© Rustam Vania/Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
Ecuador has taken measures to protect its mangroves while not harming shrimp farming,
a lifeline for many communities.
|
Developing
countries feel that protecting the world’s resources is just another way for rich
nations to retain the upper hand in the international trade game
For nearly a decade,
international efforts to address global environmental concerns have been frustrated
by a deep rift in perceptions between rich and poor countries. Economists and environmentalists
in developing nations argue that the agenda for environmental negotiations is almost
exclusively driven by the North. Under the pretext of saving the planet, they say,
the industrialized world is wielding a new brand of dominance, “eco-imperialism.”
Developing countries like India and China continue to resist global environmental
protocols, like the 1989 Montreal Accord to cut the production of CFC gases (used
for example in refrigerators) by 50 percent, or the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),
part of the climate change negotiations initiated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
“These are viewed as instruments to make the Third World pay for damages caused primarily
by the North,” says Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva. India and China account
for two percent of CFC consumption, while the United States consumes 29 percent.
“This ‘eco-imperialism’ undermines national sovereignty, while generating new costs
for those once marginalized by colonialism,” claims Shiva.
The spectre of imperialism is likely to vitiate the next round of climate change
talks in Bonn (Germany) this July, when policymakers finalize the terms on which
the CDM will be implemented. Negotiated by industrialized countries to gain some
flexibility in meeting the emission reduction targets pledged in Kyoto, few issues
in recent environmental diplomacy are proving as contentious.
Critics say the mechanism is the latest in a string of attempts to dominate poor
countries, which are being virtually “bribed” so that rich nations can continue business
as usual. By financing forestry schemes and other energy-efficient projects, industrialized
countries could exploit the mechanism to avoid reducing their own greenhouse gases.
Environmentalists fear this could turn the Amazon and other primeval forests into
“carbon sinks” to absorb pollution, but with side effects which disregard the developmental
needs of southern countries.
Lopsided
negotiations
“The
Northern bias continues to dominate discussion of the global climatic crisis,” explains
Shiva. “The threat to the atmospheric commons has been building over centuries, mainly
because of industrial activity in the North. Yet discussions seem to focus more on
developing countries: the North refuses to assume extra responsibility for cleaning
up the atmosphere. No wonder the Third World cries foul when it is asked to share
the costs.”
“The whole effort to bring about ecological change is very one-sided,” says Chow
Kee, who represents Malaysia at the climate negotiations. “The developed countries
don’t want to give up their extravagant lifestyles, but plan to curtail our development.”
Beyond negotiations on climate, efforts to link environmental concerns to trade are
sparking more allegations of imperialism. “There is an attempt by rich countries
to stunt the growth of developing nations like India, and we are fighting it tooth
and nail,” says Pramod Mahajan, India’s minister for information technology. “They
are practising protectionism under the garb of environmental protection.” Economists
argue that sanctions could spell further economic marginalization for developing
countries, which often lack the means to set up expensive quality-control systems.
The 1989 Basel Convention, for instance, imposed restrictions on trade in scrap metals
and recyclable materials, claiming they were hazardous to the environment. Economists
say it prohibits poor countries from competing in the lucrative world market for
computer parts, scrap metals, and recyclable products.
Other examples of trade restrictions are cited. In the early 1990s, Malaysia and
Indonesia fought to overturn an eco-labelling law introduced by Austria ostensibly
to safeguard the Asian rain forests. Austria refused to import timber that was not
from sustainably managed forests, but no such curbs existed for wood from temperate
areas. The protectionist flavour of the measure was overt, and Austria eventually
revoked it.
In other trade-environment disputes over the last decade, the United States has been
accused of protectionism in banning the import of Mexican tuna because dolphins were
getting ensnared and killed in nets meant for the fish. Shrimp from India, Pakistan,
Thailand and Malaysia, which paid no heed to sea-turtle protection, were similarly
banned in 1996. The sanctions may have been motivated by a desire to protect dolphins
and turtles, but the poorer countries claimed that they were a pretext for suppressing
competition in the global fish market.
A
green agenda to stop growth?
Deepak
Lal, professor of international development studies at the University of California,
Los Angeles, cites these examples when he describes the green movement as “the new
secular religion.” He says “green imperialists” are a new avatar of the “white man’s
burden,” set to impose their values on the world.
According to Lal, rules restricting trade through the Basel Convention or attempts
to ban genetically modified foods are designed to exclude poorer countries from world
markets. “I look upon the green agenda as ultimately trying to stop growth in the
Third World. And that means condemning three-quarters of the world’s population to
continuing poverty.”
Other voices in the South, however, argue that environmental controls like the CDM
are not all bad. Developing countries, say experts, will receive $5 to $17 billion
to fund climate-friendly technologies. “The CDM gives us an opportunity to invest
in projects that promote sustainable development. If incidentally they also reduce
emissions, we shouldn’t quarrel with the fact,” says Dr R.K.Pachauri, of the Tata
Energy Research Institute, New Delhi. “As sovereign nations, we should be confident
about choosing projects, like renewable energy projects, that we would in any case
want to invest in.”
The rules of the CDM have yet to be established, and Pachauri urges developing countries
not to squander the chance to influence their formulation.
But Anil Agarwal, director of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment,
insists that the CDM has neglected the concerns of poor countries. “The CDM still
begs the long-term question about when and how developing countries will take on
commitments of their own to reduce emissions.”
Not all experts in developing countries, however, shun global environmental controls.
Indian economist and newspaper editor Swaminathan S. Aiyar argues that there is “much
to be learnt from the rest of the world.” Like British colonial rule, which brought
with it some desirable elements like democracy, civil and gender rights to India,
the new crusaders could impart useful technologies, he writes in the Times of India.
“Instead of rejecting wholesale what green imperialists say, we need to extract what
is of value, and reject the dross.”
Though the die are loaded against developing countries during negotiations, part
of the fault lies with them, say experts. “The North is aggressive and assertive
about what it wants, and comes well-prepared to negotiations,” laments Agarwal. “Developing
countries are comparatively disorganized and unclear about their objectives.”
The environment, Pachauri explains, is a low priority for politicians in developing
countries. Lack of cooperation between these nations is another handicap. A dearth
of resources and language barriers come in the way. But as developing countries know,
they will be hardest hit by global warming. In the end, counsels Agarwal, it is up
to them to devise ways to protect our common future. |
