Double failure
[ By Barbara Unmüssig ]
The CSD never had its heyday. Founded as a body to implement the decisions of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it has always more or less been a lame duck. Last month, it has probably wasted whatever scraps of legitimacy and reputation were still left.
On behalf of the EU, Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s environment minister, refused to sign the final declaration. That step was unusual and dramatic, but completely justified. Negotiations had focused on energy under the direction of Qatar’s energy minister, a man who calls himself “a gas man from a country of gas”. Instead of promoting renewable sources, the CSD was dominated by OPEC’s emphasis on fossil fuels. The EU took a brave stand by refusing to sign a declaration that indeed fell short of previous agreements.
To some extent, this refusal was risky in diplomatic terms. The EU may have estranged some poor countries. And yet, the poorest developing nations, which do not export any energy resources, are hardly doing themselves a favour by forging misguided alliances, such as with OPEC. No doubt, the G77, an alliance of developing nations within the context of the UN, is currently doing everything it can to close ranks in spite of diverging interests. At the next climate conference in December in Bali, negotiations for the post-Kyoto rules are to begin. On the agenda will be the question whether – and how – major emerging countries should accept targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. China, India, Brazil and other major emitters have not shown any interest in doing so to date. They are thus following the destructive example set by the USA. The world’s largest carbon emitter still has not agreed to curb emissions.
Developing nations, especially the poorest ones, are right to expect the industrial nations to cut emissions first. But it simply does not make sense for them to complain about how bad they will suffer from climate change and, at the same time, join forces with fossil interests as expressed by certain governments and lobby groups. Developing countries would be better advised to adopt ambitious goals for renewable energy sources. They should give their people development options based on advanced technologies. There is no point in repeating the mistakes that industrial nations have made. Rather, it is outright dangerous to do so.
The appointment of Zimbabwe’s minister for environment and tourism as the new CSD chairperson is particularly grotesque. Nhema is charged with being personally responsible for violent displacements and violations of human rights in his country. Sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe prevent the EU from staying in touch with him in any substantial way. He cannot even be invited for a visit, as he may not enter Europe. The CSD members who voted for him in a secret ballot were well aware of these facts.
Zimbabwe has one of the most brutal regimes in the world. It lets its own people starve, it tortures critics and orders the police fire on opposition rallies. With this country at its helm, the CSD cannot be taken seriously as a body for ecologically and socially sustainable development. The Commission has thus brought itself and, in turn, the UN as a whole into disrepute. That is very unfortunate, since climate change, sustainable development and the use of resources have only recently become a top priority on the international agenda – as they deserve to be.
One must ask: why are developing nations crippling one UN committee after the other? The reform of the UN Human Rights Commission has also failed. Now, the double failure of this year’s CSD provides another sign that multilateralism and the United Nations are getting short shrift. The severe crisis at the CSD could, however, lead to more support for the demand to set up a world environmental organisation with true powers. If so, then the double failure that just took place in New York would at least have a positive side effect.