Economist: Johannesburg

The Economist

August 31, 2002 U.S. Edition

HEADLINE: Sustaining the poor's development - Sustaining the poor's development

BODY:

JUST what is the UN's "World Summit on Sustainable Development" for? This giant jamboree, which opened in Johannesburg this week and will culminate on September 4th with a meeting of over 100 heads of government, risks being about everything and therefore, in the end, about nothing. No one in their right mind is against "sustainable development". Everyone thinks it would be terrific if there were less poverty, less pollution, less disease, less war, less corruption. Not quite everyone, alas, favours more democracy, especially in the poorer parts of the world; in the richer world, too, not quite everyone, alas, favours more economic growth. But the world did not need tens of thousands of people to travel to South Africa in order to learn all of that.

Such a gathering is bound to do some good, simply through the contacts made and ideas exchanged, in myriad small but useful ways. But there are also big dangers in summits such as these. Grand meetings, like the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to which this was originally meant to be a follow-up, can breed confusion and cynicism. Confusion, because of the cacophony of different voices and objectives, to which this broader summit looks especially prone. Cynicism, because the bold promises made are so rarely met. How many countries have actually hit (or are really on their way to hitting) the targets set at Rio, or in Kyoto in 1998, for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions? Precious few. Keep the real agenda simple

George Bush has responded to these dangers by staying away, sending his secretary of state, Colin Powell, instead. That was a mistake, offering carte blanche for criticism of America for almost any environmental or economic ill, some justified, most not. That is a pity, for America has actually played a more constructive role at the summit than most think ()see pages 65-67. Other rich-country leaders can, however, learn from that public-relations blunder. But only if they focus on what really matters, and on what can really be achieved.

The first thing they should do is to tell the truth about poverty, growth and the environment. Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's president, delighted the anti-growth lobby with his opening speech, but did a huge disservice to the facts. "Sadly", he said, "we have not made much progress in realising the grand vision...the tragic result of this is the avoidable increase in human misery and ecological degradation, including the growing gap between North and South. It is as though we are determined to regress to the most primitive condition of existence in the animal world, of the survival of the fittest."

In contrast, what responsible heads of government should say is that the ten years since the Rio summit (home of that "grand vision") have seen lots of progress in enhancing human welfare, especially in the most populous countries of the world, China and India, thanks to those countries' decisions to liberalise their economies and to open their borders to more trade and investment. Such globalisation has already narrowed the overall gap between North and South. But some countries, notably in Africa and the Middle East, have chosen not to take part in that process, and misery there has increased. Others, particularly in southern Africa, have been so beset by disease that they have been unable to take part. Much more can, and should, be done to help them do so. And measures can and should be taken to ensure that the future economic growth of the poor world, if that happy outcome occurs, does not unduly exacerbate the problem of global warming.

The second thing that western leaders can do is to state clearly what they can, and cannot, do for their poorer counterparts. They cannot "share assets more equitably", as some claim; making the rich poorer will not make the poor richer. Virtually everything needed to help countries grow and reduce poverty depends chiefly on domestic policies--ask South Korea, China and even India. Western leaders can still, however, be helpful, in two powerful ways. They can open their country's markets to the goods that many poor countries are best suited to produce, namely food and textiles. And they can focus their overseas aid on the issue that is most difficult for poor countries to deal with themselves: disease.

There are signs that the summit could achieve something on both fronts. Farm subsidies are properly the domain of the new round of world trade talks launched in Doha last November, but are also a source of much hypocrisy. It is outrageous that rich countries preach free trade to the poor while lavishing over $300 billion a year on their own farmers. Despite its recent increase in production subsidies (to levels still below Europe's), the United States recently put forward a welcome long-term proposal for reducing subsidies for agriculture, much pooh-poohed in Europe. The Johannesburg summit offers a fresh opportunity to embarrass the Europeans into taking the proposal seriously, and to get all sides committed to a broader dismantling of subsidies in the Doha round.

On disease, too, progress could be made. The scourge of AIDS is debilitating African economies, as are other diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. More broadly, dirty water and air, and poor sanitation, are the biggest preventable causes of death. Faster economic growth would help poor countries solve those problems. But disease itself thwarts that growth. There has been much useful talk at the summit of agreements between businesses, aid organisations and governments to try to fight against disease, in ways both big and small. The anti-business lobbyists may not like it, but the UN has been right to encourage such agreements, and rich-country leaders should welcome them too. Better still, they should make further increases in their official aid budgets to take on these diseases, both bilaterally and through global funds.

But what of the environment? Isn't that what this summit was supposed to be about? Yes, but enabling poor countries to grow and be healthier will go a long way towards protecting it. If they want to make one big green gesture, though, leaders could most usefully agree to phase out the subsidies they pay for the dirtiest fuels, particularly coal. That way, both rich and poor can work together to avoid global warming.

back to IPE Course materials