Economy in relation to environmental protection. Environment and Sustainable Development - Essay Example

?From Stockholm to Rio: Understanding “Development” in Sustainable Development The scar of resources in the world has taken an urgent turn in light of the explosive combination of an expanding global population, climate change wreaking its disastrous effects and unsustainable consumption patterns. What we are currently faced with is a situation wherein parts of the world are exceedingly wealthy and gobbling up resources in unsustainable ways, and other parts are facing hunger and deprivation. Without effective interventions, we are teetering precariously near the edge of a precipice. The need to protect the environment has presented critical global challenges that require immediate responses. The linked environmental, economic, social and political issues all falling under the sustainable development framework require a delicate balancing act between competing interests whilst at the same time taking decisive strides towards protecting scarce resources that are becoming even scarcer by the day. This paper will talk about the main difference between the Stockholm Declaration and the Rio Summit -- mainly that the Rio Summit solidifies the linkage between development and the environment, acknowledging that the two concepts are inextricably intertwined. Environmental considerations have to be incorporated in the development process, and human development should be considered in environmental protection mechanisms. It is illuminating to compare Principle 1 of the Stockholm declaration with Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration. The former reads as follows: “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.” In contrast, the Rio Declaration reads as follows: “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development”, and that, “They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.” Many environmental advocates opine that the Rio Declaration, with its entitlement language, brings environmental considerations closer to a rights-based approach, i.e., affirming the rights of human beings to a healthy, clean environment and a life in harmony with nature. A rights-based approach is important because it makes the State duty-bearers, or imposes and obligation on them to ensure that environmental rights of their citizens and other human beings are guaranteed and protected. There are critics, however, who feel that there was a dilution in focus on environmental protection from Stockholm to Rio, and even all the way to Johannesburg. To quote the Center for International Environmental Law, “Whereas Stockholm brought to light transboundary and global environmental issues, Rio and Johannesburg incorporated a development dimension that required analysis not only of environmental issues but also of economic and social issues. (2012, p.2)” As further observed by CIEL: While integration of these issues is key to effective environment and development outcomes, this change in focus has, to a large extent, over?burdened the agenda resulting from the last two summits, posing significant strains on the ability of international institutions and other governance arrangements to effectively address the broad array of issues involved in the umbrella concept of sustainable development.  At the same time, the international agenda that emerged in relation to sustainable development appears to have prioritized the economic aspects over the social and environmental dimensions.  In this regard, there is a real risk that Rio+20's green economy theme could eclipse thE other dimensions of sustainable development, as well as the need for reforms in institutional governance.  (2012, p. 2) However, this paper argues that talking about the economy in relation to environmental protection is important. The first is because scarcity is a vital concept of sustainable development, and a purely ‘green’ approach may not fully address the issue of scarcity of resources. At the heart of the issue of scarce resources is human development – human development is bound to be compromised when resources are unmanaged and allowed to become scarce. The second is because global political economy is an unavoidable part of the discussion of environmental protection, and thus, development and underdevelopment are crucial components of the environmental discourse. According to Dahl: Internationally, there were important developments in environmental legislation through conventions, both at the global level and regionally through such programmes as the UNEP Regional Seas. But after 20 years it was clear that broader arrangements were needed to integrate environmental concerns into the development process. Rapid deforestation in the tropics led to growing concerns for biodiversity; drought in the Sahel attracted attention to desertification; the ozone hole in the Antarctic stratosphere signalled the global impacts of human pollution; and the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raised worries about global warming and sea level rise. The human population was exploding, and so was consumption in the wealthiest countries. The environment continued to degrade. The Brundtland Commission in 1987 called for more sustainable development. (2011, 1) Scarcity This paper looks at the case of water as a prime example of a finite resource whose depletion, if left unarrested, will create serious problems for the world and more example, a prime example of why Rio was a step in the right direction when it introduced human development and economics as core components of “green development”. Fresh water is a basic human necessity. We need it for drinking, sanitation and personal hygiene, irrigation, hydroelectricity, for the natural resources it contains (such as fish), to preserve ecological balance, as part of our cultural mythology and for enjoyment (as part of the scenery). Flowing river water is a common resource which confers user rights but no private ownership rights. Groundwater, on the other hand, is subject to private ownership and therefore vulnerable to excess exploitation. This also makes ground water harvesting practices more scattered and difficult to implement and monitor As more and more parts of the world face increasing water shortages and water commoditization, the issue of water scarcity – how it is perceived, problematized and the consequences in the form of policy responses – becomes crucial. Postel (2008, p. 221) sums up the problem cogently: Why has so much of modern water management gone awry? Why is it that ever greater amounts of money and ever more sophisticated engineering have not solved the world's water problems? Why, in so many places on this planet, are rivers drying up, lakes shrinking, and water tables falling? First and foremost, it is essential to study the concept of scarcity – its underlying assumptions and how these translate in policy terms. Scarcity is a central concept in economic theory, particularly neoclassical economic theory, which in turn has strongly influenced policy thought. This focus on scarcity as deriving from economic thought, has important implications for policy planners. Firstly, scarcity is a given in economics. Thus, policy makers need not necessarily try and understand the nature of the scarcity – whether it is absolute or relative, constructed or real (Mehta 2003 and 2006) They can simply accept it as a natural and inevitable condition, evaluating only the degree of scarcity and building responses accordingly. Secondly, under conditions of scarcity, the market is considered to be the most efficient allocator of resources. In many developing countries, the market is replaced by the state, but scarcity is still considered to be addressable external to the situation either by the market (by privatising water for example) or by the state (through prioritising of needs and resources connected to water). Segerfeldt (2005: 1) proposes that the problem is not the shortage of water, but the absence of or deficiency in effective policies, which can be corrected through adherence with the Rio framework on sustainable development. He states: Worldwide, 1.1 billion people, mainly in poor countries, do not have access to clean, safe water. The shortage of water helps to perpetuate poverty, disease and early death. However, there is no shortage of water, at least not globally. We use a mere 8 per cent of the water available for human consumption. Instead, bad policies are the main problem. Even Cherrapunji, India, the wettest place on earth, suffers from recurrent water shortages. In looking at the roots of the problem of defective water rights policy, it is imperative to talk about the phenomenon of the “resource curse”. The literature has recognized that somehow the countries rich in natural resources are subject to a curse: despite of the fact of having natural resources those countries seem to be trapped in a growth failure. Institutions, openness, and even savings are some of the factors claimed to be affected by the presence of natural resources or certain geographical conditions (Sachs and Warner, 1997; Sala-i-Martin and Subramamnian, 2003; Mursehd, 2004; Zuleta 2007), but there is no consensus in the literature identifying the main mechanism by which the natural resources hamper growth. According to Sachs and Warner (1997) the possible indirect effects of natural resources on growth stem from two potential facts: on the one hand, corrupt institutions arise in abundant resource economies and in the presence of corruption the levels of demand for investment decrease. Sala-i-Martin and Subramamnian (2003) and Murshed (2004) coincide with Sachs and Warner (1997) in the sense that they find that the mechanism by which natural resources hamper growth –as the resource curse suggest– is the damage on institutional quality. On the other hand, resource abundance fosters inward-looking strategies, which in turn promote low investment rates and therefore hampers growth. Different authors support the idea that the presence of natural resources fosters the presence of rent-seeking groups, damaging institutions’ quality within a country (Murshed, 2004; Wick and Bulte, 2005). Also, Billon (2009) summarizes different evidence in the literature that illustrates that conflict in a country is exacerbated with the presence of natural resources when rebel groups can access the rents that stem from these resources. But what is the solution and how do we ensure that the rights to water and resources are more equitably distributed? On the level of national policy, we can perhaps take our cue from Brazil that imposed measures to stop the frenzied logging and burning that leads destruction of the rain forest. (Bittman: 2008). The destruction of the rain forest will have tremendous consequences on the eco-system and biodiversity as a whole and it is important for nations to take decisive strides towards protecting their natural resources. However, beyond protecting their eco-system, nothing much will be accomplished if consumption patterns are not altered. Leslie (2007, p.1) presents the example of China: China has also become a ravenous consumer. Its appetite for raw materials drives up international commodity prices and shipping rates while its middle class, projected to jump from fewer than 100 million people now to 700 million by 2020, is learning the gratifications of consumerism. China is by a wide margin the leading importer of a cornucopia of commodities, including iron ore, steel, copper, tin, zinc, aluminum, and nickel. It is the world's biggest consumer of coal, refrigerators, grain, cell phones, fertilizer, and television sets. It not only leads the world in coal consumption, with 2.5 billion tons in 2006, but uses more than the next three highest-ranked nations—the United States, Russia, and India—combined.  The next solution is to improve governance, and this is also what the Rio Declaration stands for. Rio sets out procedural guidelines to improve how countries manage their resources. What a country does with its resources is part destiny, part choice. Colombia is a good example of this. Its privileged location and weather conditions are Colombia’s destiny. Unfortunately, some regions of Colombian soil offer the ideal environment for the presence of illegal drugs crops and corruption from rent-seeking groups and bad governance have capitalized on this. A map of Colombia that overlaps the presence of rebel groups and the presence of illicit crops like the one sketched by United Nations (2005) clearly shows that precisely where narcotics are, so are illegal armed groups. It may reflect what both the theory and the empirical evidence have shown: wherever there are natural resources, there will be rent-seeking groups trying to capture the revenues from the resources. In doing so, corruption arises, and specifically in the Colombian case, rebel groups emerge. The state has been seen as an arena for struggle over scarce resources. In developing countries, questions of political inclusion and exclusion are crucial to deciding the acceptability or otherwise of a policy response. This is especially so in a democratic context where the issue of consensus is important for deciding appropriate policy responses (Lindblom, 1959). Developing states often initiate projects and plans that lead to human and environmental disasters, and an existing analytical framework (see Scott, 1998) has relevance for the kind of policy options that are likely to find acceptance.  it is important to bring up the contribution by Acemoglu et al (2005). For Acemoglu et al (2005) institutions are the main determinant of growth in the long run. Also, Acemoglu et al (2005) state that “Economic institutions encouraging economic growth emerge when political institutions allocate power to groups with interests in broad-based property rights enforcement, when they create effective constraints on power-holders, and when there are relatively few rents to be captured by power-holders.” On the global level, it is absolutely imperative to come up with a framework of guidelines that will regulate the interaction between states and prevent developing states from being unduly prejudiced by the stronger states in the global political economy. It may also be a good idea to enlist the help of corporations to ensure that the corporate enterprise is made a force for good. It will help the world, but it will help them as well, creating a win-win situation. To quote John Mackey, “there can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors.” (2005, p. 1). Competing Interests between Trade and the Environment: Why a Sustainable Development Frame is Important Few things demonstrate with greater clarity the tensions between trade and environment than the tensions between the precautionary principle and the science-based risk assessment. The former is adopted in the Rio Declaration, the latter espoused by the World Trade Organization. Biotechnology is an example of where these two opposing viewpoints are at loggerheads with each other. Biotechnology giants like Monsanto have argued that biotechnology improves livelihoods for farmers. As explained in the BT corn example, for instance, farmers will no longer have to purchase pesticides and thus there will be a decrease in their production costs. They have also argued that biotechnology also means cheap food accessible to a great number of people and more nutritious as well. On a more lofty plane of analysis, proponents of biotechnology, laud it as a triumph of human innovation, an example of humankind’s superior knowledge over other organisms in the eco-system. Some even argue that “sustainable agriculture is possible only with biotechnology and imaginative chemistry.” (Schneiderman and Carpenter, 1990, p. 341). Environmental advocates, on the other hand, warn of the hazards of biotechnology on biodiversity and other life-forms. For example, environmentalists assert that the corn that is keeping pests away is also killing the Monarch butterfly. According to Wilson (1992), “the race is on to develop methods, to draw more income from the wildlands without killing them, and so to give the invisible hand of the free market a green thumb.” The central debate that underpins the biotechnology discourse is this: balancing the WTO principles on liberalization and the environmental concerns of biotechnology. To quote Herdegen (2010, p. 44): Biotechnology on the international level, is covered by the said Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), which build their judicial content upon a precautionary approach. On the other hand, WTO trade law is deemed to focus on the abolition of trade barriers and the combating of protectionism and unjustified discrimination. Therefore there is a potential for conflict between trade law and MEAs, especially in the field of biotechnology. A good example of these conflicting perspectives is the Beef Hormone controversy. Amidst growing consumer scare in Europe on the use of growth hormones in meat production and most importantly, the mad cow disease crisis, governments in the European Union were under pressure from their citizens to ban the import of meat that contained artificial hormones. Meat producers and cattle ranchers in the United States and Canada were angered at the ban, calling it a violation of WTO rules. They filed suit against the EU in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which in 1997 ruled against the EU. The EU filed an appeal. Central to the dispute was a provision under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures that allowed Parties to restrict trade of certain commodities on the basis of health and safety reasons, for as long as this was supported by scientific analysis and evidence. The US and Canada asserted that the hormones in beef had been tested and deemed safe in Northern America for 50 years, and all of the hormones used were legal and licensed for use in the territories of the states bringing suit. In contrast the EU maintained – premising its argument on the precautionary principle – that there was no way to determine with certainty that the use of hormones in meat production would have no adverse effects. At the heart of its contention is that when science is inconclusive, it is better safe than sorry and governments have the right to take precautions it deems necessary to protect the welfare of its citizens. The WTO found for the United States. For many experts, the decision was remarkable, clear-cut, precedent-setting and a guide post of what to expect of future decisions of the World Trade Organization. For Josling, Roberts and Hashan the WTO Panel had managed to strke a balance between protecting free trade as embodied in the WTO framework from protectionism , and the right of countries to look out for the health and welfare of its citizens. In their words, “the EU also found some comfort in the result: the ruling affirmed its right to establish a level of consumer protection that is higher than the level set by international health standards, provided it is backed by an objective risk assessment.” (1999, p. 12). Conclusion We began by asking the question: is the shift to a sustainable development frame heralded by the Rio Declaration rather than a purely environmental focus warranted, in light of the realities of today? We discussed two reasons as to why there is basis and justification for the Rio frame: because resources are scarce and its efficient utilization and governance must be considered, and second, because the competing interests of trade and environment cannot be put aside. In the end, there are no easy answers, and there are no fast solutions. Ths is made even more complicated by the fact that the environment is undergoing rapid deterioration.While the law is replete with invocations to protect and preserve our diminishing biodiversity, human actions are still very much necessary to ensure that these laws are adequately followed. Word count: 3133 Works Cited Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, et al.” Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth.” Handbook of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print. Adler, J. (2000). “The Cartagena Protocol and Biodiversity: Biosafe or Bio-sorry?” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. Vol. 12. [Electronic] Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/articles/2002-/a-00189.pdf Bittman, M. “Rethinking the Meat Guzzler”. The New York Times. 27 January 2008. Web. 6 March 2012. Bosker, M. and H. Garretsen. "Economic deveopment and the geography of institutions." Journal of Economic Geography 9. (2009): 295-328. Print. Dahl, A. L. (2011). “From Stockholm via Rio to Johannesburg: Thirty Years of International Action on the Environment and Sustainable Development.” Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the International Environment Forum. Available at http://iefworld.org/ddahl01c.htm Durning, A. How Much Is Enough? New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1992. Josling, T., Roberts, D., and Hassan, A. (1999). “Beef Hormone Dispute and its Implications for Trade Policy.” Working Paper. The Europe Center Stanford University. [Electronic]. Available at http://europe.stanford.edu/publications/beefhormone_dispute_and_its_implications_for_trade_policy Herdegen, M. (2010). “The International Regulation of Biotechnology – Human Rights, Risk Management, Trade, Environmental Protection, Patents.” Leslie, J. “The Last Empire: China’s Pollution Problem Goes Global”. Mother Jones. 10 December 2007. Web. 7 March 2012. Lindblom, C.D. ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review 17.2 (1959):: 79-88. Print. Mackey, M. “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business.” Reason.com. October 2005. Web. 5 March 2012. Mehta, L. Whose Scarcity? Whose Property? The Case of Water in Western India. Land Use Policy 24.4 (1956): 654-63. Print. Murshed, M. When does natural resource abundance lead to a resource curse? Discusion Paper, Environmental Economics Programme, Institute of Social Studies. (2004). Print. Postel, S. “The Missing Piece: A Water Ethic” The American Prospect. 23 May 2008. Web. 07 March 2012. Sachs, J. and A. Warner. Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth, Center for International Development and Harvard Institute for International Development. (1997) Schneiderman, H.A. and Carpenter, W.D. (1990). “Planetary Patriotism: Sustainable Agriculture for the Future.” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 24, no. 4. April. P. 472. Segerfeldt, F. “Private Water Saves Lives.” Cato Institute. 2005. Web. 05 March 2012. Wilson, E. (1992.) The Diversity of Life. New York: W.W. Norton. Read More