Archives

Florence Wickramage interviews Professor C. Suriyakumaran on the recently concluded World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held at Johannesburg, South Africa, 26th August - 4th September 2002

Question: You had expressed fears for the success of the conference in an earlier interview with us, how do you see its results now?

Answer: Probably worse than I envisaged and I say it in great sorrow. I shall say, although it is not easy, the reasons fall into 4 or 5 groups and involved all the players - not just the rich countries. All "contributed" if that is the word - the developing countries, the UN Secretariat, the 'lobbies', the 'intellectuals' and the rich countries.

The 'contributions', at least those that should have been made were not at the "Summit" alone, but well before - and the developing countries which should have done the most 'home-work' probably did the least! Followed (believe it or not!) by the UN Secretariat, save probably UNEP, at Nairobi.

Question: Could you expand further?

Answer: The Summit itself came to be convened with a redoubtable history. At its beginning was the Stockholm Conference on Environment on the advent of the 70s. When Maurice Strong, designated its Secretary General, stood at my Secretariat doorway at Manila where the annual high level conference of ECAFE (the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East) was being held that year, and sought my efforts as deputy to ECAFE's Executive Secretary U. Nyun in order to organise Asian support for Stockholm, the subject was hardly known to Asian leaders, even treated with suspicion. It was a hard years' labour.

Thereafter in Asia; and when Indira Gandhi of India declared at Stockholm that for the poor countries, poverty was their greatest environmental threat and their greatest priority, the agenda of Stockholm and their success was assured. The rest was history as it were. UNEP was established by Maurice Strong at Nairobi in 1973 with myself having the personal privilege of being one of the handful setting it up remaining as one of its four Programme Directors, until I moved to Asia to set up and head UNEP's Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. The atmosphere in the countries ranged from polite co-operation, to acceptance, to deep trust.

That "Environment is not a sector but a dimension in all sectors" is a dictum we propagated with fervour, but initially hardly known. Countries would initially set up National Environment Councils consisting only of their own ministry and their officials. But soon, again with a lead by Indira Gandhi at our suggestions, National Councils, on par with National Security Councils or National Planning Councils came up from Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, to Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere.

(Countries like Burma who stated bluntly they had no use for environment but only Development when told of their vast potential for bagasse and other waste conversions to energy at a time when they were having a severe power crisis, said they had never realised that was "environment"; and wanted to join). The South Pacific countries occupying 1/6th of the globe's surface, and carrying some of the world's most fragile eco-systems soon set up under UNEP stimulation one of the most successful sub-regional environmental co-operation programmes finally - (considering UNEP's awareness of South Asian realities) SACEP (South Asian Co-operation Environment Program) with headquarters right here in Colombo.

UNEP's regional office was in the meantime developing region-wide collaborative thinking systems of integrated environmental development management that means eventually to help national environment development planning and management systems.

UNEP Nairobi itself had thrown out concepts of eco-development and development without destruction, and forged a number of global initiatives.

Question: Rio then was a watershed?

Answer: It was in these settings that the World Conference on Environment and Development - the Rio Summit of 1992 - was convened amid great support from both scientists and environmentalists; and the summit under Maurice Strong again, conducted Declarations of Principles, Adoptions of Decisions and Protocols and (however slim at the time) even a "World Agenda 21" for all to adopt - and indeed which they adopted down the years that followed. While it produced an environment programme for countries, it failed to formulate an environment programme for development.

It was during these years that the Environment Development controversies (whatever the spectacular individual cases) also reduced - academics, professionals, internationalists all contributing. Following "Stockholm" and in implementation of the concept that "Environment was a dimension in all sections", we had illustrated for example, that it was more important that, say, the Agricultural Ministry does its agriculture "better" than an Environment Ministry shall do the agriculture for it! The immediate pre-Rio phase produced thinking on Integrated Environment - Development Management (joint cost benefit systems, natural resources, balance sheets preparations, integrated environment economic auditing and others) even though not spread across countries wide enough. A noted dictum was that environment and development are no more separate tasks, but one and the same task, which cannot be done except together.

A further outcome was recognition of the central concept of Environmental Technology as prime and that it even forms the centre-piece of our programme for foreign aid and foreign cooperation. (The concept's central character never caught the attention of our "policy-makers", forgetting that the great socio-economic 2000 year old civilisation of this country for instance, was built on basis of hydrological and metallurgical engineering technologies that were foremost for the world of the day)

Question: That brought us to Johannesburg?

Answer: Thus, when at last the World Summit on Sustainable Development was billed for Johannesburg this year, it was (in theory at least) to build on those foundations and to carry all the thinkings, methodologies, and international concerns forward from those points.

"Development", now still a term that very few really understand (maximum feasible development, not just some low-level development equilibrium, not simply getting a little important here and there - in water, health, agriculture and bio-diversity, energy or poverty - but joining the club of the advanced and the developed). In any case, as was pointed out so clearly, the Third World was here to consume for its own growth at least ten times the resources it is consuming now, and that required recognition by the international community; sound technological aid and co-operation; and the lot.

Those were the settings in which the Johannesburg World Summit was to diagnose its agendas; (its preparations from the start); and the conduct of its proceedings. None of these occurred!

Question: What went wrong then?

Answer: The Summit's proceedings at Johannesburg remained platitudinous or nominal. Both the Secretariat and the developing countries contributed handsomely to this. The developing countries for their part had no preparatory forums worth the name during the months ahead, even at the Regional Preparatory Meetings, such as for Asia in Bali, except for 'begging bowls' to place before the rich. None on Environment and Development Collaboration; none on Environmental Technologies Co-operation (say, as a new type Marshall Aid programme from the rich for the decade); no unified "lobbies" got together through SACEP/SAARC, ASFP/ASEAN, SPREP/S.P.C and Forum. They just largely sat there at Jo'berg and took it. The global NGOs in strength at Jo'berg should have got together in the regions first.

The UN Secretariat at Johannesburg above all, failed signally. Nitin Desai, himself, a left-over from Maurice Strong's Rio retinue failed in his role of Secretary General of the conference, apparently asserting that "Jo'berg was the last UN Summit" on the subject for a long time now, and doing little about making it so, not knowing how to - even the Secretary General announced a so-called brief of 5 key areas (of whatever et al) to the ones to negotiate.

As if they were! For one thing, they were by now the hackneyed so-called key areas of almost all global conferences that were taking place (World Bank/IMF; WTO; key UN specialised agencies, et al). For another, these were not the key areas for a breakthrough (a) on Environment and Development Management; (b) Environmental Technologies Co-operation; (c) the rich countries subsidies (to themselves); Tropical Forests and Royalties, Theories, bio-piracies and other similar genre. Stockholm and Rio even steered by Maurice Strong, "Jo'burg could have been by say Klaus Topfer (UNEP) or Mostapha Tolba the redoubtable former head of UNEP, if needed supported by me or other leaders, such as M.S. Swaminathan of India. But no - and the Secretary General who is the Secretariat and by Charter-right has a duty to act in and bring to notice of the membership any matter considered by him to be of importance, was left to recite 4 or 5 resources headings, suits admirably the rich countries' established ways of deciding to the end how much they shall give.

It was left for my Executive Secretary of UN, ECAFE, and myself, during the fifties and early seventies - to reflect membership's aspirations, to pressure and (using an established UN Commission convention), to keep Items on Agendas for "follow up" actions, notwithstanding some countries' disapprovals, if the majority supported and called for such follow up. It was these processes coupled with Secretariat "leadership" that eventually saw the creation of such well known establishments such as the Asian Development Bank (opposed vehemently by the USA at the start); the Asian Clearing Union (similarly opposed but by 'proxy') - which inter alia Stiglitz et al now seen as virtues - the Asian Coconut Community and others. SACEP itself, which had included Iran and Afghanistan and Burma in observer position - had been approved outside by a very powerful country. And so on.

Question: What now?

Answer: Little may be expected now from Johannesburg - with even haphazardly any pieces to be picked up. Unless, that is, the Developing Countries get themselves together; act together; and know what to do. Else it will be just another 10 years of waiting. Save for any that might be wise enough to join the Club of the Asian Tigers?

(Professor Suriyakumaran was inter alia Deputy Executive Secretary of UN's Science Council for Asia; Global Director and Regional Director, UNEP; Member (recent) UNEP Preparatory Commission for Jo'berg Summit; United Nations Sasakawa World Environment Laureate 1995; Hon. Fellow Chartered Institute of Water and Environment Management (UK).

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager