Green in the Face

Similar scenes are playing out in almost all the rooms of the ministers of the 172 countries present.

What is it that brings these 22,000 delegates, nearly 100 heads of states and NGOs in Johannesburg? Is the fact that it is 10 years since ‘sustainable development’ became part of the mainstream lexicon reason enough for the UN to spend $55 million organising the summit?

Its fate, mind you, was sealed right from the beginning, considering the sharp polarisation between the developed and the developing world on major issues. Jo’burg, then, is a giant poker game with the 71-page blueprint for converting Rio words into actions over the next 10 years. The objective: to remove text in brackets from the draft agreed on in the preparatory meeting in Bali. The consensus follows a course of posturing, hiding cards, revealing them at the right time and trading them when the need arises.

So what goes on behind the doors of the ministers’ rooms? Let’s follow the delegates as they leave Baalu’s room. By this time, Vijay Thakur Singh is all ready to take on the First World bullies. The delegates, meanwhile, fan out: Kher heads for the technical support group negotiations on energy, while Manoj Joshi, director, Ministry of Commerce, homes in on the trade talks.

Simultaneously. there are closed-door meetings within each negotiating group (G-77, JUSCANZ, EU), plenary sessions where UN moderators debate with stakeholders in major areas, besides press conferences and events organised by nearly 8,000 NGOs and civil society groups.

Since negotiations are a dynamic process, lines taken by countries or blocks of countries change over time. India, for example, starts by rejecting make-mandatory targets for renewable energy from wind and solar power as it could impede development. ‘‘India already has a national target and accepting these targets would imply stemming investment in dams and thermal plants. (This is not feasible),’’ says P V Jaikrishnan, secretary, Ministry of Environment.

By day seven, it changes to ‘‘we are fine with it as long as hydro and nuclear are included’’.

The real energy game, however, is being played by the EU and JUSCANZ (Japan, US, Canada and New Zealand). The EU is all for the targets; Union leader Denmark has a lot in stake in its pioneering windmill technology. The US, on the other hand, is taking advantage of the G-77 polarisation — the OPEC countries do not want these targets. For India, the energy negotiations offer a card to trade in when the need arises, since the country already has a national target (15 per cent conversion to renewable energy sources by 2010) within the EU demand.

MEANWHILE, in another room, trade paragraphs are being hotly debated. One paragraph reads: ‘‘Promote a constructive and sustainable relationship between globalisation and social development, through support for the work of the ILO’s World Commissions’’.

The catch, for a country like India, is that if the paragraph is passed, a developed country can say that trade will be possible only if labour laws are followed to the last letter. ‘‘In principle, we agree with it, but practically, we know we cannot commit ourselves to it for a few years,’’ says Singh.

When she walked into Baalu’s room that day, this text had already been passed, as it had not been opposed by the G-77. So Singh is obliged to play her trump card: She demands that the text be reconsidered, threatening that if it is not removed, another clause in the Doha agreement — on free movement of natural citizens (read labour) within countries — be discussed here. The trick works — developed countries are very sensitive to ‘‘free movement’’ — the para is re-opened for discussion and G-77 support ensures the ‘ILO’ is removed from the final text.

Kher, in the energy section, on the other hand, is getting nowhere: The G-77 split over renewable targets makes OPEC ally with the US. The issue is then pushed to the ministerial level. For the developed world, this is another ploy as they are well aware that ministers of the developing world have a language disadvantage and are not that well prepared. Of five issues, three are kicked upwards.

Seven days later, the energy debate still continues at the ministerial level, sometimes going on till the early hours of the morning. The tension is almost palpable, and crescendos on the night of Day 9, the subtext being that if the EU had to give in on this, it had better gain elsewhere. ‘The Night of Long Knives’ climaxes when the EU gives in to the US argument .

The summit ends with a political declaration and a plan of action called Action 21 as a follow-up to Agenda 21 in Rio — another skillful play of words.

For all that, it is difficult not to get swept up by the sheer magnitude of the summit. Even External Affairs Ministers Yashwant Sinha, not particularly known for his ‘green’ bent, speaks with great passion about biodiversity and says he is proud of coming up with the idea of establishing an expert group on biodiversity in all the 15 mega-diversity countries.

If he goes back and acts on it, maybe the World Summit on Sustainable Development will have been worth it.