We publish hereunder a comment to the results of the Rio Conference, written for the Crocodile Newsletter by Mr. Carlo Ripa di Meana.On 28 June, he wasappointed Minister of the Environment of the Italian Government headed by Mr. Giuliano Amato. This comment was, however, written on the eve of his government appointment: that is in his capacity as European Commissioner for the Environment.
Mr. Ripa di Meana was MEP from 1979 to 1984 and participated in particular to the creation and development of the Club Crocodile. After that, he was Member of the European Commission, responsable in particular for the institutional and cultural problems (1985-1988) and then Commissioner for the environmental policy (1989-1992). After such a long Community carrier, Mr. Ripa di Meana goes back to Italian politics in a very difficult moment of the Republic's history. "Crocodile honoris causa", Mr. Ripa di Meana will certainly act in the Italian government not only in order to carry on his firm action for the environment sauvegard but also in order to make progress the federal integration process of Europe.
RIO EMPY BOXES
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) has ended in Rio amidst much pomp and ceremony.
Twenty years after the Stockholm Conference the time had come to shake the apathy of the rich polluting countries in the North and kindle in the hearts of the poorer countries in the South the hope of balanced economic growth respecting ecological equilibrium. The Rio Summit was above all an event to crystallize, on the basis of scientific groundwork, fundamental political choices to resolve the tricky environment/development equation. However this opportunity was missed, and despite the hectic last few days, which still failed to produce practical results, it is fair to say that none of the UNCED's objectives were fully attained. There were three main areas of concern at the Conference: the North-South divide; specific measures to help the less-developed countries; and a common platform for "sustainable development".
With regard to the North-South issue, the aim was to bridge the gulf that has gradually opened between the two hemispheres. The main challenges were to put the North's house in order, especially as regards non-polluting production, to provide for adequate funding for the South, and to establish fairer ground rules between the two sides. However, the attitude of the United States ruled out the possibility of agreement, for all its supposed leadership on the environmental front. Its attitude is quite incomprehensible when you look at the figures: with 23% of carbon dioxide emission, the United States is the biggest single contributor to the greenhouse effect!
On Agenda 21, a very ambitious programme of aid for the less-developed countries, and for which it was essential to agree on a substantial budget, the results were inadequate. The $10 billion budget agreed is well below expectation. Where the Community is concerned, despite the promises to contribute $4 billion, the financial outlay will be not much more than the present levels of aid. For the most part, it is simply a redistribution exercise which will not affect the overall amount given. At present only the Netherlands and Denmark meet the objective of O.7% of GDP for development aid; France and Italy have promised to reach this target shortly, while the other partners have simply adopted the diplomatic formula that they will do so "as soon as possible".
With regard to the third aspect, namely sustainable development, right from the outset the Conference deliberations were singularly lacking in vigour in the subjects central to the discussions, in particular population growth, and action to combat deforestation and desertification. A vague reference to the formulation of population policies cannot be regarded as an encouraging result; where afforestation is concerned, the position of member countries such as Malaysia and India, which are fiercely opposed to any loss of sovereignty, blocked any progress.
Over the entire Conference there loomed like an asphyxiating spider's web the attitude of President Bush, who maintained throughout the Summit an unyieldingly negative position unacceptable in someone whose world leadership role is allegedly his strong point. Bush persuaded the Community to water down the Climate Convention and confirmed his obstinate refusal to sign the Biodiversity Convention. In the face of such impasses the Heads of State and Government had no other option but to promise further miracle-working summits. In Rio, however, in the sidelines of the UNCED COnference an intelligent and on-the-ball contribution was made by the non-governmental
organisations, confirming once again their very important lobbying role.
The conclusions to be drawn from this experience should not , however, prompt us to throw in the towel. If there is a responsible attitude on the part od all those who, aware of the gravity of the situation, wish to pledge themselves wholeheartedly to the safeguarding of our planet, the vacuum left by Rio can be filled.
The Community should confirm the undertakings already given, working on the basis of the fifth environment programme, which makes sustainable development the cornerstone of future activities, and should make a start on adopting the proposals which are already before the Council. A concrete example of this is the carbon tax proposal strongly supported by the Italian Environment Minister, Mr. Ruffolo.
Carlo Ripa di Meana
