on these but I do hope, when Minister Gankhuyag finally does make the Government policy known, he will not forget that mineral resources development must not overlook so many other aspects of total development.
By Tirthankar Mukherjee