Begegnungen20_Jordan
Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 20:151–161.
PETER JORDAN
Veränderungen der Umweltsituation seit der politischen Wende
in Mitteleuropa
Ergebnisse eines Vergleichs zweier Karten im Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa
1 Die als Quellen verwendeten Karten im Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa
Im Rahmen seines Atlasses Ost- und Südosteuropa hat das Österreichische Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut in Wien soeben eine Karte im Maßstab 1:3 Millionen über die Umweltsituation in Mittel- und Südosteuropa zur Mitte der 1990er Jahre publiziert. (Siehe Karte 2.) Die Karte ist von einem internationalen Wissenschaftlerteam aus fast allen in der Karte dargestellten Ländern in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig entworfen worden und ist mit einem erläuternden Begleittext versehen. Thematisch bearbeitet sind Deutschland, Österreich, Tschechien, die Slowakei, Polen, Ungarn, Slowenien, Kroatien, Albanien, Bulgarien, Rumänien, die Republik Moldau, die Ukraine, Weißrussland und Teile des westlichen Russlands und Litauens. Bosnien und die Herzegowina, Serbien und Montenegro sowie Makedonien konnten aus Mangel an vergleichbaren Daten nicht erfasst werden.
Die Karte ist die aktualisierte Version einer Darstellung der Umweltsituation in den letzten Jahren der kommunistischen Periode, die im Rahmen desselben Atlasses im Jahr 1992 veröffentlicht wurde. (Siehe Karte 1.) Die beiden Karten enthalten eine Reihe von identischen Aussageschichten und ermöglichen damit einen Vergleich der Umweltsituation zu den zwei erfassten Zeitpunkten. Sie dokumentieren damit auch die Veränderungen des Umweltzustands in den ersten Jahren der Transformation.
Aussageschichten, die auf beiden Karten zu sehen sind, betreffen die großräumige Verteilung von Luftschadstoffen, die Luftverschmutzung in Siedlungen mit mehr als 50 000 Einwohnern, die Wasserqualität von Flüssen, Seen und Küstengewässern, Waldschäden sowie die Verseuchung mit Caesium 137 als Folge der Reaktorkatastrophe von Tschernobyl [Černobiľ]. Die neue Karte zeigt außerdem größere Quellen der Umweltverschmutzung wie Bergbaue und die Transitrouten im Straßenverkehr.
2 Erkenntnisse, die aus dem Vergleich der beiden Karten gewonnen werden können
Als die auffälligste Veränderung der Umweltsituation zwischen den späten 1980er Jahren und der Mitte der 1990er Jahre tritt beim Vergleich der beiden Karten die Abschwächung des West-Ost-Gradienten der Umweltverschmutzung hervor. Der Unterschied zwischen dem früheren „Schwarzen Dreieck” bestehend aus dem Süden der ehemaligen DDR, dem südlichen Polen und der Tschechischen Republik, daneben auch noch Teilen der Slowakei, Ungarns und Sloweniens und dem Rest Ostmittel- und Südosteuropas ist deutlich geringer geworden. Dies ist auf die in diesen am weitesten fortgeschrittenen Reformländern relativ erfolgreiche Restrukturierung in Industrie und Landwirtschaft zurückzuführen sowie auf die Anwendung neuer Produktions- und Umweltschutztechnologien. Im Gegensatz dazu hat sich der Umweltzustand in Ost- und Südosteuropa (besonders in der Ukraine, der Republik Moldau, Rumänien und Bulgarien) seit den späten 1980er Jahren nicht signifikant verändert. Dies entspricht im Wesentlichen dem jeweiligen Tempo im sozio-ökonomischen Transformationsprozess.
Abgesehen von diesen großräumigen Mustern zeigt ein Vergleich der beiden Karten aber auch noch eine Reihe kleinerer und lokal begrenzter Sonderentwicklungen, die viel über die regionalen Unterschiede in den Prozessen der Transformation und der Umweltsanierung aussagen, aber im Rahmen dieses kurzen Beitrags nicht behandelt werden können.
2.1 Die Situation in den späten 1980er Jahren (Karte 1)
2.1.1 Großräumige Luftverschmutzung
Die Darstellung der großräumigen Luftverschmutzung beruht hauptsächlich auf der Konzentration von Schwefeldioxid (SO2) in der Luft, da vergleichbare Daten für die ganze Region nur für diesen Indikator zur Verfügung standen. Verschiedene andere Indikatoren wie die Stickstoffkonzentration oder der Staubniederschlag wurden jedoch lokal zusätzlich herangezogen, um die räumliche Ausdehnung von herausragenden Verschmutzungen besser abgrenzen zu können.
Die Karte weist eine kompakte Zone erhöhter Luftverschmutzung vom Süden der ehemaligen DDR über die frühere Tschechoslowakei, Südpolen und Ungarn bis in den Norden des ehemaligen Jugoslawiens, in das westliche Rumänien und Bulgarien aus. Isolierte Flecken erhöhter, hoher oder sehr hoher Luftverschmutzung sind darüber hinaus im östlichen Rumänien und Bulgarien sowie in Teilen der ehemaligen Sowjetunion zu finden.
Innerhalb der kompakten Zone zumindest erhöhter Luftverschmutzung ragen einige Gebiete durch hohe und sehr hohe Luftverschmutzung hervor: der Süden der ehemaligen DDR, wo thermoelektrische Energieproduktion auf Braunkohlenbasis und chemische Industrie am meisten zur Verschmutzung beitrugen; das nördliche Böhmen [Čechy], wo ähnliche Verursacher auch für die massiven Waldschäden im Erzgebirge [Krušné hory] verantwortlich waren; das südwestliche Polen und nördliche Mähren [Morava], besonders Niederschlesien [Dolný Sľask] mit seinen Kupferhütten, das Oberschlesische Industrierevier mit seiner komplexen Schwerindustrie und seinem Steinkohlenbergbau; das Becken der oberen Neutra [Horná Nitra] in der Slowakei, wo der Verschmutzungseffekt von thermoelektrischer Energieproduktion auf Braunkohlenbasis durch winterliche Temperaturinversionen vervielfacht wurde; die Industrieachse des nördlichen Ungarns vom Bakony über Budapest nach Miskolc und Ózd mit Aluminiumhütten im Westen, der auf Budapest konzentrierten chemischen Industrie sowie Eisen- und Stahlwerken im Nordosten; das zentrale Slowenien, wo die Verschmutzungen besonders durch Kohlenbergbau und thermoelektrische Energieproduktion in Trbovlje und Šoštanj verursacht sind, die Auswirkungen bis in das südliche Österreich hatten; einige Bergbau- und Industrieregionen in Bosnien [Bosna], Serbien [Srbija] und Rumänien, in welch letzterem besonders Lignitbergbau und die Verwendung von Lignit zur Energieproduktion im Motru-Becken, Stahlwerke und Steinkohlenbergbau in Hunedoara bzw. Petroşani und die Industrieagglomeration von Bukarest [Bucureşti] unter Einschluss von Piteşti mit seiner Ölraffinerie und Ploeşti mit seiner petrochemischen Industrie als Hauptverursacher hervorragen; schließlich das untere Marica-Becken in Bulgarien mit seinen großen thermoelektrischen Kraftwerken auf Braunkohlenbasis.
2.1.2 Luftverschmutzung in größeren Siedlungen
Die Luftverschmutzung in größeren Siedlungen unterscheidet sich häufig von der großräumigen Luftverschmutzung infolge lokaler Emissionen der Industrie, der Haushalte und des Verkehrs sowie als Folge einer spezifischen meteorologischen Situation, z.B. einer Beckenlage oder vorherrschender Windrichtungen. Deshalb wird dieses Faktum als eigene Aussageschicht in der Karte ausgewiesen.
In dieser Hinsicht am meisten verschmutzt waren in den späten 1980er Jahren die Städte Oberschlesiens [Górny Słsk] inklusive des tschechischen Gebietsanteils, außerdem Krakau [Kraków] wegen der nahen Stahlindustrie von Nowa Huta und seiner durch winterliche Temperaturinversionen gekennzeichneten Beckenlage. Die am stärksten verschmutzten Staatshauptstädte waren Budapest und Prag [Praha]; Budapest wegen seiner chemischen Industrie und seiner Lage im Windschatten der Budaer Berge [Budai-hegység], wodurch die Stadt wenig durchlüftet wird; Prag wegen seiner vielfältigen Industrie und seiner Lage im engen Tal der Moldau [Vltava]. Chişinău, die Hauptstadt der Republik Moldau, ergänzt diese Aufzählung der meistverschmutzten Staatshauptstädte am östlichen Rand der Karte.
Einer relativ besseren Luftqualität erfreuten sich Leipzig, Dresden, Laibach [Ljubljana], Zagreb, Belgrad [Beograd], Bukarest, Sofia [Sofija] und Kiew [Kiïv]. Die am wenigsten durch Luftschadstoffe verschmutzten Staatshauptstädte in den thematisch bearbeiteten Ländern waren Berlin und Wien.
2.1.3 Wassergüte
Die in der Karte ausgewiesene Klassifikation der Wassergüte ist das Ergebnis eines schwierigen Harmonisierungsprozesses unterschiedlicher nationaler Klassifikationen. Einige von ihnen beruhten auf chemischen, andere auf biologischen Indikatoren.
Im westlichen Teil der Karte finden sich Flussabschnitte mit geringer Verschmutzung fast nur in Gebirgsregionen, also nahe der Quelle, während in Weißrussland, der Ukraine und der Moldau auch Tieflandsflüsse zum Teil noch gute Wasserqualität aufweisen. Dies entspricht der Industriedichte und der Intensität landwirtschaftlicher Nutzung. Extrem verschmutzt unter den großen Flüssen sind die Elbe [Labe], die Oder [Odra], die Weichsel [Wisła], die Drau [Drava/Dráva] ab der österreichischen Grenze, also in ihrem slowenischen, kroatischen und ungarischen Laufabschnitt sowie die Save [Sava]. Die Donau zeigt starke oder sehr starke Verschmutzung bereits ab Wien, besonders aber nach der Einmündung der sehr verschmutzten March [Morava].
Von den größeren Seen wies in den 1980er Jahren der Plattensee [Balaton] die schlechteste Qualität auf. Dies gilt besonders für sein westliches Becken, in das der sehr verschmutzte Fluss Zala mündet. Sehr schlechte Wasserqualität hatten außerdem einige der Masurischen Seen in Polen. Relativ gering war dagegen die Verschmutzung des Ohridsees [Ohridkso Ezero/Liqeni i Ohrit], des Prespasees [Prespansko Ezero/Liqeni i Prespës/Megále Préspa] und des Skutarisees [Skadarsko jezero/Liqeni i Shkodrës].
Im Vergleich der Qualität der Küstengewässer der südlichen Ostsee, der Schwarzmeerküsten Bulgariens, Rumäniens und der Region Odessa [Odesa] in der Ukraine sowie der östlichen Küste des Adriatischen Meeres schnitt die Ostseeküste am schlechtesten ab. Die sehr starke Verschmutzung besonders in den großen Buchten der südlichen Ostseeküste, der Bucht von Stettin [Zalew Szczechinski/Oderhaff] und der Bucht von Danzig [Zalew Gdański], war primär durch die Einmündung großer und stark verschmutzter Flüsse, der Oder bzw. der Weichsel, aber auch durch die Seichtheit dieser Buchten bedingt. Am in der Karte sichtbaren Abschnitt der Schwarzmeerküste konzentrierte sich starke oder sehr starke Wasserverschmutzung auf die Umgebung der großen Hafenstädte Burgas, Varna, Constanţa und Odessa sowie auf den Nahbereich großer Industrien wie der Raffinerie von Năvodari nördlich von Constanţa. Die vergleichsweise günstige Situation entlang der östlichen Adriaküste ist zu erklären mit der geringen Siedlungs- und Industriedichte, der geringen Intensität landwirtschaftlicher Nutzung, der geringen Zahl verschmutzter Zuflüsse, mit Meeresströmungen, welche der östlichen Adriaküste frisches, wenig verschmutztes Wasser aus dem Becken des östlichen Mittelmeers zuführen während das von den verschmutzten Flüssen der Poebene [Pianura Padana] eingeleitete Wasser entlang der (italienischen) Westküste abfließt, durch die relative Tiefe der Ostküste (teilweise über 100 m) sowie durch das Auftreten von großen untermeerischen Quellen [vrulje], welche die Küstengewässer mit sauberem Wasser aus dem hydrologischen System des Karstes versorgen. Aus den genannten Gründen ist die Wasserqualität an der östlichen Adriaküste im Allgemeinen weitaus besser als an der westlichen, italienischen Küste. Lediglich die Westküste Istriens [Istra], die den Mündungen der verschmutzten Flüsse der Poebene direkt gegenüberliegt und den seichten Golf von Venedig mit seiner eigenen Wasserzirkulation im Osten begrenzt, weist ähnlich ungünstige Werte wie die westliche Adriaküste auf.
2.1.4 Waldschäden
Die Karte unterscheidet zwischen Waldschäden durch Luftverschmutzung („Sauren Regen”) und durch unsorgsame Waldnutzung ohne Rücksicht auf natürliche Regeneration, Alters- und Artenstruktur.
Waldschäden durch Luftverschmutzung traten massiv im Erzgebirge an der Grenze zwischen der ehemaligen DDR und der ehemaligen Tschechoslowakei auf, außerdem in der Lausitz (DDR), in den Hügelländern und Gebirgen um das Oberschlesische Industrie- und Kohlenrevier (Polnischer Jura [Wyžyna Krakówsko-Czstochowska], Beskiden [Beskidy], Gesenke [Jeseník]), im mittleren Slowenien, im rumänischen Schiltal [Jiu], im östlichen Serbien sowie im Balkangebirge [Stara planina] nördlich von Sofia.
Waldschäden als Folge unsorgsamer Waldnutzung waren besonders im ganzen Bereich der ukrainischen und rumänischen Karpaten sowie in Weißrussland verbreitet.
2.2 Die Situation zur Mitte der 1990er Jahre (Karte 2)
Nach dem Zusammenbruch des kommunistischen Systems verbesserte sich die Umweltsituation in Ostmitteleuropa deutlich. Der Hauptgrund für diese Verbesserung könnte als „passive Sanierung” bezeichnet werden, im Sinne der Folgewirkungen des Schließens, der Produktionsdrosselung oder der Umrüstung der größten Industrie- und Bergbaubetriebe sowie der Aufgabe der großbetrieblichen, industriellen Landwirtschaft zumindest in einigen Ländern und Teilregionen. Zusätzlich wirkten sich aber auch einige aktive Maßnahmen gegen die Umweltverschmutzung aus, z.B. der Einbau von Filtern in thermische Kraftwerke oder deren Ersatz durch Atomkraftwerke wie z.B. in der Slowakei und der Tschechischen Republik.
Aktive Sanierungsmaßnahmen trugen aber jedenfalls nur einen kleineren Teil zu den erzielten Verbesserungen bei. Mangel an Kapital und ein immer noch mangelhaftes Umweltbewusstsein in weiten Teilen der Bevölkerung und bei den politischen Eliten sind dafür die Hauptgründe. Die Umweltsituation wird zumeist immer noch als weniger bedrückend als die wirtschaftliche Lage empfunden, und wirtschaftliche Transformation genießt daher Priorität. Weit verbreitet ist auch die Meinung, dass wirtschaftliche Umstrukturierung ohne weiteres Zutun Umweltsanierung bewirkt und dass Umweltsanierung maßgeblich von ausländischer finanzieller Unterstützung getragen sein müsse. Umweltbewegungen und Grünparteien haben ihre zur Wendezeit zum Teil starke politische Kraft zumeist verloren.
Eine neue Gefahr für die Umwelt ist der stark anschwellende Straßenverkehr, der die Schiene als Verkehrsträger zunehmend ersetzt.
2.2.1 Großräumige Luftverschmutzung
Was in der Karte über die späten 1980er Jahre noch als kompakte Zone erhöhter Luftverschmutzung ausgewiesen war, hat sich in einzelne Flecken aufgelöst. Das „Schwarze Dreieck” mit der südlichen DDR, der Tschechoslowakei und dem südlichen Polen hat viel von seiner Macht verloren, ist aber immer noch die größte zusammenhängende Zone mit zumindest „erhöhter” Luftverschmutzung im gesamten Gebietsausschnitt der Karte. Während also die Luftverschmutzung in den Ländern Ostmitteleuropas (Polen, Tschechien, Slowakei, Ungarn, Slowenien) zwischen den späten 1980er Jahren und der Mitte der 1990er Jahre deutlich abgenommen hat, hat sich die Situation weiter östlich (Weißrussland, Ukraine, Moldau) und südöstlich (Rumänien, Bulgarien) kaum verbessert. Die in der älteren Karte markante Konzentration der Luftverschmutzung auf den westlichen Teil der Großregion ist also einer gleichmäßigeren Verteilung gewichen.
2.2.2 Luftverschmutzung in größeren Siedlungen
Die Luftverschmutzung in größeren Siedlungen ist in vielen Fällen zurückgegangen. In der Tschechischen Republik sind nur noch Prag und die Industriestädte Nordböhmens stark verschmutzt, aber auch ihr Verschmutzungsgrad hat sich gegenüber den späten 1980er Jahren verringert. Im Osten Deutschlands hat sich durch den starken Rückgang der Großindustrie die Verschmutzung von Leipzig, Chemnitz und Dresden leicht und von Halle deutlich vermindert.
Alle größeren Städte im polnischen Oberschlesien zeigen Werte, die deutlich unter denen der späten 1980er Jahre liegen, nur Kattowitz [Katowice] und Krakau ragen immer noch mit „starker” Luftverschmutzung hervor.
Budapest mit der stärksten Luftverschmutzung von allen Hauptstädten in den späten 1980er Jahren verzeichnet nun deutlich bessere Werte. Der Abbau der Schwerindustrie hatte auch positiven Einfluss auf die Luftverschmutzung der Städte in anderen Abschnitten der früheren ungarischen Industrieachse zwischen Bakony und Miskolc.
In Rumänien ragen die früheren Zentren städtischer Luftverschmutzung wie Bukarest, Ploeşti, Brăila, Galaţi und Giurgiu nicht mehr so heraus, während andere Städte wie Hunedoara, Baia Mare und Oneşti auf demselben Niveau der Verschmutzung verharren.
Im Gegensatz zu zumindest teilweisen Verbesserungen in Rumänien ist die Situation in Bulgarien weiterhin schlecht. Die Luftverschmutzung in Sofia und in einigen Städten seines Umlands hat sich sogar verschlechtert. Pernik, eine Industriestadt südwestlich von Sofia, verzeichnet den schlechtesten Wert unter allen auf der Karte abgebildeten größeren Siedlungen.
Während die Luftverschmutzung in Chişinău zumindest nicht mehr gesundheitsgefährdend ist, haben die größeren Städte der westlichen und mittleren Ukraine einschließlich L’vìv’s, Kiews und Žitomirs höhere Verschmutzungswerte als zuvor.
2.2.3 Wassergüte
Im Gegensatz zur Luftqualität ist bei der Gewässergüte generell keine deutliche Verbesserung festzustellen. Dies hat damit zu tun, dass Sanierungsmaßnahmen bei Gewässern in der Regel aufwändiger sind und auf die Oberflächengewässer oft noch stark verzögert Verschmutzungen einwirken, die vor Jahren dem Boden und dem Grundwasser zugefügt wurden. Deshalb sind große Flüsse wie die Weichsel, die Oder und die Warthe [Warta] in Polen, die Elbe, der Oberlauf der Spree, die Elster, die Mulde, und die Saale im südlichen Teil der ehemaligen DDR, die Thaya [Dye], die Iglau [Jihlava] und die March im südlichen Mähren [Morava], die Waag [Váh] und die Neutra [Nitra] in der westlichen Slowakei, Donau [Duna], Theiß [Tisza], Raab [Rába] und Körös in Ungarn, Save und Drau in Kroatien sowie die Donau [Dunărea] und zumindest die Unterläufe aller ihrer größeren Zuflüsse einschließlich des Schil [Jiu], des Alt [Olt], der Vedea, des Argeş und der Ialomiţa in der Walachei [Ţara Românească] immer noch stark bis sehr stark verschmutzt. Deutliche Verbesserungen der Flusswasserqualität beschränken sich auf die Save [Sava] und die Drau [Drava] in Slowenien sowie auf Mur, Salzach, Traun, und Inn in Österreich.
Während sich die Wasserqualität des Plattensees trotz der Anlage einer Ringkanalisation nicht wesentlich verbessert hat, zeigen die früher zum Teil stark verschmutzten Masurischen Seen deutlich bessere Werte.
Die Küstengewässer der südlichen Ostseeküste sind weniger verschmutzt als zuvor, besonders entlang der Küste Pommerns [Pomorze] außerhalb der großen Buchten. Die Wasserqualität in den Buchten selbst hat sich jedoch nur geringfügig verbessert. An der Schwarzmeerküste hat sich die früher starke Verschmutzung im Nahbereich der größeren Häfen etwas verringert. Die östliche Adriaküste konnte ihren mit Ausnahme der Westküste Istriens geringen Verschmutzungsgrad halten.
2.2.4 Waldschäden
In der Karte zur Situation in der Mitte der 1990er Jahre sind die Waldschäden nicht mehr wie in der Vorläuferkarte nach Ursachen unterschieden.
Eine Zone sehr großer Schäden zieht sich immer noch durch das nördliche Böhmen vom Erzgebirge bis zu den Sudeten [Sudety]. Daneben ragen auch noch das östliche Böhmen, besonders das Adlergebirge [Orlické hory], sowie der Kranz von Gebirgs- und Hügelländern um Oberschlesien einschließlich der Zone von Tschenstochau [Czèstochowa] bis Radom hervor.
Quellen und Literatur
CARTER, F.W.; TURNOCK, D. (Hg.): Environmental Problems of East Central Europe. 2. Auflage. London, New York: Routledge 2002.
HARTUNG, A.; JORDAN, P.; NEFEDOVA, T.; PLIT, J. et al. (2003): Umweltprobleme in Mittel- und Südosteuropa um 1995. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr.1.7-G7.
HAVRLANT, M.; JANKOWSKI, A.; SADOWSKI, S. (1999): Anthropogene Reliefveränderungen in Oberschlesien. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.5-CZ/PL1.
JANKOWSKI, A.T. (1990): The Upper Silesia Region as an Area of Ecological Calamity. In: BREYMEYER, A. (Hg.): Global Change Regional Research Centres: Scientific Problems and Concept Developments. Warsaw, S. 118-133.
JANKOWSKI, A.T. (1994): Die Umweltverhältnisse in Oberschlesien als Beispiel einer durch intensive anthropogene Einwirkung geformten Region. In: JORDAN, P.; TOMASI, E. (Hg.): Zustand und Perspektiven der Umwelt im östlichen Europa. Frankfurt/M – Berlin – New York – Paris – Wien, S. 11-32.
JANKOWSKI, A.T. (1996): The Effect of Human Impact Connected with Mining on Changes in the Geographical Environment of the Upper Silesian Region. In: Universitatis Ostraviensis Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium, Geographia-Geologia 4, 1996, 157, S. 7-21.
NEFEDOVA, T. et al. (1992): Nutzung und Probleme der Umwelt in Mittel- und Osteuropa. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.2-G4.
QUITT, E. (1992): Topoklimatische Typen in Mitteleuropa. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.3-M1.
RICHLING, A. et al. (1996): Ökologie der Landnutzung in Mitteleuropa. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.4-M2.
RUDENKO, L.G.; RAZOV, V.P. (2000): Boden- und Wasserqualität in der Ukraine. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.6-UA1.
SCHAPPELWEIN, K. (1990): Energiewirtschaft Ost- und Südosteuropas. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 3.2-G2.
TRAFAS, K. (1991): Luftverschmutzung in Südpolen. In: Atlas Ost- und Südosteuropa, hg. v. Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut, Wien, Nr. 1.1-PL1.
Begegnungen20_Joo Hibbey
Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 20:43–50.
MÁRTA JOÓ HIBBEY
Economy–Industry–Environmental Protection
Preparations–Expectations–Participation
The World Summit of Johannesburg was preceded by a long process of international and domestic preparations. Compared to the Rio Summit of ten years earlier, which mostly focused on issues of environmental protection, this time economic and social considerations played an important role. Despite the new trend environmental issues were accorded a prominent place. The most important issue that was discussed was the so-called second type of activity, namely public and private partnership (PPP), precisely in the areas of water, energy, and health care.
Political Declaration and Plan of Implementation
The greatest achievement of the Johannesburg World Summit was the passing of the Political Declaration and of the Plan of Implementation on 4 September 2002. The Political Declaration is a brief, formal document, in which the countries committed themselves to the realisation of sustainable development. Essentially it contains a list of the most important challenges (such as combating poverty, the protection of natural resources, reduction of the growing gap between the poor and the rich, and of the destruction of the environment).
The Plan of Implementation approves the commitments. Partnership among the stakeholders was stressed (such as between the authorities and private actors, including the business sphere, and the set of tools for implementation). Globalisation was also mentioned in the context of the possibilities and challenges of sustainable development. The contribution of the private sphere to sustainable development was emphasized, together with stressing the necessity of corporate responsibility. After several contradictions the approved text, based on negotiations, is implicitly consistent with the voluntary nature of corporate social responsibility.
The passing of the Plan of Implementation was preceded by more than one week of intensive and constant discussion. Its competency covers a sequence of economic, ethical, financial, environmental policy issues, and to a lesser extent social ones in a particularly broad sphere. A speeding up of the growth of developing economies and those in transition, and the achievement of sustainable development (by the developing as well as developed countries) was put in focus.
The broad scale of the Plan of Implementation has made the negotiating procedures complete, together with the other interpolated obligations, particularly those of Doha (the round of negotiations initiating the Ministerial Declaration of Doha within the framework of the World Trade Organisation) and of Monterrey, and pointed out the basic gap that figured between the political priorities of North and South.
Unrealistic expectations emerged wanting the Johannesburg World Summit to commit itself for a new and major environmental programme and to assure priority to environmental issues in the face of the other pillars of sustainable development.
Aims with a deadline
Some press news projected the Johannesburg Summit as a missed opportunity for setting up aims. In contrast a new set of themes was passed in which the approval of aims with a deadline obtained a prominent place:
– by 2015 the number of those who have no access to safe drinking water and to basic health conditions should be reduced by half,
– by 2010 the presently negative process of biodiversity loss should be reversed,
– wherever it is possible, but by 2015 as latest the restoration of the stock of fish should be ensured,
– by 2020 it should be achieved that the use and production of chemicals may exercise a minimum of harmful effect on human health and on the environment,
– a ten-year framework programme should be elaborated with the objective of speeding up shifting towards patterns of sustainable development and consumption.
Other plans that can be translated into numbers, were also approved, for instance that of increasing the proportion of renewable energy resources.
The Summit confirmed the consciousness that the present trends of sustainable development should be discussed on the highest decision-making levels.
If sustainable development were to be realised all over the world, it would be the most significant achievement of the coming decade. It is truly the implementation of the plan that means the greatest challenge and not the great dimensions of resolutions translated into numbers of its content.
The Johannesburg Summit actively involved the business sphere that had been successfully campaigning and demonstrated its commitment to sustainable development. Experiences were summarised after Rio, acknowledging that the states alone were unable to implement their obligations. The key role of the private sector, of the business world in economic upliftment was recognised as the basis of combating poverty and environmental degradation by the goods produced.
The so-called second-type activity, the institution of partnership was introduced which means an opportunity and also an effective means in the realisation of aims. It has become a general and essential part of the Johannesburg Summit.
Expectations and commitments were partly shifted to the business sphere. At the same time it became clear that its role could not replace, only supplement the public sphere. The business world could only be made partially responsible for any omission, including those that serve the realisation of general objectives. It is this responsibility that has to be properly interpreted on international as well as domestic levels, which largely determines the shaping of the post-Summit events.
The proceedings of talks
Despite the fact that the scale of tasks points far beyond environmental issues, it was generally the ministries of environmental protection that participated in the talks with the exception of the United States, as in that case it was the State Department that led the deliberations. The procedure followed the extremely complex style of the Russian ‘Matryoshka doll’, a practice common in the UN and a diplomatically accepted one, within the framework of a series of talks at various levels. Sessions of technical level, of the heads of delegations and of ministers alternated with repeated feedback coordinating conferences, concentrating countries of similar territorial interests. The European Union made it possible for the acceding countries to form an autonomous negotiating group. Due to tactical and political reasons, the European Union prepared itself for Johannesburg by proposing tangible results, concrete recommendations, deadlines and a monitoring system.
In comparison to the EU the group of developing countries (G77) showed a great contrast due to the excessively large number of complex interests. Consequently the G77 were unable to support the highly ambitious aims of the EU, mostly they adjusted themselves to the aims of the developing countries. Their criticism was mostly directed against the EU and the US, and also against agricultural subsidies, and they again started to challenge the accords reached at Monterrey.
As a rule, the US successfully blocked daring recommendations and rejected every unrealistic, media-oriented idea. The talks were based on consensus within the framework of the two agreements mentioned above, with rather defensive than ambitious proposals.
Generally speaking the ultimate, balanced result may be regarded as a positive one for the EU, what we can also share, but it has not fulfilled the hopes of the ministers of environmental protection. A solution of this contradiction, the evolution of the right strategy of sustainable development is to be an important national, and after our accession to the EU, international task of the coming years. It is significant that all the related domestic political intentions and will have been clearly manifest at the highest levels right after the Summit.
The results are positive from the point of view of the business sector. There was quite a strong pressure exercised particularly by the non-governmental organisations and by some countries for including more environmental requirements in the Doha round, but the Plan of Implementation that was passed called only upon WTO Member States to implement the commitments undertaken as described above.
All those environmental aims should be avoided that are too expensive or technically not accessible by enterprises. Good governmental work is needed in the developing countries. Corporate environmental and social responsibility, accountability and the improvement of business achievements through voluntary initiatives were supported. The institution of partnership was acknowledged as an important means of implementation on a voluntary basis.
The role of business life
The visible presence and effective role of business life in Johannesburg should be stressed. This area was present with a far greater weight than at the Rio Summit ten years earlier: fifty business organisations and seven hundred companies participated in the meeting.
The fact that the role of business life had significantly grown in the talks on sustainable development and in the discussions had two reasons:
– the governments were relatively unable to implement their obligations undertaken in Rio,
– the hope that the private sphere could play a more effective role in the achievement of the aims to be accomplished, in the realisation of concrete and useful projects and in respect to the local demands of development and environmental protection.
The business sphere clearly expounded that it had committed itself to sustainable development. Several exhibitions were held at the different centres of the Summit where the leaders of business world stressed their readiness for partnership. Several other events were also organised, and the talks were followed by stalls and advertisements presenting strategies of sustainable development, of cleaner production and the launching of partnership projects.
An interesting colour spot of the event was the former General Director of Shell, the head of BASD (Business Action for Sustainable Development), who successfully utilised the opportunities offered by the Summit and played a coordinating role with his activity.
The dominant presence of the business sphere particularly preoccupied the green non-governmental organisations. On the one hand the NGOs repeatedly demanded real business commitment to achieve sustainable development, and more corporate, social and environmental responsibility. On the other hand they were afraid of the lack of control over business and governmental partnership but also of its tangible results. Principles of partnership were elaborated to ensure transparency and the control of results. If the Plan of Implementation is carefully read it can be seen that contains important statements from the angle of business life at several places of the document, to be pointed out again on the basis of the recommendations of the European Union.
1. The institution of partnership. All interested actors should be involved through partnership in the Plan of Implementation produced as a result of the Johannesburg World Summit, particularly governments and the major groups.
It is worth mentioning that several concrete partnerships were launched with the involvement of the business sphere within the framework of the Johannesburg World Summit, initiated by the EU in respect of the topics of water and energy. These programmes are accessible and can be viewed.
2. The area of financing and good government. In the developing countries an adequate legal environment is the necessary precondition to international assistance and investment. The Monterrey round, and replenishing the Global Environmental Fund are of basic importance to the realisation of the respective financial developments in the developing countries.
In Johannesburg the developed countries made one another committed to avoid a reopening of these chapters. Business life will contribute to supply the developing countries with the required financial assistance, supplementing foreign direct investments.
3. Trade and globalisation. The importance of the role of trade in achieving sustainable development is commonly known. Support accorded to it was linked to the Doha Work Programme. As far as environmental protection is concerned, the EU and the US strongly oppose any other kind of support.
Globalisation was discussed in a fairly balanced way, which contained possibilities of and challenges to sustainable development.
4. Consumption and production patterns. Every country has to support and promote a ten-year framework programme so that shifting towards sustainable consumption and production may be speeded up. Such actions and means should be named like the processes of monitoring and examination, indicators, life-cycle analysis, consumer information, the exchange of best practices, training of small and medium enterprises, the enhancement of eco-efficiency.
5. Corporate and social responsibility. The industry shall improve its social and environmental output by voluntary means. Any further internationally compulsory commitment and decision that would lead to further debates in the UN, should be avoided. The countries were invited to promote corporate responsibility and accountability.
6. Chemicals. An agreement was reached on reducing the harmful effects of the produced and used chemicals on human health and the environment to the minimum by 2020 on the basis of transparent risk analysis of scientific foundations, management procedures and with the consideration of the principle of precaution.
Similarly an accord was reached on promoting the reduction of the risk of heavy metals harmful to human health and the environment.
7. Mining, minerals, metals. Mining, minerals and metals were mentioned as important economic and social factors for the developing countries. Activities are needed to name their environmental effect and to force the emergence of sustainable practice.
8. Tourism. The governments agreed on promoting sustainable tourism, namely on increasing resources deriving from tourism by protecting the ecologically sensitive areas and strengthening local communities.
9. Forests. The governments agree with such actions that ensure sustainable sylviculture in the case of natural as well as planted forests so that forest degradation may be significantly moderated and the biodiversity loss of forests and the degradation of landscape may stop.
10. Climate change. The governments confirmed their commitment to stabilise glasshouse concentration at a level that would prevent dangerous changes of anthropogenic origin of the climatic system. States that had ratified the Kyoto Protocol pressed the others who have not done so, to accept it.
11. Employment. The governments have undertaken to help in the enhancement of employment opportunities by the realisation of the Declaration on the Right to Work and Principles.
If the above one is surveyed only as a brief enumeration it may be seen that the Plan of Implementation touches at several instances on the business world as well as on the requirements and commitments in connection with the economy in so many places.
Domestic tasks
The question is how we are supposed to survey our domestic tasks, system of planning or the budget on the basis of the Johannesburg Summit. Let us take an apparently simple example in the context of the new National Programme for Environmental Protection under preparation and covering six years.
Industry and environmental protection cannot be considered in isolation any more. The formerly vertical nature of industry by branches was changed precisely by the horizontal character of environmental protection. The new industry for environmental protection that has emerged as a result of changes in industry and in the structure is present in every traditional branch, in health care, in the field of transport, and agriculture and reaches even the educational branch of the knowledge-based society. Hence whenever we speak about industry in an environmental context, it is its horizontal set of means what we refer to, instead of the traditionally interpreted ones, which is the driving force of economic growth, and through which the economic integration of environmental protection can be realised. (In the newly emerging industries environmental protection is integrated right from the outset, see for instance, supplying industries.)
For the industry the greatest challenge is represented by the integration of the set of ideas of sustainable development into the economy and the development of the domestic environmental industry as an economically pulling branch during the period of the implementation of the National Programme for Environmental Protection II.
The recommendations of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development are to be implemented as fitted into national programmes. The industry of environmental protection meets the requirements of the Plan of Implementation passed by the Summit as an economic programme.
The industry of environmental protection, which is nothing else but pollution management, environmental investment, monitoring, servicing, the spread of cleaner technologies, can ensure the competitiveness of national industry and it is also the driving force of economic growth. The practical implementation of the Chapter on the Environment of acquis communautaire represents such a burden on national economy that can be reduced to a bearable level only by the economic integration of sustainable development. The National Programme for Environmental Protection II is realised through the operational programme of the National Programme for Environmental Protection that constitutes the basis of co-financing. Therefore it is important that the environmental implementation programme should appear in NPEP II through the economic programme of the industry of environmental protection.
A development of the network of environmental monitoring is part of the environmental industry and constitutes the basis of supplying information prescribed by the acquis and of producing the environmental indicators necessary to assistance granted to programmes.
All these tasks have to be prepared by the setting up of programmes that would also mean an entrance ticket for the reception of the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the EU after accession.
It can be seen that the Johannesburg set of ideas of sustainable development permeates our tasks for the implementation of environmental protection and for EU accession that have to be adjusted to the economic programme. The ensuing result constitutes the basis of the entire implementation programme of environmental protection.
What is left behind is that governments have to analyse their domestic problems, namely the possibilities of economic development in the acceding countries from the angle of sustainable development.
There are three roads open to governments to make their choice:
– 1. The usual, traditional business: growing environmental damage and ’economic growth’ that can be accomplished at a high economic, social and health cost.
– 2. Economic growth having a decreasingly damaging effect on the environment. Cleaner technologies should be implemented, waste should be minimised without basic changes in economic decision-making.
– 3. Continuous economic growth besides the significant reduction of environmental effects, fully keeping in view the environmental and social considerations in the decision-making process, which is sustainable development itself.
At present there is apparently full agreement in the advantages of the realisation of Community regulations in Hungary. It is the decisions that indicate agreement and the implementation will contribute to following the way of sustainable development. One of the most important messages of the Johannesburg Summit is that the basis of environmental protection is good government and economic policy that have become inseparable concepts from now on.
This essay is an attempt at summarizing the EU standpoint on the issues discussed.
Begegnungen20_Hargitai
Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 20:91–104.
KATALIN HARGITAI
The Environmental Policy of the European Union and the Participation
of Nongovernmental Organisations
The Importance of the Environmental Policy of the European Union
Why do we take up the issue of the environmental policy the EU pursues? It can be approached simultaneously from two directions. It can be approached partly from the side of the accession negotiations currently in progress, and partly from the direction of the globalising world.
Hungary, similarly to several Central and East European countries, submitted its application for accession to the European Union. Among the numerous preconditions of our admission we also have to adopt the environmental policy of the Union including its legal norms as well as their implementation. To meet this requirement naturally we have to know the current environmental policy of the Union and the planned trends of progress and development. It was the acknowledgement of the adoption of the legal norms and the authenticity of our promises for eliminating our shortcomings that the Environmental Chapter was temporarily closed on 1 June 2001 during the course of the accession talks.
The adoption of the related acquis and its subsequent practical implementation influence the thinking of the domestic legislators and those who implement the legal norms. Consequently domestic legislation will be harmonised with that of the Union even in areas where there are no specific demands for regulation because no acquis was produced in relation to the given topic.
During the course of accession the protection of our domestic natural values should enjoy special importance. For this purpose those shortcomings of the acquis should also be known that may have hidden dangers for these natural values. Hungary is home of several natural rarities, that have never existed on the territory of the Union, or have become extinct due to enhanced industrial and agricultural activities and environmental injuries. We have to assure their proper protection and for this purpose we may have to ask derogation from the requirements of another legal area, or have to make a proposal concerning the environmental acquis after accession.
In our globalising world naturally one could not disregard the EU even if we did not have accession negotiations and if we did not want to become a Member State. Currently the European Union is a key actor on world stage, hence its deeds and actions influence all those countries it gets into contact with in some way or another. It is particularly true in the case of closer cooperation, such as economic relations.
Development of environmental policy in the European Union
Protection of the environment
The consideration of environmental protection usually appears in the legislation of countries as a consequence of increasing environmental pollution. It was not different in the countries of the European Union either. With the appearance of environmentalist movements several countries of the European Community introduced rules of various levels and strictness for the protection of the environment. Subsequently the differences of implementation and range functioned as factors distorting competition in common trade.
Countries applying stricter rules temporarily got into a disadvantage in competition as they could produce their goods only at a higher cost because of the environmental investments. Looking at it from the other side it is the principle of the ‘free flow of goods’, constituting one of the basic pillars of the existence of the European Community that is violated if certain countries ban the import of some goods due to environmental reasons.
Thus it was this two-way process that had primarily made the creation of Community legal norms necessary for the protection of the environment1, that later on became a competitive advantage for companies successfully implementing them, because investments into material and energy efficiency became cost- reducing factors in the long run, and parallel to the development of environmental consciousness of the population the market share of environment-friendly goods could grow.
International processes have also exercised and continue to exercise an influence on the environmental policy of the Union besides the interests of the internal market. In the field of environmental protection one of the first steps was the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, the closing declaration of which spoke about the necessity of a common vision and the development of common principles. Not much after the Conference, in 1973 the Environmental Action Programme of the European Union was born as the first document of the intention of common action. It was this Programme that called the public opinion of the Union for the first time to the numerous ecological problems caused by economic development, further on, it challenged the set of values of consumer society.
The Environmental Action Programme proved to be the first in a series, followed by five others up to now, the most recent one was passed by the Union in 2002. The first four Action Programmes actually covered two main areas: they made recommendations for the development of environmental legislation, and offered assistance to the already existing environmental projects.
The legislation related to various areas and sectors undergo gradual development until they are included in the supreme document of the Union, in the Community Treaty. Environmental issues were included in it as a separate Environmental Chapter in 1987. The aim of the Chapter is to preserve the quality of the environment, to protect and improve it; to protect human health; to carefully and rationally use natural resources. It has proposed various means to cure environmental problems that appear on national, regional and international levels.
Sustainability
The cause of the environment has been developing in the international arena as well, which was partly a consequence of the appearance of environmental problems on global level. The UN organised the first Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, its official name was “UN Conference on Environment and Development”2 The Fifth Environment Action Programme of the European Union was launched in the following year.
It was not merely the protection of the environment, but already sustainable development that figured in the forefront of the Action Programme, mirroring international processes.
Sustainable development wishes to handle the issues of the environment, the economy and of society jointly so that the satisfaction of current needs should not endanger the satisfaction of the needs of future generations. Several definitions of sustainable development were born, and as a sign of a lack of agreement many people wrongly understand sustainable economic growth under this heading. They mean quantity instead of quality.
As the environmental issues are inseparably linked to the issues of the economy and society, therefore their handling as such does not solve the environmental problems. In view of this realisation the Action Programme set as its aim to integrate environmental considerations into policies of the various sectors. In this spirit industry, energy industry, transport, agriculture, and tourism (should) have to consider environmental interests as well when they promote their own development.
A further aim of the Action Programme was to share responsibility for environmental issues. As the problem has grown beyond the competency of the state and has been increasingly affecting the population, cooperation between the governments, the productive sectors and civil society has become necessary.
Two principles were put into the focus of the Action Programme: the principle that the pollutant shall pay, and the principle of precaution. Looking at the first principle from the angle of practice it means that it is the originator of environmental problem who has to pay for preventing or curing it, whereas in the spirit of the second one those acts should be avoided that may cause environmental problems.
The Action Programme had four kinds of means for the realisation of its aims. Beyond legislation it used the means of the market, and also applied financial and other types of support.
The new basic treaty of the European Union, the Amsterdam Treaty, was signed in 1997 and entered into force on 1 May 1999. Meeting the requirements of sustainable development already figured among the requirements of that document. Extending the contents of the Fifth Environment Action Programme the Treaty ruled also for the integration of environmental considerations into sectoral policies. Further on it ruled that impact study should be made in the case of proposals and developments that may have an effect on the environment. The growth of the importance of environmental issues is also indicated by the fact that the European Parliament was given the right to veto in the field of environmental questions.
The Cardiff Process
Though it was named after the next summit of the heads of state and government of the European Union, the starting point of the Cardiff Process was the Summit held in Luxembourg in 1997.
Next year it was decided by the Summit of the heads of state and government held in Cardiff, Wales, that environmental considerations and sustainable development would be kept in view in the future when the strategic documents of the European Council are elaborated. Consequently every council of a sector was supposed to shape its own documents accordingly.
The next step of the process was the Helsinki Summit held in 1999, where three resolutions of key importance were passed. It was ruled that the strategies of councils for sectors, taking environmental aspects into consideration, and the draft of the Strategy for Sustainable Development of the European Union were to be completed by the Gothenburg Summit, further on, it was stated that sustainable development was to be one pillar of the Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Union.
The Gothenburg Summit closed the six-month period of the Union under the presidency of Sweden in late June 2001. The European Council, and the heads of state and government of the EU passed several important resolutions in that Summit, though hopes attached to the Summit were not fully realised. At the meeting it was decided not to launch a new process for the assertion of sustainable development but that the Lisbon Process, aiming at the coordination of economic and social considerations and already in progress would be extended over environmental questions. It was this process that was supposed to lay the foundations of the future Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Union.
The leaders of Member States also decided on striving to achieve a bigger sectoral integration of policies; Strategic Environmental Study was made compulsory in the case of major proposals of the Union; it was laid down as an expectation that Member States should elaborate national strategies for sustainable development and the Commission was called to create indicators of sustainability. Further on, it was resolved to monitor the changes of issues annually and the results achieved and failures would be discussed at the spring summits.
Strategy for Sustainable Development
The European Commission prepared the draft of the Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Union by the spring of 2001 which was to be discussed by the leaders of Member States at the Gothenburg Summit. Due to the delays of the Commission and of the Swedish presidency little time was left for the Member States to implement a process of profound assessment, and perhaps this was one of the reasons why ultimately the document passed by the heads of state and government in late June 2001 was a significantly abridged variant, containing fewer aims of the draft presented by the Commission.
The Commission had been working on another important strategic document, the Sixth Environment Action Programme as well, parallel to the Strategy for Sustainable Development, striving to coordinate the two materials as much as possible. The Strategy spelt out long-term goals, whereas the Action Programme contained relatively shorter-term and more exact tasks. The Strategy for Sustainable Development defined six key areas of action, on the basis of the most urgent problems. The six areas were the problem of climate change and the use of clean energies, health care, the management of natural resources, poverty and the problem of social exclusion, ageing society and other demographic processes, mobility (transport), the use of land and regional development. The aims were related to transport, energy, agriculture, industry, fishing, and also issues of the internal market, economy and finances.
The Barcelona Summit
The issue of sustainable development seemed to obtain greater impetus at last at the Gothenburg Summit, but the process was halted at the Summit held in Barcelona in the spring of 2002. No resolution was made, objective set, or agreement reached in several such areas the solution of which was expected from that particular Summit. Thus there was no progress made in the issue of energy tax with an environmental aim, in the strategic environmental study of the proposals of the various sectors, in supplementing the Lisbon Process with environmental considerations, or in rulings for sectoral environmental integration. No resolution was passed on the reform that was supposed to make prices of certain products and services to reflect their environmental effects in the future. Meanwhile the condition of the environment further degraded on the territory of the European Union and the Union seemed to lose its leading role in issues of sustainable development.
The European Union and its Member States were blamed by many for not having ratified the Kyoto Protocol created in 1997, though the efforts of the Union exercised after the United States announced that it had not wished to ratify the Protocol, were appreciated. The United States still maintains that decision saying that it wished to introduce far more effective solutions for slowing down and stopping the process of climate change than the ones stipulated by the Protocol. Other states however, perhaps due to the mediation of the Union, ratified the Protocol within a short period of time, or at least they announced their intention to do so. Thus several of the candidate countries, including Hungary, have already ratified it, and Canada and Russia announced their intention to do so at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, after a long time of solicitations.
World Summit on Sustainable Development
The representatives of the European Union went to Johannesburg of the South African Republic, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (or Earth Summit) held between 26 August and 4 September 2002, to take up a leading role and make the participants accept specific items during the course of talks. Unfortunately the end result shows that it has achieved outstanding results in its ability to get isolated instead of accomplishing its original mission.
Already cooperation among the Member States was not totally smooth, and there were further problems also concerning external cooperation. According to the opinion of civil organisations the Union proved to be more of an obstacle in several issues than a contributor making efforts to reach an agreement. The United States tried to strengthen this feeling in the delegations of countries, until finally the isolated Union, having got fed up with its role of being a drawback, rather laid down arms and let the Action Agenda be passed without concrete items, only to have an agreement finally reached. With that decision it fully handed over control over the events to the United States.
In two really tough issues the ultimate victory over which also filled the civil organisations with some sense of success, namely in issues of accountability, of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the relationships among the rules of international trade, the Union clearly shared the view of the United States, abandoning not only the group of G77, comprising the poorest countries, but also its own civil organisations.
The role of nongovernmental organisations in shaping the environmental policy of the EU
The actors
In the European Union assuring social participation is becoming an increasingly important principle of the elaboration of strategies and policies for sectors. This principle is gaining ground also in respect of environmental issues.
Within the Union eight major European green organisations, the so-called G8 (the green eight) play a key role in commenting on and shaping the environmental policy of the Union. These organisations are the following:
Birdlife International (www.birdlife.net)
Climate Network Europe (www.climnet.org)
European Environmental Bureau (www.eeb.org)
European Federation for Transport and Environment (www.t-e.nu)
Friends of Earth Europe (www.foeeurope.org)
Friends of Nature International (www.nfi.at)
Greenpeace International (www.greenpeace.org)
World Wide Fund for Nature (www.panda.org)
The afore-mentioned eight major green organisations have several member organisations in the Member States as well as in countries wishing to accede that also participate in the shaping of the Union environmental policy on local, national and international levels. Naturally several other organisations besides them make their voice heard in relation to the EU environmental policy.
Activities
The participation of nongovernmental organisations is variegated and complex in shaping the Union environmental policy. Activities take up several forms ranging from the theoretical plane to specific actions.
Opinions related to environmental policy
Commenting on the various sectoral policies, having environmental aspects, or on expressly environmental policies is one area where nongovernmental organisations may join the process. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) for instance publishes a list containing the most important demands set for the Member State taking up the role of presidency for the coming half year at the beginning of that period.
The organisation set the following expectations for the presidency of Denmark:
1. The Johannesburg Summit
In view of the responsibility for separating economic growth and the process of environmental degradation linkages should be created between the resolutions of Monterrey, Doha and Johannesburg in the framework of a ‘global agreement’. Further on, an agreement should be reached at the Summit on a precise action agenda that would specify deadlines and the means of implementation for every area.
2. Enlargement
A dialogue should be initiated between the EU institutions and the candidate countries in the interest of determining the guidelines of an environmentally and socially sustainable regional policy.
3. Reform of CAP
It is necessary to pass a declaration full of challenges at the Copenhagen Summit that would define the main principles and deadlines assuring the direction of the Common Agricultural Policy towards sustainability. The reform has to extend over the elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies, and has to push the development of the means for the rural areas promotion and of the means of environmental protection in agriculture.
4. Chemicals and herbicides
The Commission should be reminded of the Gothenburg resolution according to which a new policy of chemical materials has to be created before 2004, and for this purpose the process of legislation cannot suffer any further postponement. Further on, the Commission should be persuaded to make a proposal for the means assuring the reduction of the use of herbicides and chemicals before July 2003, and to complete the revision of guideline 91/414/EC in the interest of the protection of the environment and human health.
5. Reform of environmental finances
The minimum rules for taxing energy products should be passed within the framework of a guideline that would resemble the original Monti guideline proposed by the Commission in 1997. Further incentives should be approved so that the tax bases should be shifted from labour to natural resources, and environmentally harmful subsidies should be terminated.
6. Environmental responsibility
The competency of the proposed guideline should be broadened together with the list of hazardous activities capable of causing environmental damages (for instance polluting by genetically modified organisms). The principle of ‘strict responsibility’ should be insisted on, including the direct right of nongovernmental organisations to the administration of justice, the reversal of the burden of proof, and compulsory insurance to be prescribed.
7. Sustainable development
The all-round assertion of the environmental dimension has to be assured in the Lisbon Process, with special regard to giving all the necessary indicators in the report to come in next spring. The integration of environmental policy in sectors should be vigorously concentrated on in the work of the councils of ministers in the case of every decision and activity.
8. Genetically modified organisms
It is necessary to extend traceability and the rules of labelling to meat, eggs and milk products, originating from animals bred on genetically modified fodder. The Commission should be hindered in its effort to modify the No. 2001/18 guideline in order to legalise the illegal import of genetically modified organisms. The current moratorium should be maintained until clear and strict rules are not passed in the area of traceability, labelling and responsibility.
9. The Aarhus Agreement
A strong guideline should be passed that would consider that Agreement as a basis and not the upper limit in terms of access to environmental information and social participation related to environmental issues. The original proposal of the Commission and the proposed modifications of Parliament offer a good basis to it.
10. Packaging and its wastes
There should be full cooperation with the European Parliament for the achievement of its aim regarding the improvement of the environmental characteristics of packaging and that the production of packaging wastes should be hindered.
Dissemination of knowledge
The dissemination of knowledge also has a significant role in shaping environmental policy. The various conferences, seminars and information materials can be its media. As an example the project entitled “EU 12" can be mentioned, which was implemented under the coordination of the National Society of Conservationists with the participation of countries wishing to accede. Information packages were made in the framework of the project and trainings were held on the environmental policy of the EU. An assessment of the integration of environmental issues into sectors was also part of the project.
Another example was the joint conference of the European Environmental Bureau, the Regional Environmental Centre, the Milieukontakt Oost-Europa and the National Society of Conservationists, held on the relationship between EU enlargement and environmental protection. The conference held in November 2001 focused on three groups of issues. It dealt with the adoption of the environmental acquis of the EU, with the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on candidate countries, and with dangers and possibilities related to the sustainability of the region.3
Lobbying
The nongovernmental organisations carry on more practical activities as well besides the dissemination of knowledge, in the interest of asserting their stand and opinion. Such lobbying sometimes takes the form of regularity, at other times that of individual cases.
On 31 January 2000 the eight major European nongovernmental organisations had the opportunity to discuss their stand with Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission. At that meeting the condition of the environment of the Union was discussed with special regard to the most problematic areas (such as waste management, soil and biodiversity); the issues of the management of resources and energy, including questions of efficiency; the need for the reform of such sectors like the Common Agricultural Policy, or transport was also on the agenda. The green organisations asked the Commission President to take up the popularisation of sustainable development on the level of the EU as well as on world stage, and to encourage the European Union to take a leading role in the struggle against climate change. The right of the population of the Union to a similar quality of life and to the administration of justice was also mentioned. Further on, the expectations included the improvement of access to various documents, the reform of the tax system as a result of which the resources should be the basis of taxation and not labour.
The European Commission, and the Directorate General for the Protection of the Environment within it actually regularly meet the green organisations of the Central and East European countries in order to listen to their opinion and comments related to the environmental aspects of accession and to its own environmental policy. The meetings are coordinated by the Regional Environmental Centre.
Campaigns
Campaigns mean an even more active participation than lobbying, they are announced for a given aim by one or more organisations. Such a campaign was for instance the ‘Let us make the Treaty greener’, conducted in the year 2000 during preparations for the Nice Treaty. Its demands included the official declaration of the right to a clean and healthy environment, a continuous and regular dialogue between the nongovernmental organisations and the European Commission, and the right to the administration of justice at the European Court. Further on, the green organisations asked for a qualified majority as a requirement of decision-making on issues related to environmental protection.
The ‘Realistic prices’ campaign, launched in 2002, demands the realisation of an efficient financial reform in which the government, the business sector and the society may equally and actively participate. A minimum 10% change of the tax base from labour to natural resources up to 2010 on the level of the Union as well as of the Member States also figures among the campaign demands. One of the major demands is the elimination or reform of subsidies harmful from an environmental point of view up to 2005. A further demand concerns issues of saving energy and its efficient use, and the financial incentives of environmental protection.
Actions
The most concrete form of expressing opinion related to environmental policy is represented by actions that are forms of pressure, attracting the greatest publicity.
The conference of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol was held in The Hague, Holland, in late 2000. The green organisations decided to build a symbolic dam in the interest of calling attention to the problem of climate change and of exercising pressure on the negotiating parties. Six thousand people participated in the action and fifty thousand sand bags were mobilised to the building of the 500 metre-long dam.
This meeting of the parties ended without result, therefore another conference was held in Bonn, Germany in July 2001 where the green organisations came forward with another action. This time a lifeboat was made of tiny wooden planks and everyone could write his or her message to a decision-maker participating in the talks. Three thousand people participated in this action and the thirty metre-long lifeboat was assembled from several thousand pieces of boards.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme
Participation of nongovernmental organisations in the preparation of the Sixth Environment Action Programme
The Environment Action Programme of the European Union up to 2010, the sixth already in a series of action programmes, was passed by the European Union in 2002. During the course of the preparations of the document entitled “Our Future, Our Choice” the Union strove to assure the broadest possible social participation in the current Member States as well as in the candidate countries. An opportunity was open to join already at the stage of planning and preparations (during the course of 2000).
Hungarian contribution
A group of Hungarian green organisations4, coordinated by the National Society of Conservationists, prepared its comments on the Fifth Environment Action Programme and their proposals for the Sixth one and sent them to the European Commission. The proposals comprised a broad area of issues: those that were most affected by enlargement, several topics related to sustainable development (such as Strategic Environmental Study, analyses of sustainability, consumer habits, social participation), tasks of the protection of nature and biodiversity (including concerns related to genetically modified organisms), the topics of energy and glasshouse gases, transport, waste management, issues of waters and sewage water, and certain regulatory tasks.
Participation of nongovernmental organisations
Based on proposals the European Commission prepared the draft of the Sixth Environment Action Programme which was discussed in a ministerial conference in June 2000. At the meeting held at the Regional Environmental Centre of Szentendre the ministers of candidate countries also participated besides the ministers of Member States responsible for the environment.
Next came another round of social debate that was coordinated by the Regional Environmental Centre of Szentendre among the civil organisations of the Central and East European countries.
The civil organisations had an opportunity all along the finalisation of the Sixth Environment Action Programme to share their opinion with the European Commission preparing it, and with the Council of the Ministers of the Environment of the Union afterwards. For instance, the nongovernmental organs of the candidate countries could meet the Council of Ministers in March 2001 and could share their comments with them.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme
Finally the Sixth Environment Action Programme contained general tasks as well as areas for concrete action.
General tasks
One of the very important tasks the Union faces is the promotion of the implementation of the existing acquis. Currently the condition of the environment has been continuously degrading in the Union, despite its several legal norms, which is attributable to a significant degree to a poor assertion of the contents of the legal norms. In this area the role of the European Court should be strengthened, the contents of the Aarhus Agreement should be applied (several countries have already acceded to it but for the time being the European Union has not), and the IMPEL Network should be operated.
A further important task is to see to it that environmental protection should not be a separate isolated sector, one among the numerous sectoral policies, but its points of consideration should be asserted in the set of values in other branches. This integration of the branches is intended to be achieved by strengthening the Cardiff Process.
Transforming market relations to become environment friendly is among the tasks a precondition of which is that prices should reflect environmental effects. In addition it is necessary to develop the commitment of the consumers, cooperation with the business sector, a termination of environmentally harmful subsidies, making the financial sector ‘greener’ and developing the system of common responsibility.
It is important to assure the right to information and social participation in environmental issues in the interest of changing the behaviour of the inhabitants and that they should be supplied with practical information in the interest of facilitating decision-making.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme mentions among the general tasks that regional development should be made greener, meaning that Strategic Environmental Studies should be prepared for plans, investments and developments related to the environment; that best practices should be applied in the field of regional developments; and that agrarian-environmental programmes should be made in the interest of improving agricultural land use.
Fields of action
The four key areas on which the Sixth Environment Action Programme concentrates were developed by long discussions.
One of the most important aims related to climate change is to reduce the emission of glasshouse gases.
In the area of biological diversity the programme aims at the reduction of dangers caused by pollutants, consideration of biodiversity, land use, and keeping in view anxieties related to genetically modified organisms.
In view of the protection of human health the creation of a non-toxic environment is an aim, together with sustainable water management, the improvement of the quality of the air, and the reduction of noise.
In view of the protection of natural resources the Sixth Environment Action Programme deals with the policies of the various sectors and also with waste management.
The position of the EU in the world
The Sixth Environment Action Programme also discusses what position the European Union occupies in the world regarding environmental issues and sustainable development. This group of issues is studied partly in relation to enlargement, and partly to answers given to international problems.
In view of enlargement it dwells upon issues of legal harmonisation and the implementation of law, on sustainable economic development, on the protection of the current standard of public transport, on issues and tasks of regional planning and on the enhancement of consciousness.
In the area of international roles it is integrating environmental issues into foreign policy and the international popularisation of environmental protection that figure among the objectives.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Union was passed during 2002.
Notes
1
The European Commission submitted its proposal explained in detail to the European Council in June 1971 so that Community legal norms for the protection of the environment may be produced.
2
It was here that the document entitled “Agenda 21" was born, and two Conventions that wished to cure certain global problems. One raised the issues of climate change, and the other the loss of biodiversity to an international level.
3
A summary of the conference can be found in the November 2001 issue of the monthly paper entitled “EU-Integráció – Környezetpolitika, környezetvédelem” (EU Integration – Environmental Policy, Protection of the Environment), published by the National Society of Conservationists. The publication is accessible on www.mtvsz.hu as well.
4
Emission Association, Energy Club, Air Working Group, Hungarian Transport Club, Hungarian Ornithological Association, the National Society of Conservationists, Ecological Institute for Sustainable Development, WWF Hungary.
Begegnungen20_Glatz
Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 20:7–10.
FERENC GLATZ
Rearranging the Relationship between Nature and Man (before Johannesburg)
Introduction
1. Ecology, environmental science, and sustainable development
The human interpretation of the world has been undergoing a rapid transformation. The facts that man is capable of breaking down matter to its elements, that physicists and chemical experts are capable of assembling them totally differently, the fact that man is able to leave the Earth and his understanding of time has undergone total transformation as a result of space research, and that at last we have recognised that we may even destroy our natural environment and our own living conditions with it; well, these facts of the relationship between nature and man encourage us to think entirely differently from our thinking of not more than 30 or 40 years ago. I am, for instance, currently preoccupied with the question of when did so radical changes of world-view, similar to the current one, take place during the course of history, what conditions shaped the world-views regarded as new ones and what is the relationship between man and nature in those still surviving world-views. If nothing else, at least the 11 September, that special date of the collision of world-views, forces the thinking part of humanity to do so. How do for instance the three Judaist religions – the Jewish, the Christian and the Muslim ones – think about the relationship between man and nature, how do the Oriental religions – Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto – think about the same issue? How far would these interpretations of the world be suited for adequately conducting the real relationship between man and nature in the 21st century? Because this relationship can be influenced by our human thinking with the help of the set of instruments of technical revolutions. Perhaps the Buddhists are right when they blame Christians for our world-view – irrespective of whether we are practicing our religion or not – being full of limited anti-naturalism. In fact the three monotheist religions assume that the Creator, as it is put by Verses 26-30 of Chapter I of the First Book of Moses, has placed all His non-human creatures under the dominion of man. In other words: for one and a half thousand years we have been brought up in a world-view supporting technical optimism according to which man is the in centre of the world. According to Buddhism however, man is only part of nature, there is an interrelationship between man and nature. Not speaking about several pantheistic, polytheistic religions, where every natural phenomenon and even natural object has its holiness, demanding constant respect from man.
Many of us have already noticed that one should speak about the relationship of “man and nature” differently in the 21st century as we have done for one and a half thousand years. By now we know, at least we, a few hundred thousand of us, of daily increasing numbers, and perhaps there are already several millions of us, that it is far more correct to speak about the relationship of “nature and man”, that is to reverse the sequence of words. And it is correct to consider man as part of the entire nature and not to regard nature simply as “environment”.
Our entire interpretation of the world should be revised. It is not simply a conclusion deriving from the internal development of science, when we demand a place for ecology, or the science of the environment, it is not simply the movements protecting animals, plants, or the nature, when we have been (including myself) writing and speaking in the interest of protecting nature since the 1970s. More is involved here. It is the 21st century that demands humanity to change its understanding of the relationship between nature and man.
Thus we may discuss concepts and may discuss Rio. Now, at the time of Rio+10 it is timely. As far as I am concerned, when I am thinking about the concepts of environmental science, ecology, and sustainable development I regard ecology as the general concept that deals with the interrelationships of the entire physical world. I consider environmental science a discipline of a narrower topic, dealing with the relationships between man and the natural environment. The third category, namely “sustainable development” is one of the guiding principles of human activity, which, in my view, requires us to experience our common functions of life while taking the relationship between nature and man into consideration. Thus, in my interpretation “sustainable development” is a requirement the assertion of which should be promoted primarily by ecology and environmental science within science.
Academic institutions, including academies of science should also support this transformation of world-view. They should let disciplines studying the relationship between nature and man come more to the foreground. It should be recognised by what kinds of new technical instruments we have been enriched, just as a consequence of the miraculous development of technical, physical, chemical, and biological sciences of the past century, and that the intelligent use of these tools requires separate study. Because the essence is not that our world-view and activity should be scientific, but that science should focus on man and the physical world. Science can be used for good as well as for bad purposes. This is why I am sure that the 21st century will force the granting of a much greater role to ecology, environmental science, or the complex disciplines studying man such as psychology and complex historical anthropology in the organisations of research.
2. Environmental science: is it a natural or a social science?
Environmental science is at least as much a social as a natural science. Perhaps this opinion of mine is not surprising after the above stated words. The marvellous successes of natural sciences in the twentieth century have led, at least in my opinion, to the thinking of researchers studying nature getting half a century ahead of the thinking of scholars studying society. Our concept of time and world-view has hardly been renewed after World War II. And the new trends of social science research, sociology developing well since the beginning of the century, next cultural anthropology, psychology, economics, have been living in isolation, sometimes locked up in disciplinary ghettos. Conflict between the challenge of practice and the organisation of research can be felt most strongly in social sciences. The challenge of practical life is always focused on problems, whereas the organisation of research is focused on disciplines. Therefore everyone tries to respond to the challenges from the angle of his or her discipline, by methods evolved in it. Naturally this self-criticism does not retain me as a social scientist from criticising natural scientists as well. It is primarily directed towards researchers engaged in the study of inanimate nature. According to my repeatedly worded opinion the marvellous successes of applied and theoretical natural sciences have led to the brilliant institutionalisation of those disciplines, and they dispose of huge amounts of money in their departments, for their researchers and of sums won from production. All these successes and developments have narrowed the thinking of those living in the research organisation of natural sciences. They have been transformed into specialists who only focus on singular research processes. In other words they commit the same mistake as the social scientists. They just as much do not know human society, in which they devise and build their marvellous machines, structures, as social scientists do not know the natural and technical environment of society. Neither of them knows or studies the interrelationship that objectively exists between man and his environment.
Naturally I also keep on repeating that environmental science and ecology are not simply life sciences. Today even the research into live organisms cannot develop without physicists and chemical scientists, not mentioning the fact that the conservation of natural environment cannot be envisaged without the knowledge of structures and the products of inanimate nature.
In other words, I consider natural, as well as life and social sciences as parts of the concept of environmental science. The study of the environment is such a consideration that has to be asserted in natural, as well as life and social sciences.
3. The concept of the “environment-conscious citizen”
What is it by which I consider the Rio programme of 1992 to be supplemented with now, after ten years? It is the fact that the Rio programme cannot be implemented without changing the thinking of the society. Science, education and their allied media have to strive consistently to make citizens follow environmentally conscious principles in their individual lives. I have been talking about “environment-conscious citizens” since 1989. At that time I spent one year in the administration and I had to think a lot about what changes could be initiated in the public thinking of the society with the power of administration. As an enthusiastic environmentalist, or hidden ecologist who had approached the unity of the natural world from the angle of man, I had been in quest of those means by which a nature-friendly thinking could be promoted. It was at that time that that I blurted out the need for an “environment-conscious citizen” at a public forum, who should be educated by the educational system, by media policy, but also by the entire revenue system, and even by the political parties. (At that time I had the least faith in the latter ones.) We would go nowhere without the environment-conscious citizen. Therefore one should, perhaps propose supplementing the Rio programme by such a clause.
*
Let me say something else while thinking about environmental science, Rio, and the current changes of world-view. During the recent years I have repeatedly quoted Don Quixote, the valiant knight as my favourite literary hero. To me he embodies such a world-view that cannot be victorious in its own age. In my interpretation Don Quixote is a knight who acknowledges that the world around him follows different rules, yet he charges ahead with his spear for the assertion of certain conceived moral norms and attacks the windmill. Today those who urge a rearrangement of the relationship between nature and man are such Don Quixotes as yet. Perhaps posterity would describe our struggles as funny ones, but I hope that our moral stand would be just as well appreciated as I appreciate Don Quixote. I acknowledge the fact that the world and the environment in which I live follows different principles, and I am not upset for it, I would only follow my own obsessions.
Begegnungen20_Farago-Feiler
Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 20:31–41.
TIBOR FARAGÓ–JÓZSEF FEILER
World Summit on Sustainable Development
The World Summit of Johannesburg was called on the tenth anniversary of the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, according to the original intention primarily for the assessment of the implementation of the programme entitled Agenda 21, passed in Rio, for the exploration of factors hindering the accomplishment of aims spelt out by it and for the definition of further tasks. The resolution of the UN General Assembly of February 2001 on calling the World Summit in Johannesburg unambiguously stipulated it, but in order to shed light on the complexity and contradictions of international talks, it should be noted, that there have been several major international events since 1992, or new problems of global significance got into the focus of attention. Their topics have also been closely linked to the programme of sustainable development.
Essence of the Summit, critical issues on the agenda
During the decade after the major UN Conference of 1992, the World Summit was dedicated to such ‘well known’ topics of outstanding significance like demographic issues, social and environmental problems related to human settlements, international assistance to be given to the least developed countries, the assertion of human rights, the ‘management’ of natural disasters and their consequences, or the operation of the fund aiming at the solution of global environmental problems, etc. During that period other international forums were held for the discussion of highly significant processes, grave problems, or new international initiatives. Without wishing to give a total list, some of them are the following: globalisation, AIDS, international terrorism, the criteria and tasks of social development, the demands of global environmental ‘governance’ and their institutional and coordinative issues, the role of science, and scientific cooperation (incidentally, Budapest hosted the world conference dealing with the latter one).
|
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS |
|||||||
|
|
Africa |
Asia, the Pacific region |
Europe and the former Soviet Union |
Latin America and the Caribbean region |
North America |
West-Asia |
Polar regions |
|
Decay of soil |
Growing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Decreasing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
|
Loss and decay of forests |
Growing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Unknown |
|
Decay of biological complexity, fragmentation of habitats |
Growing |
Growing |
Growing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
|
Access to fresh water, its pollution |
Growing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
|
Decay of marine and coastal zones |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Growing |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
|
Atmospheric pollution |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Remains relatively stable |
Remains relatively stable |
|
Urban and industrial pollution, waste |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Remains relatively stable |
Growing |
Unknown |
|
Source: Zöld tények könyve, 1988, p. 80. |
|||||||
The UN resolution mentioned above proposed that the results of other significant UN conferences and summits related to sustainable development should be considered and the new challenges and possibilities should also be taken into account. At the World Summit, during the course of the discussion of the Plan of Implementation under preparation, this had also become a critical issue and it was raised whether the multiplicity of topics should be discussed in their totality and interrelationships, further on the results and aims of the various world meetings, or these programmes and international processes should be kept, evaluated and carried forward within their emergent institutional and organizational framework. While the delegations of several countries, including the European Union (EU), keeping in view the comprehensive concept of sustainable development, pressed for a complex ‘holistic and coherent’ approach, the developing countries saw greater safeguards in international cooperation conducted along several parallel lines where issues closely related to the set of the international conditions of their possibilities for progress and development would also be discussed.
In this respect it was the Millennium Declaration passed on the highest level, within the framework of the UN General Assembly in the year 2000, the recommendations and offers accepted at the conference held at Doha on the reform of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and at Monterrey, closing the process of „financing for development” by the UN, that had fundamentally influenced the talks and results of the World Summit. As a consequence, and differently from the Rio Summit, the Johannesburg Summit focused primarily on combating poverty, on cohesion inside and among societies, on the support of developing countries in development and technology, on their catching up, on the solution of social problems, on safeguarding fair living conditions, basic social and infrastructural services for all, and the relationship of these issues with globalisation, world trade and monetary questions. Everything else, even highly important issues were put on the agenda in relation to these questions, such as: the non-sustainable consumption ‘patterns’ of developed countries as the other side of the emergent differences in development and also the unjust and non-sustainable ‘overdraw’ of the environmental resources, the protection of the natural environment, or, for instance, the further development of the system of institutions for international cooperation.
Next some critical topics of the international talks and accords are presented that are directly related to the above-outlined primary area of problems, also hallmarked by the World Summit, and determining the process of international cooperation. The present paper can only embark on their concise presentation. In addition to the areas mentioned here several other critical issues were raised and remained mostly unsolved during the preparatory process, or some kind of forward-looking compromise was reached in the case of some of them only in Johannesburg.
Basic principles of sustainable development
The basic principles were listed by the declaration of the 1992 Conference, the Rio Declaration, but (in a slightly different wording) they already represented one of the major achievements of the Stockholm conference of 1972. In keeping with the themes and nature of both events these basic principles primarily offer theoretical ‘guidelines’ from the angle of the relationship between societies and the environment to the definition of aims, tasks and means. During the period passed since that time knowledge and sets of views related to the present and future of societies have become more complete and sophisticated, together with expectations facing international cooperation, and also the political standpoints about responsibility, solidarity and partnership concerning the common social and environmental problems in our globalising world. It can be understood on the basis of this circumstance and of the decisive topics of international talks mentioned above that it was the interpretation, reference to and implementation of the “principle of common but differentiated responsibility” of the basic principles that represented the most critical problem.
This principle, as it was laid down in the Rio Declaration, raised primarily the responsibility of developed countries in relation to the emergence of global environmental problems. According to the wording passed in 1992, the developed countries had to play a leading role in the solution of these problems in view of the fact that they had contributed to the deterioration of the condition of the earth’s environment during the course of their earlier development. Raising and acknowledging this responsibility permeated the global environmental agreements reached in Rio, and figured even more markedly behind the developmental aims included in the Millennium Declaration of the UN, and this basic principle was included even in the General Assembly resolution prescribing the calling of the World Summit. It became obvious in the international preparatory process and also during the Johannesburg proceedings that this time the developing countries were to refer to this principle in a much broader sense: they referred in general to the historical responsibility of the developed countries for their economic and social problems and for their lagging behind. Representatives of the developed countries did not accept it. The final document continued to refer to the former interpretation, but gave it more stress and mentioned that principle more frequently as being one of those having special significance among all the other principles of sustainable development. At the same time it was pointed out that the basic principles were closely related to one another and only jointly gave a proper guidance to the wording of aims and tasks (in this respect it is difficult to understand that, for instance, there was no reference made to the Rio principle on the elimination of non-sustainable consumer habits).
The delegations of the European Union, Switzerland and Norway, with the support of a few other delegations, including the Hungarian one, stood for the consideration of the principle of precaution, particularly in the interest of regulating and limiting human activities that may endanger the condition of the environment and that too in the long run. The developing countries expressed their concern about this principle particularly because of its implementation in international trade. Huge political and economic interests and differences of interests were at work in the background of the discussions. The representatives of several developed countries expressed their doubt when reference was made to this basic principle, and the exploitation of natural resources without limitations by ‘principle’ was a primary economic interest of several developing countries even if it endangered their own economic development in the long run and could contribute to global environmental problems. Thus ultimately no agreement could be reached even in relation to the protection of natural resources on the basis of the principle mentioned above. In this situation it may be regarded a serious achievement that, beyond supporting decision-making that would consider this principle and based itself on science, the World Summit corroborated the consideration of the precautious approach regarding the handling of chemical materials and hazardous waste.
Of the basic principles of sustainable development it was the one dealing with public participation that received distinguished attention. In this case too the World Summit and its Plan of Implementation went beyond the earlier, expressly environmental exposure and implementation and considered social participation and cooperation with every involved group of interest representation in a broader sense as indispensable in every respect of sustainable development.
Thus the principles of Rio can be considered as the bases of tasks and cooperation related to the topics discussed by the World Summit, but visibly there has been a serious demand for their extension ‘pointing beyond Rio’, namely for principles that are more valid for the totality of sustainable development, or at least for their extended interpretation. While the Rio Declaration summarily adopted the definition of sustainable definition acknowledging the right of the present and future generations to the satisfaction of their demands for development and for the environment as worded by the Brundtland-Commission, the Johannesburg documents, in harmony with the statements of the past decade, supplement and make it more exact. Accordingly the three pillars of sustainable development (economic and social development, and the protection of the environment) are closely interrelated and mutually supportive and all of us are collectively responsible for their joint strengthening on local, national, regional and global levels as well.
Criteria of good governance and helping developing countries
Laying down the main requirements of good governance, and primarily of the democratic set of institutions was primarily pressed for by the United States, with support of a different extent by the other developed countries and resentments of varying emphases of the developing countries, stressing the cultural diversity and different sets of values of the various countries. An agreement in this topic was again reached with great difficulty, as on the one hand it is the internal order and operational practice of sovereign countries, and the recognition of the fact on the other, that the conditions and tasks of the realisation of sustainable development, and the economic-social and environmental processes endangering it ‘do not know’ about national borders. And the latter one is literally a matter of survival for the least developed countries and those that are most exposed to economic and environmental effects. A ‘linking’ of the expectation of satisfying demands related to good governance and the international support of developing countries was quite unambiguous. This topic was put on the agenda in this politically rather sharp and delicate wording because of the priorities that have been changing since Rio, even within the framework of cooperation for sustainable development.
Considering all these issues, the criteria accepted for and to be asserted by national-level good governance, equally valid for all countries, were spelt out in a very sophisticated wording: efficient environmental, social and economic policies, democratic institutions, government by law, measures against corruption, gender equality, an environment promoting investments (economic regulation). Several other points of consideration ‘deliberately’ did not figure in this context valid for each and every country: thus, for instance, the assertion of human rights and basic liberties is only generally reflected by the Plan of Implementation as something significant to the achievement of sustainable development. The related universal expectations include among others freedom, peace, security and stability besides respecting human rights.
The World Summit passed significantly more concrete and practical recommendations in relation to the national sets of institutions and means serving the implementation of the principles of sustainable development and a more efficient coordination of tasks than in the case of the topic of good government. It should be added however, that there had been serious debate also among delegations stressing the common, or specific (individual) requirements by countries as far as details went. According to the agreement the institutional framework, serving sustainable development, should be developed in every country, better coordination should be assisted, together with the elaboration and implementation of strategies of sustainable development and the related set of legal norms; the conditions of social cooperation and participation oriented towards sustainable development should be improved.
Coming back to the international support of developing countries, the approved Plan of Implementation acknowledges the differences between developed and developing countries and the need for helping developing countries after listing the above-mentioned basic requirements of good governance, particularly in the areas of economic cooperation, financing, the transfer of technology, debt management, or of international trade.
As it was mentioned earlier, of the topics of sustainable development the greatest attention was accorded to combating poverty. Besides statements related to the general and concrete needs, ‘sectors’ (supply of potable water, energy, health care, etc.), a serious discussion unfolded on the issues of the institutions and modes of financing by international resources. A consensus was reached with great difficulty only particularly about three points, such as: the confirmation of former declarations of intent for the increase of contribution to the Official Development Assistance, the setting up of an international Solidarity Fund, and for the enlargement of the Global Environmental Facility. The Summit dealt separately with the issues of the development and development financing of the African states struggling against the largest number of problems, and of the extremely ‘vulnerable’ small island states.
Combating poverty and shift to sustainable production processes and consumption patterns
The catching up of developing countries, combating poverty, and the developmental activities of developed countries in this respect within the framework of the UN, and activities in the interest of social and economic cooperation first and foremost have become the most important topics during the past decades. Programmes had been launched under the most diverse titles dealing with these issues and innumerable international forums were held; and an equally large number of UN-programmes of different themes have also dealt with these problems. The ‘Rio process’ did not differ from this trend either, but the sustainable programme of development, passed in 1992, closely linked the problem of North and South, the issues of development with the preservation of nature, with the requirement of the sustainable utilisation of environmental resources. In addition at last it was more unambiguous about the unsustainable and ‘unfair’ use of resources and the degradation of the environment by the developed countries.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development went further and instead of following the structure of the 1992 programme, or the direction of the assessment and determination of the tasks based on the three pillars of sustainable development, their interrelationships, and its instrumental and institutional aspects, it has chosen a different ‘order of priority’. The three prominent aims, considered as a pledge of sustainable development, offering a framework for tasks in every area are: combating poverty, changing the unsustainable production processes and consumer patterns, and the preservation and (sustainable) management of the natural resource base of economic and social development.
While an agreement was soon reached in this general conceptual approach by the UN Member States, an accord was reached with great difficulty on the developmental demands of developing countries, on the components and methods of shifting to sustainable production processes and consumer patterns in the developed countries, primarily due to the lack of adequate political will.
Naturally the debate on fair living conditions, on the definition of the components of basic needs could not be made independent of what was the nature and dimension of demand for international assistance and its shouldering that was in the ‘background’, in certain cases linked to concrete aims and deadlines. The relevant chapter of the Plan of Implementation itemised the various areas of action. Wherever it was existent and relevant, the starting points were the aims published in the UN Millennium Declaration, but in addition to their corroboration new and more or less concrete development objectives and demands for assistance were raised and put in the focus of discussion. The most serious conflicts emerged around safeguarding the targeted basic public health care related to the objective of offering healthy potable water to be accomplished by 2015: the ‘front-line fighter’ of this proposal was the European Union, it was obviously supported by the developing countries, but the most developed countries, and primarily the United States did not agree with approving new concrete objectives requiring significant assistance. A partly similar and extremely protracted discussion evolved around the issue of access to basic energy supplies (the lack of which primarily hits the developing countries and particularly poor families living in rural areas).
As it was mentioned above, issues of non-sustainable production and consumption were discussed as mirroring some elements of combating poverty. In this area too huge differences were manifest among the developed countries, particularly in respect of the uniform programmed approach, of production and consumption of energy, of ‘eco-efficiency’, of information orienting consumers towards sustainable consumption habits, or, for instance, regarding social and environmental responsibilities expected of companies and their obligation to give information. In this topic the EU considered a ‘programmed’ approach necessary, in other words, it demanded the development and implementation of a ten-year framework programme. The group of developing countries and the United States among others in the developed group opposed the uniform programme. At the same time every delegation acknowledged in general that natural resources were rapidly degrading because of the current trends of consumption, particularly in the most developed countries, differences in the utilisation of resources kept on growing, hence urgent measures were needed.
Finally, strange compromises were reached in these issues as well; here only three significant components of them are mentioned. Consensus was reached regarding the health care objective mentioned above, as something indispensable to the success of combating poverty. Secondly, a rather obscurely worded accord serves the international coordination of regional and national programmes that are necessary to shifting to sustainable consumer habits (with the development of a ten-year ‘framework’). Thirdly, the EU and other countries ‘thinking similarly’ made concessions regarding a concrete definition and numerical aim to figure for the introduction of a larger proportion of renewable energy resources.
Responsibility related to the utilisation and destruction of natural resources
It can be regarded as one of the major merits of the programme approved in Rio that it systematically dealt with every environmental element endangered by human activities, that it defined tasks for the regulation and limitation of these dangerous activities, and for the moderation of harmful affects deriving from burdening the environment. Separate detailed chapters discussed the protection of the atmosphere against harmful emission, the protection of biodiversity and of the oceans, and several other topics. During the time passed since Rio, one could witness significant legal, institutional, monitoring and research developments and results, at the same time the condition of our natural environment has further deteriorated to global scale due to multiplying demands and influences.
In this area too the sharpest debates were related to responsibilities concerning the emergent situation and about measures to be taken in the interest of a solution that is of reducing the global burden on the environment. Stopping the depletion and degradation of natural resources was raised on the most general level, but ultimately no agreement could be reached on a related concrete programme and deadline either. Further on, no agreement could be reached so that the numerous international agreements on the protection of the environment should be implemented with special regard to their interrelationships. In relation to the latter issue the majority was forced to acknowledge the divergent viewpoint particularly of the United States on international agreements dealing with the protection of the climate of the earth and of biodiversity. This time too the international accord on the emission of greenhouse gases, the Kyoto Protocol proved to be one of the most delicate issues, as with the exception of the United States and Australia all other states have ‘taken to the road’ of the ratification of that Protocol. The major political and press publicity offered by the World Summit also contributed to the fact that the Canadian and Russian heads of government announced their intention of ratification in Johannesburg. Due to the lack of adequate understanding (protests by a few countries) accords related to international water-courses were regrettably deleted from the draft, including the declaration of joint responsibility over them, and even pressing for the ‘handling’ of these natural values and resources based on the principles of sustainable development.
In contrast a concrete agreement was reached after long discussions among others on the preparation of integrated plans of water management, on the urgent introduction of ‘economic management’ allowing for the regeneration of the stock of decaying sea fish because of ‘excessive fishing’, and also on the consideration of the specific demands of developing countries regarding marine fishing. Further on, an agreement was reached on the moderation of the presently rapid rate of biodiversity loss within a decade, or, for instance, on a more unambiguous guaranteeing of the conditions of financial support to the implementation of international agreements dealing with desertification through the Global Environmental Fund.
Common and different interests of the developed and developing ones
The issues of globalisation, world trade and financing represented the topics of the World Summit that were loaded with contradictions most difficult to solve and were discussed in a separate group. Tension and conflicting interests between the developed and developing countries were most markedly manifest in this negotiating group.
The interpretation and assessment of globalisation gained stress during the Summit because the conflicts indicating most the ‘bitter’ experiences of international cooperation for the developing and developed countries during the past ten years were expressed through this topic, on an ideological plane. The United States, and the big group of developing countries referred back to the different assessments of globalisation or to the one approved by former UN conferences, while the EU pressed for a new assessment. The approved text, characterising globalisation, acknowledges that it is accompanied by several serious challenges in the field of financial crises, uncertainties, inequalities and poverty.
In the framework of talks on globalisation the most vigorous discussion unfolded in relation to the responsibility of business enterprises; it was primarily the developing countries and the EU Member States that supported the strengthening of that responsibility. Finally, an agreement was reached on the active promotion of the accountability and responsibility of enterprises on the basis of the Rio principles. It is the novelty of the final document that in addition to the voluntarily taken obligations of enterprises the relevant intergovernmental agreements of the present and the future were also regarded as necessary tools in the interest of this aim.
Last year the Doha conference of the World Trade Organisation considered a comprehensive reform and launched a process of multilateral talks. In fact here an older topic is involved: it is the rapid development of the world trade system during the past decades, participation in the trade system and the increasing differences of the ensuing profit and disadvantages between individual countries and groups of countries. Trade among others is an instrument to the solution of the welfare, economic and environmental tasks of any given country, but if the adequate national policies and regulations are missing its disadvantageous affects may manifest themselves to an increasingly serious degree. World trade has been one of the most delicate international mechanisms from the angle of sustainable development in our globalising world, this is why it represented one of the prominently critical topics of talks at the World Summit. Characteristically this topic appeared to be so ‘unmanageable’ during the preparatory talks that it was even suggested to simply refer to the process of negotiations re-launched at Doha and that this topic was essential even from the point of view of the broad concept of sustainable development.
An effective participation in the world trade system is vital for the developing countries. For this reason and on the basis of the comprehensive international requirements of sustainable development first of all the wording of such expectations was raised that aimed particularly at promoting the marketing of the products of the least developed countries and the early termination of export subsidies applied by the developed ones. The openness of the WTO was also a topic of the World Summit, namely the still unsolved issue of the membership of all the states and their participation in the decision-making system. After the protracted and tense discussion of these issues ultimately one of the most delicate and hardly soluble problems was the harmonisation of the rules of world trade and the stipulations of the international agreements on the protection of the environment, and the acknowledgement of their equal standing.
The part of the Plan of Implementation dealing with the means of implementation touches upon the topic of financing. A curios feature of the talks was that the corroboration and renegotiation of the results of the International Conference on Financing for Development, held a couple of months earlier in Monterrey, were also put into the foreground. The developing countries hoped for additional resources within the framework of the Official Development Assistance, whereas the developed countries stressed a more efficient utilisation of the already existing funds of support.
*
The World Summit faced an almost impossible task: it had to select and establish an order of precedence in a multitude of problems, programmes, institutions and means described above, those that are problems, aims, tasks and means of implementation having a really decisive significance for our age and for the future, and to attempt a division of responsibilities and work, to reconsider a more efficient coordination and to evolve consensus in all these areas. It is against this task only that the commitments undertaken by the approved Political Declaration and Plan of Implementation can be properly assessed, together with the weight of the general recommendations and the occasionally more exact aims, and also the reality of their possible implementation. Yet in addition the process of international talks and cooperation itself represents an inestimable value because it is without alternative, as it facilitates the exposition of increasingly globalised problems and their consequences, the political analysis of the interrelationships among different social, economic, and environmental processes, the conflict and adjustment of interests in the hope of finding solutions that are acceptable to all.