"CSE brought out the report because we realised that not a single government agency, environmentalist or academician had a full picture of what was happening at these global environmental negotiations," Anil Agarwal, CSE director, said while presenting the contents of the report to the President and a distinguished audience, including Dr Manmohan Singh.

Anju Sharma Coordinator of GEG Unit

Agarwal pointed out that the negotiations showed several dangerous trends from the point of view of developing countries. For instance, only Northern concerns are taken on board, whether it is the hole in the ozone layer which was found to cause cancer particularly to white skin, or the problems of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) travelling to the Arctic.

Because these negotiations are writing rules and regulations that will be the constitution for a future globalised world, it is important that developing countries participate in a coordinated

Shri. K R Narayan & Dr Manmohan Singh.

manner, and ensure that they do not compromise their interests. So far, these negotiations have not been given the attention they deserve in countries such as India.

For instance, the US realises that dealing with climate change poses an enormous risk to their economies, and the climate negotiations are dealt with by the US state department, and more than 200 people work on the issue. But even though climate change is a bigger economic and environmental threat to India, only one officer of the Indian government spends a third of his time working on the issue. Not once had climate change been discussed by the cabinet, even though it is now clear that there will be increased flooding in the already flood-prone North Eastern regions, and increased droughts in the already drought-prone central parts of the country.

For additional information, contact Anju Sharma or Achila Imchen, ph 6983394, 6981110, extn 243

 March 1, 2000

BOILING POINT
US president Bill Clinton will definitely have one item on his agenda when he arrives in Delhi later this month. He will try to convince the Indian administration to take on climate change abatement activities, and offer energy projects as bait, so that he can convince the US senate that India is participating meaningfully in the Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). But India -- and other developing countries – have opposed such offers for very good reason – because doing so would amount to freezing global inequity, by compromising development in poor countries.

BIODIVERSITY^TM
The Convention on Biological Diversity is a mercenary minefield. Northern countries want protection of those Southern genetic resources which feed their biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies; the South refuses to supply these services free of cost. This chapter explains why the convention lacks teeth as far as the interests of the South are concerned, and closely examines various biodiversity concerns, ranging from intellectual property rights of indigenous communities, to biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

RIO’S STEPCHILD
The Convention to Combat Desertification came about due to intense lobbying from African countries. The North was reluctant, claiming desertification is a local issue; the South cited the Northern-controlled international trade patterns - forcing poorer nations to sell produce at low prices - as a cause of land degradation. The question now uppermost in the minds of many developing country negotiators is whether the convention will collapse due to lack of funding from industrialised countries.

TOXIC TRAVELLERS
Northern countries have been the major pushers for a global treaty on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – compounds such as DDT, which have an extremely long lifespan, accumulate in the poles, and disrupt the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife. However, they are unwilling to make financial commitments. Though developing countries support the ban, they are wary of agreeing to a treaty unless their concerns are addressed. Many of them still use DDT to fight malaria, and the cost of alternatives is considerably higher.

WOOD-HEADED PROPOSAL
The report explains how the political reasons behind a global forest convention have everything to do with the timber trade and vested interests, and little to do with concern over forest depletion. A forest convention would lay down common criteria and indicators for ‘green’ wood, a near-impossible task with such a diversity of forest-types and cultures involved. Meanwhile, the most important aspect – direct management of forests by local people – is being ignored.

FREE, NOT FAIR
Environmental and scientific standards are the new criteria being used in international trade by industrialised nations to impose conditions on developing countries and each other. Developing countries are wary of the new standards, seeing them as a different form of Northern protectionism. The report closely examines this reconciliation of trade and environment, and presents the story behind the current multilateral trading framework, including the World Trade Organisation’s attempts to green its agenda.

‘MAI’ght OF OECD
The draft proposal of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) could turn the world into a giant playing field for multinational companies. Instead of increasing the flow of investments into developing countries, it will impinge upon their right to decide whether these investments match their developmental objectives. MAI negotiations collapsed, but the North may still push these laws through under the WTO.

‘POLLUTER SAYS’ PRINCIPLE
Since its inception in 1991, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has demonstrated to the South the power of the North in determining the world’s environmental fate. Developing countries failed to push for the ‘polluter pays’ principle - which holds industrialised nations responsible for polluting the planet, and accepted the ‘aid’ principle instead. Cash-strapped, conflict-ridden, GEF has as yet failed to ‘think globally and act locally’.

BATTLE FOR TURF
Post-Rio years have seen the emergence of numerous environmental conventions, but no unified institutional framework for the environment. The UN’s environmental agenda, spread between several of its own institutions, has been weakened by poor coordination and cooperation between agencies. The chapter examines the UN’s repeated attempts at streamlining its environment programme, and the possibility of a future rule-based world environment organisation to manage global ecological concerns.

With warm regards,

Anil Agarwal, Sunita Narain and Anju Sharma