Ministers squabble over ecological issues
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.
Links with trade The forestry convention, the future role of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and GEF figured prominently in the discussions. Also in focus was the emerging link between trade and environment, in the wake of the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
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 backtracks
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".
Money issues
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.