The Hindu Business Line : Contradictions at Earth Summit

Sustainable development will be helped if the governments of rich countries scale down the various subsidies they shower on their farmers and if the governments of poor countries cease to persecute their peasantry. But few heads of state are likely to take such a global, long-term view. Each of them will want to defend his own national interests and agenda, points out Sharad Joshi.

THE Earth Summit 2002 has opened at Johannesburg. The focus of the electronic media and of various environment groups is now on the main conference centre at Sandton as also at the NGO meeting centres at Nasrec, in Soweto, at the end of the town.

The advance parties of all the contending groups arrived early in Johannesburg and local TV channels had a hectic time telecasting the statements and interviews of leaders of different schools of thought. On August 23, a full three days before the inauguration, 77 demonstrators were rounded up by the police. Those opposed to freedom and globalisation have meticulously planned massive demonstrations with a view to catching the global limelight, obstructing the proceedings of the conference and, if possible, frustrating it.

Over the last two years, the rag-tag coalition of sundry groups of environmentalist, socialists, trade unionists and luddites joined by that sophisticated instrument of frontier technology — the Internet — have succeeded in making their presence felt. This time they will have to contend with the police in South Africa, who are known for their toughness; the highest number of custodial deaths occurs in South Africa.

What is the Summit about? The agenda relates to the most fashionable cliché of the present epoch — sustainable development. The Johannesburg conference is a sequel to the earlier 1993 Rio de Janeiro Summit, which gave birth to this now widely used term. The predecessor conference was a success and its resolutions certainly figured on the agenda of most governments. That little was accomplished in consequence is due more to the complexities of the issues, as also to the wide divergence of interests between poor and rich countries, than the lack of interest and political will.

The Earth Summit 2002 has certainly bitten off too big a slice to be done justice to in the short duration of the meet. The very concept of sustainable development is a limitless canvas.

Agriculture is only one chapter in any developmental programme. The heads of state/government who have converged to confabulate will, no doubt, be more interested in industrial growth, increase in employment, transfer of frontier technology and facilitation of finance. Agriculture does not figure at the top of their agenda.

The list of subtopics covered under the chapter of agriculture is spread out in alphabetical order from `A' for agriculture to `W' for water. Clearly, the Summit can do nothing more than make some kind of recommendations on action programmes that may barely scratch the surface of the issues involved under each topic.

One could perhaps start drafting the final resolutions straightaway. The Summit would decide to promote, encourage and support the national governments in implementing the standard prescriptions in each domain, no matter if some of them contradict each other.

Anybody who is a head of a state/government is unlikely to be enthusiastic about presiding over the liquidation of his own estate. The action programme would, understandably, highlight the active role of the state while paying lip service to the forces of liberalisation, globalisation and the market.

As regards agriculture, the fact is that it would benefit more if the governments refrained from intervening — either positively or negatively — than from any programme of action.

From a global point of view, sustainable development will be helped if the governments of rich countries scaled down the various subsidies they shower on their farmers and if the governments of poor countries ceased to persecute their peasantry.

No head of state/government is likely to take such a global long-term view. Each of them, rich or poor, will perorate to present and defend his/her own national interests and agenda.

Two events occurred on the eve of the Earth Summit 2002 that may caste their shadow on the proceedings.

Fishermen in Scotland are agitated that their highland rivers, which used to brim with fish, particularly salmon, have been emptied out due to reckless commercial mechanised fishing without adequate measures of replenishment. A discussion of their brief will bring out the intricacies of the `man versus nature' conflict involved in all measures of contrived development.

The Earth Summit will certainly be seriously over-shadowed by something that is happening in its very backyard — Zambia. The Director-General of the World Food Programme (WFP), Mr James Morris, has declared the inability of his organisation to provide food to the estimated two and a half million starving people in Zambia and another 13 million who will soon be affected, unless the Government of Zambia agrees to receive the genetically modified (GM) food supplies.

The genetically engineered seeds have proved their merit as regards production, yields and cost as also quality. There is, however, a strong lobby interested in the continued use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, which are important elements of the Green Revolution package. The lobby has succeeded in creating a scare about, both probable and improbable, hazards for environment, plants, cattle and human population.

The Zambian Government, as of today, appears determined not to allow the entry of GM foods, even at the risk of exposing millions of people to starvation. In the past, Africa has witnessed the curious spectacle of a national government preventing food supplies from abroad from reaching its own starving people. It need not shock anyone if the government of Zambia uses the anti-GM arguments rather than some tribal diatribe to justify its policies.

Eventually, people the world over will come to consume GM foods. If in the course they notice any unsavoury effects, human ingenuity will produce the necessary antidotes. In any case, in another decade man will have no alternative but to adjust himself to GM foods.

In the meanwhile, the Zambian authorities' stance will provide a good backdrop for discussions on biotechnology, environment and sustainable development for the Earth Summit at Johannesburg.

(The author is Founder, Shetkari Sanghatana. Feedback may be sent to sharad@mah.nic.in)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Educating with FDI

Policy flip-flops and crisis of confidence

Contradictions at Earth Summit

Unbecoming of Government

The changing focus of power politics

Political governance

Poll ordinance