ENVIRONMENTAL APPRmGWES

Structure
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Environmental Approaches
7.3 Three Myths of Developmellt Policy
7.4 Environment-Development Debate
7.4.1 Paradox of Sustainable Devcloprnent
7.5 The North-So~rthDivide
7.6 Globalisatio~land Sustainability
7.7 Summary
7.8 Exercises

'9.1 INTRODUCTION
-rIiis Unit deals with sustainable develop~rlentin the context of environmentnl approacl~esof
internatioaal relatio~ls.Traditional stirdy of international relations was liniited to relations between
states, role of the government and armed forces, and questions of war and peace. In the post-
Second World War period a rl~~liiber of non-state actors became active in the relations among
nations. Besides other actors, these included terrorist organisatiol1s and multinational corporations
(MNCs). Later still, it was realised that the role of civil society could not any more be ignored
in tlie study of international relations. In turn, civil society was related to developniellt particularly
sustainable development, which, according to Brundtland Commission, means
"development.. .that meets the needs o f tlie present without compromising the ability of future
generations ta meet theirs." Thus, it is not only development of the present and checking
environmental degradation is important; equally important is to end the "north-south" divide.
Even though the world is said to have now become a "global village", yet the North corltinues
to be a voracious consiuner and the Sooth continues to be in want and lnisery because they still
have to surrender their resources to the rich uations of the North.

In this Unit, you will read about certain n.rytlisabout development, as also tlie linkage between
environmental protectio~la~iddevelopment. You will appreciate that sustainable develop~i~ent
policies sta~idon three pillars, namely, the carryilig capacity of land, water, air arid forests
which are basic resources to sustain life in our planet; development should observe intra-
govemme~italequity and justice; and that present generation tl~ustnot extract out of the stock
of resources belonging to the future gaierations. A number of efforts have bccti made in recent
decades, including the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in 2002, and attended
by 192 countries to reach a difficult collsensus on tlie implementation of policies for sustai~~able
development.

7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACHES

"E~~viro~i~iielit"
does not observe boundaries. Air, water, forests and larld are contiguous and are
inherently structt~redand designed to join and bring people together and their nations closer.
Ironically indeed, this has never been so due to the l~igllvalue of these resources, which are
natllrally available to mankiod and also due to the difficulties and dilemliias in the system of
dividing, demarcating and measuring tlle distribution af their use and misuse by various nations.

68
Ironically "nature" that existed to create re8atic,nsi1ips of it~terdepe~idea~ce
even amongst the
ailtagonists has uow become a lpot hcd o f intenrational politics. 'The emerging statistics of
resource scarcity and the widening income gap between thc developed and the developing
nations is once again threatening the worfd with n disaster Inore devastating than the Secotld
World War. I t is this realisation that (3-7 [now G8 with the additio~lof Russia] has diverted
attention from the proliferation of strategic weapons and balancing the M A D capabifities to
canservation, acquisitio~rand control of the resources of ttze world such as forests, land.
agriculture, water and technology. It is a perplexing situation for the stctdy sf international
relations becattse uow the deliberi~tionhfeature not the government or the military prowess but
the people who control resoilrces at the grass-I-out level. Thus in present tirnes the study of
international t-elatiaus is forced to come down to the grass-root Level where communities,
people's sr~anisations,voEt111taryagencies, farmers groups. foi-cstctwellers, labour unions and
tribals are asserting themselves and struggling to clean the clogged channeis cf the central ised
state structures.
The environ~~aental continger;cies are defying both the 1neteoroEogica1forecasts as well as the
indigenous wisdom. The last century was the warmest cetltury in tlte past 600 years and
four tee^? of the warmest years since 1 BhOs scctwred between 1980 and 1998. Some of the worst
ettvironrnent~lcalamities like floods, tlrougfrts, cyclo~lesand earthquakes occt~rredduring the
last decade. Most of the low-lying areits in the world are getting inundated and the number of
ecoIogical refugees has beet2 growing at at1 utimanagcnbte pace. TIae worldwide scarcity of
resotirces ltas led to "water wars'" over and above the already prevailing Xvars over forest
ownership and usufruct rights. The shrinking environmental space has cnobilised men and
mony across national boundaries it1 a nianner never seen before. Etrviroornei~thas beconae a
political problem of the higi~estorder. Uncfer tllese circutristniices the concept of military
security appeared o~~tllared and irrelev:mt sitice the new enuironmeatal insecurities tlrreatened
not one cottnt1-y brrt all the int~abitatatscrf this "spaceship earth"' irrespective of their being rich
or poor, man or woman, white or black. "Global warming"', "greentlouse effect" aaaad "ce/-rri~o'y
is the new t&minology, which baffles the decision makers and perplexes the technology studies.
That the world is serious sbo~mtthese unanticipated developnr~erltsis manifested in the path
breaking study made by Brraa~dtfarrdCommission ahat was soon FoElowed by another study of
an itltemationai group Ehcsdcd by Heltnttt Sct~midt,farmer Chancellor of Federal Republic of
Germany in 1990. Et prrblisired a report, which offered a vision for denling with the change. It
is a vision in which security is achieved by lackling the roots of viotecrce: poverty, eevit-onmentat
degmddiota, illjustice and inequity. Nowhere has this new vision^ abod interarational palitics
been sa dramaPised. emotisnaliscd ant4 exorcised as in the fieEd of the: tae of environinental
resources. The threatening revetations obot~tresource scarcities, pollttaiern hazards and technokagy
dumping has (brought together people aF all ncttions, faiths and occuptttioaps together in a United
ennlpaign to rise above boundary. disputes anti work concertedly Fir the bctternaent of tkarmrtm~
life and sustainhzhte n~aterialadvanceu.tent. Glahal trade and trans-national eomganhes are seen
as dominant 61ctnrs in pushing their trade agendas into national ktaticies. The jottrney from Rio
(15192) to Seattle 4 1099) has demor~stratecilie: rising discrrtstcnt and rebelbislrsness amangst
citizens of both the developed and the deueioping eateutries against rhe o;filciaE insolence
tawads envimmrmental demands in their Frade policies. Environmentat problems are problems
of development arid of international cooperation. They are also very mtcR part af a broader
yn
"system and cannot be taken in isslation. However. enviraninental issues are right now the
political problems of the highest order since they have grown in c;omptesity and often lack the
unified patitical constitt~encyto lobby For them, Tire degree sf degradation, depletion and
degeneration 0f environmentaf ~CSOUFCGSare diRereflt ira different coutltries and so the scale sf
priority to these varying problems atscr difi'fers. A new E@t*irc~rtrs~e~~tetI 0trfE;oakto 2020 issued
by the Qrganisikrian far Ecsnatnic Cmqmation and Deuelaptnent (BECD) sets out "practical
 policy options" and a~ialysesthe potential economic and environmental consequences of tlie
OECDYs29 niember countries. With the Rio+lO Johannesburg Conference on Sustainable
development [World Summit on Sustainable Development] trying for a political gel on
environmental issues, both the developed and the developi~igcountries emerge as assertive '
participants to obtain support for their policy agendas. It is well accepted and un-debated that
the conti~~uance of the existing wastefill developlnental paths is suicidal and the whole enterprise
of "catching up" with the West is nothing niore than a debt-trap for the developing countries
in which the multinational financial institutions e~ijoythe goldell harvest. The eartll's resources
are Ii~nitedand the superpower of today will not be the one witli the bomb but tlie one
intellectually controlling tlie alternatives to tlie existing paradigm of developnient. Ian Johnson
the World Bank's vice-president of tlie environmentally and socially sustainable developn~ent,
acknowledged tlie problem and remarked that "the next generation of wars alrnost certainly will
be fouglit over natural resources because they will become the binding constraint on
developriient."
In~ernationalrelations have always been a study of military and diplomatic relations for tlie
control of strategic interests related to the balance of power. "People" as a factor has neither
been the concern or its study. Gover~l~nents had always superseded the arena of civil society
and had also dictated inter~iationaldecisions upon their citizens. It is for tlie first time beginning
ii-orn tlie Rio Sutnnlit of 1992 and growing into a full fledged movement at the Seattle Summit
[I9991 and finally threatening the very existence of the state structures at the Genoa Su~nlnit
.[2001] that we witness the new force of civil society in belligerence with international i~lstitutions
created for tlie purpose of resource use. Global environmental politics is all about the tremendous
gap that has prevailed and is consistently maintained by tlie rich nations of the North by
controlling and extracting tile resources from tlie poor nations of the S o ~ ~ tThis
h . is exacerbated
by tlie fact that while the North controls the teclinology and science, the South nurtures its rich
biodiversity and other liat~~ral resources.
This new direction of international relations questions tlie intrinsically destructive nature of
liuman economy. Tlie whole preoccupation of world leaders fi-o~nco~ltrollingand eliminating
threats to tlie development of wealth by a few powerful states had given rise to destructive
technology and exploitative inslitutioris. A s Brian Milani explains that this old concept of
wealth is uiiderstood as money and things (weapons in strategic sense) or quantitative wealtli
which destroys more than it creates bill the new concept is wealth as regenernlion-9~1alitative
wealtli-the (inner) development of people, the (social) development of community, and
restoration of all living systeriis. International politics today lnay be called a politics of designing
green economics. Thus the efforts towariis designing and regeneration have incited tlie whole
debate on "szistainnbility". Environmental appl-oaches are not directed simply to niitigate
environ~ncntatdestruction but to P L I upside
~ down tlie ideology which prevents community
controls over resources and i~silrpdecisio~lniaking power from the citizens. The aim of these
new approaches is colliplete development and liolistic advancement that Herman Daly
distinguishes from "growth". Tliese new environmental approaches to world politics have
created new relationships of people to tlieir economy, of culture to law and of productive forces
to natural resources. Tlie new social activism which is progressing from the Rio sun~mitto tlie
Seattle, Copenhagen and the recent New Dellii Summit on Climate Change is a force t o reckon
witli ill the direction of ti-arisforming the world from tlie destructive, negative atid quantitative
push to development to a more regenerative, positive and qualitative development.

7.3 THREE MYTHS OF DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Development in tlie post-Second World War was structul-ed for rapid monetary growth or
catching up with tlie developmental paradigm oftlie dominant West. The race towards economic
efficiency and monetary aggkandisement led U S president Harry S. Truman to declare that the
nations of the South being poor in these two aspects are underdeveloped and therefore they
need to develop in accordarice with tlie para~iietersset by the developed countries. These
parameters were internalised in the Official DeJelopment Assistance [ODA] being distributed
to tlie poor nations. This catching up with tlie West to overcollie tlie reputation of an
"underdeveloped state", nations of the 'rliird World started adopting policies, which were based
upon quantitative growth oriented inclustrialisation. Tlie technology and institutions, which
directed policies towards accu~i~ulation of capital, were largely destructive to nature. The forces
of production generated Inore "illtli" to use Ruskin's tern1 tlian "wealth". Land was degraded,
rivers polluted and tlie atmosphere laden with CfC (Chloro-flouro carbons). Nations of tlie
Third World went deep into public debt and tlie economic recovery progralnmes introduced by
the developed nations diverted attellti011 of policy planners from regenerative qualitative
develop~nentto dependent programmes. Tlie liunian potential of the poor nations was distorted
and degenerated while the imported systenis of tlle West were thought lo be tlie only answer
to the crisis of underdevelopment and poverty. The free market eco~iomyintroduced after the
collapse of the command economy in USSR lias given unlimited fieedom for capital transactions
and niultinational er~terprises.As Parkin states: "What tliis freedom means is that banks can
earn a pot of gold in Third World." This "catcking up" develop~nentlias converted the process
of development into a meclia~~isticsystem, which has destroyed the earth's atmospliere, oceans,
forests, ground water and soi I.

The global econoriiic productio~ihas gone u p several times since the Second World War. World
food output liad increased at a record pace and tlie global output of goods and services reaclied
$ 3 trillion in 1980. Yet this did not signify that people were better off and it had no relation
to the nation's develop~nentand progress. In tlie last two decades tlie world spent more tlian
US$17 trillion [at 1988 prices and exchange rates] on military activity. Global military expenditure
averaged US $850 billio~iper year or IJS$ 2.33 billion per day, US$ 97 million an hour or US
$ 1.6 mil lion a minute. In 1990 the glol)al military expenditure reaclied US$ 1000 billion. Even
in tlie late 1980s when tlie detente was becoming a reality and global military spending in the
developed countries showed a slight decline, it was offset by the sharp rise in the developing
countries. Another dangerous develop~iientthat has taken place along witti tliis growth orientation
is that 50 per cent of all arms imports into developi~igcountries have been financed by the
export credits and this a~nountsto 30 per cent of all debt inflow to developing countries. The
military concerns liave also consumed a large a~iioul~t of developniental resources such as tlie
eniployment of 3 million scientists and engineers and of 60 to 80 million people worldwide.
Large areas of land. forests and water bodies are blocked for use of testing weapons, training
niilitary and posting army or their equipmeiits. About G per cent of total world oil consumption
is for military purposes, wliich is liali'the total oil, consumed by developing countries. The
focus of all wars has bee11to destroy tlie life support syslelii of tlie elieliiy state. Use of bombs,
chemical and biological weapons liave destroyed their forests, crops, water bodies arid wetlands.
Manufacture of destructive weapons and tlie development of hazardous tech~iologyhas damaged
life of this planet beyorid repair. Millions of land and sea mines, u~lexploded bombs and
l~azardousgases in the air have endangered innocent people, livestock and wildlife but also
made large tracts of land and water unfit for human and a~iimalconsumption.

The conventiot~alparadigm of inter~iationalrelatio~isdid not have tlie study of develop~i~ent

indicators such as the growth of medical research like biotechnology and genetic engitieering
with tlie warfare techniques. Present day e~ivironmentalwarfare has been developing patliogenic
niicroorganisms for destructive purposes, which has given an entirely new meaning to the
studies on security. 111 present times no nation call insulate itself from the global effect of
hostilities. Thus tlie conventional approaclies wliich depended upon the use of strategies such
 as bcbalanceof power", "deterrence", 'cpeaceful coexistence"",'collective security" and "cornman
security" have now become broad based in which the military concerns are just a part of the
wider fields of political, economic, social, environmental and humanitarian aspects.

This new approach to international politics countered and challenged the three prevailing myths
of development policies. The myths are:
@ Economic growth indicates nation's progress.
Free markets prevent the spread of poverty.
@ Wealth could be created through debt.
The First Human Development Report of the UNDP in I990 attacks the first myth in the
approach to human development. It gave a more comprehensive yardstick to assess progress of
nations rather than just judging through economic progress or GNP. The miiitary might or the
deterrent capability is not an indicator of a nation's might as most such nations which have been
on tile top on the basis of their rnilititry prowess have sunk in their ratings when the other
indicators of progress such as overall human development manifested in the prsvisi~nsof
heakh facilities, ernpioyment, housing, gender sensitivity, environmental protectian, infrastructure
and overall socio-economic opportunities were taken into consideration. USA, Canada, Germany
and many others showed a sharp decline in their devetopmerrtal rank when other human
developmental indicators were taken into consideration.

Thus the approach to international reIations is no more oriented towards semi-analysis of few
factors through cost-benefit considerations and strategic defence ability. The approach is now
a holistic analysis, which involves ecological management, political farsightedness, social
sensitivity and people's participation. International relations has to work in accordance with the
global ecological cyctes and not the global market and its profit orientation.

The secand rnyth that the free markets prevent the spread s f poverty is rooted into a Eack of
understanding about the cause for poverty. When market barriers are dismantted there is a free
flow of foreign direct investment [FDI] into cot~ntries.This replaces the oMicial development
assistance: [QIlrA] that had constituted the foreign aid from develaped countries to the less
developed cotrntries [LDC]. The replacement of ODA by FDI is an indication that the LW
would be getting aid only .on fuEfiElment of the conditions set by the transnational companies
[TNC] which provide the FDE. Relatively ODA is more benign than FDI because it comes from
the government of a country but FDl investment is pure business. To attract EDH countries
bypass their regulatory conditions or deregulate or de-reserve some precious and traditionally
conserved areas for business like mining, dam building, setting up oil refinery or land for
industries. lit has also been found that FDl requirements may also get laws and regulations of
a land amended or changed for the benefit of some companies close to the government of the
land. Thus FDE, which aspires for liberalised trade, may also centralise decision making to a
larger extent. Strict environmental regu!altisns i~&ReWest are bringing most ofthose companies
into poorer countries, which need FDt to survive. Governments of these LDCs compromise
their environmental concenw far this race for FDI. The Green economists lament, as Parkin
states that '"rnii~ionss f people are not part of this fiedom: those who can barely eke out an
existence at the starvation level beteause their countries are burdened by interest and loan
repnyments or those who are in order to survive arc forced to destroy their natural environment.''

The third myth &at the wealth c~rmldbe created through d e b is countered by an analysis of the
mast highly indebted countries. Presently 80 per cent of poor in Latin America, 50 per cent ~f
poor in Asia and Africa live on marginal lands chamcterised by low productivity and high
susceptibility to environmental degradation such as arid and low fertility lands. While in 1977
there were just 57 nrillion people living in areas affected by desertification, by 1984 their
number increased by 135 mi tllon. The total external debt of developing countries has multiplied
thirteen fold in the last two decades from $ I00 billion in 1970 to around $ 650 billion in 1980
and to around $1,350 billion in 1990. According to World Bank just 20 countries headed by
Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India and Egypt hold 57 per cent of debt. Human Development
Report 1992 reveals that the decision by the G-7 to forgive debt of poorest of the most indebted
countries led to the cancellation of only $6 billion of the total $64 billion debt and in doing so
the concern for the really distressed sub-Saharan Africa was left far behind. Debt servicing in
global economics allows the donor agency to bypass the environmental limitations of the paor
country and ill-treat them as high-risk borrowers. To pay back the debts they step up production
of primary commodities that were aiready in oversupply and the prices fall even lower in the
international market. Behveen 1989-199 1 when the weighted index of the group of 33 primary
commodities declined by half from 105 to 57, tlre export commodity prices of the Third World
fell by 20 per cent [HDR 1992: 181. The case of Uganda is an eye opener, which suffered a loss
of 122rn. on exports front tea and coffee. In India the impact of tlie aid has been the burgeoning
interest and principal repaymetrts that led te a massive 76 per cent increase in the net outflow
ofjust the cash-weafth from India. Thus in 1993 while the aid receipts fell by 20 per cent from
$739111to $588111,interest and amortisation payments rose substantially from $470111. to $540m.
as compared to the $457m and $5 1 1 m. in the previous years. Peter Brsdy reveals that between
1980 to 1990 over $600billion or six times the Marshall Plan, was transferred from poorer
nations to the richer ones in the form of interests from loat~s.The net transfer o f resorrrces from
South to North is $ 50 bitlion per year. I f the plants and gerni plasm, cheap cassava and soya
beans, fish and forest products that the SoirtR donates to the North due to low commodity price
in the international market [as the envirottmenta! value of the product is not internaiised in its
price by the poor cout~try]are added, the reverse flow of resources is n-~ucfibigger. The 1991
Human Development Report observes that global markets make developing countries lose
economic opportunities worth around $ 500 bitlion annually, which is ten times that they
receive in foreign aid. Vandana SIriva remarks: "The Third World poverty is generated tlirough
the very processes that gertemte affluence En the North"""fie whole economic orthodoxy of
export oriented growth strategies on one hand strengthens the grip of the W C s over poor
nations and allow the big banks in the West ta reap the harvest on the loqms. while OPEthe other
hand, marginalise both subsistence rurat and tribal people by the ghnstEy but legitirnhsent
exploitation of their ecologicalt wealth.

7.4 EMVCROMMEN?F-DEVELOPMENTDEBATE
The preceding section explains tha? econarnie probletars cause and aggravate environmental
despoliation. Nations in debt destroy their environment to survive. However this debate itas its
origin in the h o r n conditions of USA when industrial gmwth peaked in the decade of 1850s
and the early 1960s. This industrialisation p s e d a severe threat to the latad and water, Bakes and
ponds, fish and forest lik. Rachael Carson's Sr'Imb Spri~agsreveals the threat inl~erenti i m thc
excessive use of insecticides and pesticides, and the enwironmesttai hazards to Grand Canyon,
Redwod Forests and Lake Eire. Suddenly USA was faced wish the new threats to development
byd3he very means that it had applied for develapment. The Club of Rome prepared a repart
im 1964 called "'Limits la Growth""tE972] which sent warning sigsmass ?a the atlllbitious
industriafists and development planners. Lt brouglat the speedily progressing growth to a halt at
a paint of introspection of the strategies they employed and tire means they pttnued. The debate
between environrnerrt and dewel~pmeittwas coriched into an antagonism between the two. It
was believed that either one couid [lave a rising per capita incame maraifested in the increased
 GNP or one could erijoy a good environnient. The two cannot coexist. 'This belief was however
proved wrong i n the subsequent tur11of information and knowledge.

-l'lie paradigm shift in this debate started i n the early 1970s. Tlie severe oil crisis marked the
beginning of the end of tlie developlnental paradigm of tlie West. A panel o f experts convened
by tlie Secsetary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human E~ivironmentat
Founex, Switzerland in 1 971 brought out the developmental dilemma of tlie developing countries
wliicli were pursuing the "catching up with the West" growth policies. It reported: "The kind
of environmental proble~nsthat are of importance in developing countries are those that can be
overcome by tlie process of developnient itself." The next Conference at Stockholm in 1972
was the first international initiative to devise an action plan for cooperation on Iiuman
environment. On the recommendation of 1 14 signatories to the conference the United Nations
General Asselnbly created United Nations Environment Progra~n~ne as a nodal agency for
environmental cooperation and coordination. Soon after in 1974 tlie Cocoyoc [Mexico]
Symposium on Patterns of Resource Use was organised by UNDP and UNEP. It explained the
problem of growth and economic devclopment. which were believed to destroy environment.
It explained tliat "the problem today is not primarily one of absolute physical sliol~agebut of
economic and social ~iialdistributionand misuse." Tliils it was becoming increasingly clear tliat
etiviron~iientand economic activity could go together provided tlle framework for economic
developlnent is refranled and redesigned and reinvented. There need not be panic and contempt
against tlie environmentalists since economic growth wit11 concern for environment would be
lasting and therefore reliable. It is this kind of growtli \vliicll later came to be referred to a s
"s~lstajnablegrowth". This style of economic develop~nentdid not come alone but brought with
it a new vocabulary such as "eco-development", "environmentally sound arid silstainable
developme~it","development without destruction", "alternative patterns of growtli and sustainable
development". All these terms signify that economic developnierit and tecllnology has to face
the new cllalle~igeof environment.

Since then several co~iferences,which were taking place in the social and ecorio~ilicspheres
sucli as population, housing, rehabilitation, social development and food sought to bririg in this
new phenomenon o f "stistainable development." The International Development Strategy for
the Third UN Development Decade in 1980 focussed upon these other issues, which were
dependent upon tlie use of environnient and its resources. It writes, "health, nutrition and
general well being depend upon tlie integrity and productivity of envil-onment and resources".
"The following conferences can be descl ibed as tlie conferences, which broadened up tlie concept
, of ecology arid environment:
@ World Food Conference. Rome. 1974
World Climate Conference, Geneva 1979
@ Alternative Lifestyles and Development Options, UNEP, Nairobi, 1980.
0 World Comriiission 011Enviroi~mentand Development [WCED] Our C'onin~onFuture,
1987.
@
UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio 1992
@
World Corifcrence on Hunian Rights, Vienna, June 1993
and Deyelopment, Cairo, Septeliiber 1994.
International Conference on Pop~~lation
0 World S~lmlnitfor Social Develol)ment, Copenhagen, March 1995.
Fourtli World Conference on Women. Beijing, 1995
@
Habitat 11, Second UN Conference on Human Settlements, Istanbul, June 1996.
0 World Food Summit, Rome 1996
 @ World Trade Organisation Conference , Seattle 1999-2000.
6
e World Trade Organisation Conference, Genoa 2001
@ Finance for Develop~iientConference 2002
Therefore environment linked up with every social and economic issue in global politics. The
latest issue, wliicli lias posed tlie grealest threat to environ~nent,is that of Biotechnology and
Genomic'research. Tlie rich ~iatioiismay use tlie germ plasm of pla~itsand ani~iialsto transform
plant species and a~iilnalbreeds respectively. Tlie intellectual property rights [lPR] may help
them steal tlie ricli biodiversity resources from the south to convert it into fi~iishedproducts arid
then seek copyrights on them.

7.4.1 Paradox of Sustainable Development

In tlie decade of 1970s environmer~t1)ecame a wholesome word providing a framework for

public policy across tlie world. Tlie prevailing paradigm of growtll. wliicli had beeti ~liorally
supported by econoli~is~s such as Ricardo and Adam Smith, had collie into question. It may
have riiade nations ricli and some nations so ricli that tliey were able to cotitrol the world
politics but this accumulation of wealth by few of tlie~uwas possible ollly by overusing resources,
wliicli did not belong to them. This is 11otto use the Marxian analogy that tliey belonged to the
proletariat but to bring to focus the wisdom of ecology, wliicli prescribes deadlines for the
exhaustion, and use of resources, which are available in nature. All resoui.ces of the world are
exliaiistible and tliey cannot be overused, ~iiisusedand destroyed by sliort sighted and iriiqilitous
policies of governments. That the reso6rces of the world belong to all and 11~1rnan beings are
trustees of this natural we."ltli is the li~ndament;l idea bchind tlie new paradigm o f growth.
Harrison has brought out tlie use of erivironment as:
@ A bank of resources
@ A site for tlie physical presence of organism
@ A sink of wastes
TIILIS the new approach to global politics demands a redesigning of policies in the light of these
tliree areas of concern and also coordinates policics being formulated i n all tliese three different
areas. The idea that underlies tlie neu approacli is that of i ~ ~ l iof
t y e ~ i v i r o ~ l ~ l l eissues
~ ~ t a land
convergence of all resource use policies. No one state can claim to or call be allowed to extract
resources out of nature, wliicli could be detri~iientalto other states. Thus deforestation, over-
fishing or over-killing of animals, the ~)ollutionof rivers through the discharge of effluents, oil
spills in oceans, releasing hazardous ga:; substances or micro organis~nin air. are all inter~iational
issues and tlii~swoi~ldneed inter~iationalregulations. This whole framework of action came to
be called "sustainable development".

"Sustainable development" is a difficult word to define since it has many definitions. Tlie most
comprehensive defitlitio~icollies from the Brundtland Commission named alter its President
Ms. GI-Q Harlelii Bri~ndtlandformer prime ininister o f N o r ~ a ywho headed tlie World Commission
on Enviivnment and Developnient in 1987. Prese~lclythe lerm si~slai~iable development Iias
around forty reported det?nitions but the most reliable one slill remains to be the one given in
the Br~~ndtla~ldCom~nission.It says that "sustainable develop~iient ...that meets the needs oftlie
present withoi~tcompromising the ability of future generations to ~ n e e tliei~s".
t Tlie same year
The E~n~ironntent Pel:st,ective ro the Yeor ,7000 atrriBeyotd fi~rtlierelaborated the same definition
by stating that sustainable development is the basis for "prudent monage~nentof available
global resources and environmental capacities and tlie rehabilitation of the environment previously
subjected to degradation and niist~se ... Altlioi~gl~
it is itnportant to tackle immediate euvironmental
problems- anticipator) a d preventive policies arc the most effkctr\,c and cconoanicai in achieving
environnzet~tallysound developmeilt Tlirs concept of sitstainable development became the
" a

greatest critique of develo~r~laentpolic~es.as the rapid tndustrlnlisation. w-l~ichfocussed only

upon the improvement of living standat-ds of present generatton. was not sustainable. As Tolbn
explains: "economic systems should bc managed to maintall1 and Improve the envircrt~rnaltal
resource base so that fiiture generations would be able to I i ~ eequally we81 or better." It
integrates environmental tnanagement with econonlie and soc~alpolicies and this was esactlv
what was brought out at the Stockholm Coderencc in 1972. Former prime minister indlh
Candbi who pointed out in the Conference that '"poverty was the greatest polluter'Yndicated
that a poor nation camot aff'ord to followv environmental controls tmposed through el~viro~unental
regulations. The whole business of en\.irorunental management would need an emviromentally
sound and sustainable development (ESSD) techniques. \vhicla in turn wsuId need financial
assistance to poor natiorls.

Sustainable development has established that the GNP is not the right method of assessing a
country's progress. 111 the decade of 1980s and 1990s attempts were made to rrcliust tlationnl
income accounts to rcglster both the direct costs inflicted by environmei~taIdegradation and the
-'depwciatton" of r~aturntresources capital to abloiv for losses in fiitirrc psoditctioil potct~tiaI.It
means that the national income accoilnts do not mention the value of the resource, which it had
extracted out of the stock belonging to the filttere generation. Thus the d::clining rcsotarces for
tlze filture generation would aftect the living standard of the futirre generations:. This exposes
the high living standards being n~rtilttrrinedby the rich nations or even deardoping cotintries
which is due to tlteir drawing out of what belongs to tllose who are yet to inhabit the earth. If
one deducts the d u e of the resources extracted out of the filhrre stock thc G W P falls drastically.
When fapm tried to adjust jts national income accoimts to envira~rnentaldegradation, its GNP
lvas found to be growing by 5.8 per cent and not 8.3 per cent as lvas earlier believed. Itz
Indonesia it turned out to be only 4 per cent itastead of 7.1 per cent per year. Thus the
Bmndtland Rcpofl called "Oar Conlmrm Fz~ilrf?&t*e" had been right in rcnrrarki~lgthat incomplete
accounting occrrrs especially in the case of resources that are not capitalised in enterprise or
national accouitts: air, water and soil.

Another pparados of sustainable deveiopment is tlte measurement and cost of damage cakssed by
env~romlentaldegradation in a counte. The econom~ecost of po(kttion d a m a g in developed
cattntnos vcxies bet\vee~a3 and 5 per cent of GNP n ~ d the cast of pollution abatement and
control has been estimated to be at 0.8 per eeut to li.5per cent of annual GDB. 611 developing
cairntries the cost sf paflution control and ESSD effms would cost ntuleh loaves. It is tvell
established now ahat the returns of these adjustn~entstvould be around $26 bitlion per year for
USA done. For developing countries it varies fmm coi~ntqto country ,'>rat the gain has heen
estimated to be substantial.

To stam up, sustainable de\reBapmed pslicics stclp1d on three pittars:

Development stlould absewe the caryisng capacity of Imd, ~\~atcr- air and forests. which are
tile four basic resources t o sustain tifie OVCP the planet. Ef they arc ased beyond their ability
to regenerate, replenish and recharge then they arc lost irsr ever.

a Development should observe intrn-~encrationnleqklity and Justice. According to this,

develapmertt shodd benefit all classes mn id sections of people in the society. Bf they benefit
only a few dominant classes ~ v h amatrer in the electoral succcss then the resource wastefimEness
by that elass wodd destro~.the share o f the other classes also.
 * Development should observe inter-generational equity and justice. This would mean that
the present generation does not have the right to extract out of the stock of resources
belonging to the ncst generation. This would bring in poverty due to resource degradation
inllcrited by the next generation.

7.5 THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE

The Brundtlantd Commission exposed the global consurnptioll patterns: which has also been
elaborately described in the Second Catizen's Report prepared by the Centre for Science and
Environment, an eriv~roluncntalIVGO in Ilelhi. The global environmental crisis is supposedly
a direct outcome of the unjust corlsuniption pattern practised and sustained by G 8 States.

Even though the world lmas now beconlc a Global Village as the Canadian scholar McLuhan had
tenned it yet the northcnr side of the globe is a voracious consumer but the southern side is
constantly in want and miscry because they loose out their resources to the rich nations of the
North. The 23 per cent of the world population living in industrial countries is earning 85 per
cent of world income ancl consuming most of its resources. The energy consilmption measured
per capita is 280 in USA followed by 165 in Gernlany, 1 10 in Japan, 31) in Latin America and
21 in Asia but it dlps to 12 in Africa and in sonle African countries it is as low as just one.
One US citizen consumes energy equal to 160 Tanzanians or 900 Nepalese. It 1s this affluence,
which has resulted info a high production of CFC gases fro111the developcd countries with USA
toppulg thc list 28 pcr cellt in contrast to 8 per cent produced by cvllolc of the Third World.
This consumption pattern has also denied $500 billiol~wort11 of market opportunities annually
to the developing coiunlries. Lant Pritchctt of thc World Bar& reveals in a study that in 1870
the world's richest countries USA and Britain had incomes, which was nine tl~nesthat of the
poorest country. In 1990 it galloped tc) 45 times more than the poorest cou~ltry.Pritchett also
calculated the incomcs of the 17 riches1 countrics in 1870, which was 2.4 times that of all'other
countries. In 1990 the gap was incrcascd by 4.5 timcs. This study concludes that the gap is
widening and this is thc major cause for the sharpening battle between the developed and the
developing countries and t11c rise of tlic civil socicty movcmcnt. This has been manifested in
the Seattle and the Genoa WTO Summits when the c~vilsocicty groups emerged in large
~lunlbersto prevent thc G 7 coiirltrics from tiking unjust and ~unsustainabledecisions. The
Seattle Summit was a total tumarountl to the practised market economy within the WTO.
Di~riligthe &o Summit thc divisio~~s bctween thc North and the Soilth were quite prono~inced
The ricllest 70per cent biodiversity was concentrated in
in cast: of the biodiversity Corrvc~~tion.
the identified 12 "mega-diversity" countries. (Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Zaire,
Madagascar, China, hldia, Malaysia, I~~donesia and Australia). The developed countries wanted
the devclapil~gcoi~ntricsto take action for the presei-vntiotl and consenlation of their biodiversity
rcsources. However, tlic cost of the niost basic biodiversity protection progriwmlics were in the
range of $ 10 to $14 billion per ann~lmwllereas the tecl~nologicalbenefits derived from the
genetic resources would go into the pockets of tlic Western TNCs. Therefore, the ticklish
probleills of "Bioteclu~alogy","Patents", "Role of TIVCs" and the 111uch dcbated '~ntellectual
Property Riglits" added fi~rthercoi~~plications to the acceptnilce of the Biodiversity Convention.
Despite all odds and strong opposition by its greatest trading partner USA, Canada was the first
industrialised nation to ratify the Convelition On Biological Diversity (CBD). Its three main
objectives are indicative of sonze long-tcrtn collsboratioll plans bctwcen the two nations:
i) Conservntiol~ of Biological Diversity
ii) Sustainable use of Biological Resources
iii. Fair and equitable sharing of bcncfits rcsultiilg from the use of genctic resources.
 Besides Biodiversity, "Climate Change" is another area of international muscle flexing. The
socio-economic consequences of climate change especially the impact of climate change upon
the agriculture-based economies of developing countries will have serious global fallout. It says
that in 1992 Canada consumed approsimately 34,000 Btu of energy to produce an industrial
output of 1985-dollar value, compared to 26,000 Btu in the United States and 18,000 Btu on
average in the 6-7. The industry lobbj, especially of the oil companies lobbied through Global
Climate Coalition and the Climate Council another industry group, which accompanied the US
delegation to the UNEP meetings. LTK had not been directly affected by this pollution since the
wind carried away the pollution towards the Arctic and Europe. Europe and the Alliance of the
Small Island States were directly threatened from pollution and ocean rise, which would submerge
their homelands. Thus the JUSCANZ group (Japan, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)
wanted to weaken the language of the climate change initiative by diverting the debate to the
one on -'sources" and '"sinks".

7.6 GLOBALISA"P0N AND SUSTAINABILITY

From 26 August to 4 September 2002, 192 countries at the World Summit on S~istainable
Development [WSSD] reached a diffia~ltconsensus on the implementation plans for sustainable
policies.
Tackling biodiversity luss by agreeing on [he target to halt the alarming rate of Ioss by
2010.
@ Halving the.figure of 2.4 h i l l i o ~people who do not have access to basic sanitation.facilities
by 2015.
@ Protec~ingthe world'sJi.shing stocks by restoring most of the worldl.s major fisheries to
,su,sta~nnhlelevels by 2015.
@ Cornrnitting to n. clolcse to "continue to enhance the mzrtual szcppur.tiveness of trade"'
It was welt agreed that envirollnle~ltaldegradation would continue to worsen unless world
leaders come with a coherent poverty reduction strategy. It was thus clear that finance was the
prime requireinent for sustainable development. During the Workshop on Global Enviro~lnlental
Negotiations the industrialised nations were made clear on the point that the Agenda 21 was
non-negotiable and tl~ereforeaid for development should be forthconling from these developed
countries.

However this remains only on paper as the global politics is ridden by the s a n e old rules of
the game. It is manifested in the way USA has been dominating the decision making by other
countries in signing the Climate Changc Convention or the Kyoto Protocol. India heads the
Intergovernmental Panel on Clinlate Change when it won the seat by replacing the US contestant.
Therefore, the recently organised "Eight Conference of Parties" [COP-81 to the United Nations
Framework Convention on CIin~ateChange [UNFCCC] held in India, the abidance to the Kyoto
Protocol was the prime requirement but it ended up into strained cornmitn~entsfrom the developed
as well as the developing countries. USA and the JUSCANZ group prevented the recourse to
alternatives bq going into bilateral swaps to economy of tlian~developing countries like Thailand,
Belize, El Salvador, India and China. USA was able to negotiate on technology issues with
Australia and Canada thus preventing slrong action on Kyoto Protocol from these two potcntially
strong states. The protocol comes into force only if 55 countries representing 55 per cent of
GGEs rati&. The World Sununit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg has echoed the
concerns for the shortcomings of cliluate change initiatives.
 The Seattle Conference has sufficiently demonstrated the unification and convergence of the
civil society. groups across national and ideological bou11darie.s to question the domination of
the 6 - 8 countries over envirorunental policies of the world. The UN Conference on Environment
and Development (also known as the Earth Sununit) was the outcome of an intensive two years
preparation of 35,000 people, 106 heads of state or government and 9000 journalists. This
Summit gave an unprecedented access lo public interest groups, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and the business groups represented through the TNC representatives. The unbalanced
production and consumption levels prevailing in the world and the decreasing official development
assistance (ODA) was pointed out as the villain of environmental sustainability. This was
followed up at the 64th meeting of the Development Comnlittee at Ottawa on November 18th,
2001 under the Chairmanship of Yashvant Sinha, minister of finance of India. The central
concern of the Conference 'deliberations was the assessment of Poverty Reduction Strategies.
This was further discussed at the Finance for Development (FfD) Conference in April 2002 at
Washington. The Conference emphasised the enhancing the ODA flows and harmonisation of
the govemnle~ltagencies with private sector and the civil society so that poverty eradication
exercises could be improved upon Canadian govenllnent also worked in consultation with the
civil society groups of Canada for the Tenth Session of the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Deveiopnlent (CSDIO) ill May 2002, and the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in August 2002.

The Tenth Session of the United Nations Comnlission on Sustainable Development (CSDlQ)
in May 2002, and the recently concluded World Summit on Sustainable Develop~nent(WSSD)
provide an opportunity for reassessment. The themes, which have been picked up for action,
are:
a) Stewardship and conservation;
b) Innovation and Partnership;
C ) Sustainable Communities
d) Health and the Environment;
c) International Governance.

7.7 SUMMARY
The biggest challenge and the most dramatic upsurgc has been the moveinent to democratic
pluralism. The movement from an essentially bipolar world dominated and displayed by two
super powers and military forces to n~icrosporcsof civil society groups creating multitude of
opportunities as well as uncertainties. 'The two developnlent decades of the United Nations had
believed in institutional solutions to dcvelopmental problems and this was fairly expressed in
the call for the New International Econon~icOrder. But the 21st Century brought in a nlore
individualistic and inward looking market oriented development, which was paradoxical to the
liberalism and open circuit approach etnerging in the technoIogy of coltununication. While the
first developn~entdecade co~~centrated decisions with the transnational companies, the second
developinent decade gave a boost to the rise of grassroots inovenlents and civil society resurgence.

It is fairly understandable that the path of sustainable devclopment is ridden with the imnense
gap that exists between the North and the South states. Global negotiations and international
agreements have remained unfi~lfilledand disappointing. The increased conflicts between trade
and envirolunent are only making the task more complicated. It is important that nations apply
logic and understanding with a long-tenn perspective and initiate concrete action towards
sustainable dcvelopment.
1) What is sustnil~nblcdcvelopment? 1

2) Esplain the prevailing myths of tlevclopme~~t policy.

-3) Atlalysc tile cnilironment-develop~~~c~~t
debate.
3) Discuss the north-south divide in the contest of global enviro~lllle~ltal
crisis.