Col. V. Katju

The global community took nearly two decades from Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro to recognise environment and sustainable development as a key agenda for action. The negotiations and processes adopted for Rio were difficult yet path breaking. In the end, there was a broad consensus on the concept of sustainable development. Conventions on key environmental concerns like biodiversity conservation and climate change were signed. A compromise was also achieved through Agenda 21 to lay out a plan of action for the global community to address sustainable development issues in the 21st Century. Though not legally binding, national governments, regional and global agencies were expected to adapt their strategies to Agenda 21.

The Earth Summit at Rio paved the way for South Asia, and indeed other developing nations, to finance environmental protection and ensure that the development process continued unhindered. Countries in South Asia, though plagued by poverty and population pressures and a rapidly degenerating natural resource base, addressed the challenge of fulfilling their Agenda 21 commitments.

Where do we stand a decade after Rio? What experience and insights do we have to share with the rest of the world at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held at Johannesburg in September 2002? Broadly, the experience has been one of significantly enhanced awareness on environment and sustainable development issues due to a plethora of initiatives. At the same time, the sub-region like most other developing nations, looks on to the unfulfilled promises made by the industrialised nations. At the end of the day, sustainable development in the sub-region still remains a dream.

South Asia has witnessed a steady worsening of governance standards, essentially because of mutual distrust and threats from internal and external sources. In fact, institutional and policy shortcomings have been one of the major causes behind overall sustainable development failures. The sub-region has suffered from lack of continuous focused attention to environmental and resource management by the national governments.

At the national level, an encouraging trend in recent years has been that environment ministries and state agencies have been restructured and empowered with greater institutional strengths to promote better vertical and horizontal co-ordination amongst different agencies. New legislations, including strengthening of existing laws, have empowered executives and also enabled judicial institutions to oversee the effective enforcement of environmental measures.

The proposal to form GENGOF to interact with GC and GMEF is a step in the right direction. It would be essential for UNEP to institute a rigorous process for screening NGOs according to their capabilities. These lead NGOs need to have a good rapport with the government, other stakeholders and grassroots NGOs who would be able to implement the various programmes. A data-base has to be created for the entire network, listing out strengths and weaknesses of all stakeholders and their capabilities. What is of prime importance is accountability and implementation. Unless a clear strategy is formulated and mechanisms instituted for monitoring evaluation and reporting, the effort will go waste. Due to lack of UNEP’s presence, it cannot reach directly the civil society. Unless a clear one-to-one partnership is structured, the feed-back mechanism will be severely impeded. UNEP will never be able to understand local and national issues, the indigenous ethos and local genius in addressing sustainable development.

Programmatic Issues

For co-ordinated activity, it is accepted that UNEP and the civil society have to be well informed about each other and the modalities of project design and implementation. UNEP.net is a step in the right direction to enhance capacity building. The country representative of UNEP should organise training, keeping in view the national requirements. Such training programmes can be organised by lead NGOs, depending upon their areas of activity and expertise. These programmes need to be documented and case studies circulated for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The issues of sustainable development are well-known to all stakeholders. The communities, depending on the region, are also aware of their needs. They, however, do not have the required knowledge of programme implementation. They are prepared to organise self-help groups but need the necessary inputs to carry out the programmes. Thus, it is essential that in a large populous country like India, a vast network of civil society has to be created and projects designed jointly by UNEP, civil society and the beneficiaries to attain the fruits of development.

Bringing about fundamental changes will need concerted effort on the part of international agencies, governments, corporations and civil society. They will need to establish innovative partnerships to support research and action on sustainable development and integration of economic, environmental and social issues.

It is not simply enough to put in place a website or an Environmental Directory for strengthening outreach. UNEP has to seriously focus on indigenous technology development and sharing, while developing countries need to clearly demonstrate their potential and strength. UNEP, through their national representatives, have to reach out and ascertain the issues and needs of the population, formulate a strategy along with the civil society and come out with comprehensive, workable plans for programme implementation.

Besides revising section 69 of GC Rules of Procedure, appropriate steps should be taken to include national / local NGOs to participate in formulating environmental policy. Besides international environment conventions, selected CSOs should be invited to take active part in national level consultations. Participants should be given opportunity to voice their concerns and make concrete suggestions on the implementation process. Such an exercise will help in UNEP gaining information on :

Large international conferences, besides being drain on finances, do not get to address the requirements of individual stakeholders. Plenary sessions are partially informative and do not focus on local issues. If these are unavoidable, more time should be given to group discussions with a clear agenda of discussion points, chaired and presented by a CSO involved in the specific activity and having the experience of working in that particular field. This will enable active participation and substantive outputs for implementation.

Governance has been the main stumbling block in implementation of Agenda 21. GENGOF is a laudable proposition having an adequate mix of international, regional, convention and national NGOs with representation of major constituencies. These have to be dovetailed with other stakeholders, specially with the local government in order to produce tangible results. UNEP has to take into account the requirement of involvement of the government and bringing about an attitudinal change, that from a benefactor to an equal partner. Hindrance by the government with its bureaucratic approach, rigid controls resulting in delays, control over natural resources without pondering over local level concerns are some major impediments. Availability and utilization of funds must take the bottom-up approach starting from the village level upwards. Unless the target groups get control over local resources like land, water, forests, etc., and are consulted in the project design, sustainable development will not make appreciable progress.

It is essential that UNEP country organizations plan their programmes in consultation with grassroots NGOs, keeping in view the local requirements. The state/provincial governments have to be consulted and demarcation of responsibilities between various civic agencies clearly indicated. Funds channeled through government agencies are frittered away or their disbursement is not timely, resulting in slowing down the activities and the impetus of beneficiaries or self-help groups. Some mechanism has to be clearly enunciated to streamline activities and ensure deadlines.

Over the years, there is a marked change in the ratio of donor agencies and the recipients. While finances with funding agencies are on the decline, there has been a mushrooming of CSOs, some of them dubious, who are in need of funds to implement programmes. Generally, budget allocation is done either through the government, consultants or through international NGOs. This results in a small percentage trickling down for implementation, the major chunk being appropriated by the institutions named above.

Although a trust fund is necessary, it is also essential that UNEP national HQs deal with CSOs directly, discuss the projects and make allocations. They have to get more involved in the project design, allocation of installment payments against timely deliverables with clear indicators, monitoring and evaluation. The strategy should also engage the government as a facilitator and stakeholder. The requirement of a consultant or an international NGO, which has hardly any responsibility but takes the major portion of funds, should be dispensed with.

UNEP has to increase and strengthen its presence at the regional and national level and review its mandate, especially in the area of implementation. Most of the developing countries are aware of the need for sustainable development and the low levels of output since Rio 1992. It is time to put more effort in implementation, otherwise sustainable development will still remain a dream for another decade. q

A Visionary no more . . . Anil Agarwal (1948 – 2002), noted environmentalist had been living with cancer since early 1994. A mechanical engineer from IIT Kanpur, Anil dedicated his life to a cleaner environment. Five years ago in Down to Earth, the magazine that he conceived, edited and published with extreme dedication and commitment, he had given an account of his illness linking his cancer to the deteriorating environmental conditions. As an environmental activist and writer, he tried to spread awareness about the deteriorating state of the environment. His NGO, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), and magazine Down to Earth have won global acclaim for its pioneering work in spreading awareness among the people on issues of sustainable Natural Resource Management. Although no one can replace an activist like him, environmental organizations will continue work on promoting nationwide concern about deteriorating environmental conditions. Development Alternatives expresses its condolences to his family and colleagues.