In global environmental politics, it is hard to manage collective goods problems because of the large number
of actors involved. Recall that collective goods are easier to provide in small groups, where individual actions have more impact on the total picture and where cheating is more noticeable. The opposite is true with the
"Environment". The action of nearly two hundred states aggregate to cause indirect but serious consequences throughout the world. The large number of actors was reflected in the 1992 UN CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT (UNCED) in "RIO DE JANEIRO", BRAZIL commonly known the "EARTH SUMMIT". Two UN conferences in 1972 and 1982 on the same issue also took place. The Earth Summit was an historic event of great significance. It
brought together or crystallized a change in people's feelings about the environment that had been gathering pace over many years. Not only did it make the environment a priority on the world's agenda but delegates from
178 countries attended, including many Prime Ministers and Presidents, making it the largest conference ever held. The Earth Summit developed and legitimized a broad agenda for environmental, political and economic
changes. The purposes of the conference were to identify long term environmental reforms and to initiate processes for their implementation and supervision. Conventions were held to discuss and adopt documents on
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Forest Protection.
The Earth Summit produced an overall plan, called "AGENDA 21", where by large Third World States promise to industrialize along cleaner lines (at
certain cost of economic growth) and Industrialized states promised to funnel aid and technology to them to assist in that process. But in my opinion the attitudes of the Industrialized countries are not honest or
realistic. They believe that environmental problems are for others. They show no enthusiasm for setting a good precedent. For example, people in the United States produce more trash than in any other country i.e.
almost 726 Kilos for each person per year. On the other hand, poor countries have equally besetting illusions. As might be expected, they intended to view Rio as an ideal opportunity to extract more financial help from
the rich.
Another important thing is that the 1992 Earth Summit was enriched by the participation of "Non–Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and major groups in numbers never seen before at United Nations.
The result of the conference is an interesting mixture of some success and some failure. There is a need for greater public and governmental awareness and realization, not least among the poor nations
of the value of their resources. But the foundations are laid for the future. We have institutions, the conventions with their secretariats and subsidery bodies i.e. the Sustainable Development Commission, a new UN
mechanism designed to monitor the agreement of Rio and the revamped Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank to manage funding. And there are encouraging signs of greater cooperation among nations. We had the
coming together of NGOs, which worked reasonably well together. Unfortunately, they sometimes get out of touch with their members and are already suffering a decline in interest and support. But still I feel that
certain gross deficiencies remain. Rio generated almost nothing on such key issues as resource consumption in Industrial countries including use of energy and on population issues worldwide. The practical
recommendations in Agenda 21 must be sorted out and given effect. International obligations must be converted into action at the national and community level. Work should be done on issues that were left incomplete or
ignored at Rio, such as, resource use and population trends. We should not leave things simply to nature.
We must try to look again to the next crises. Human displacement will take its toll in land degradation. The
new spread of old and new diseases must be anticipated and means to cope with them devised. Finally we must rethink the way in which we run our societies. This in turn requires refashioning the means by which we think
about these issues, a particular responsibility of economists but also of everyone. The total effect of the rise in awareness caused by these conferences, in my opinion was that it made people think differently. By now
most ordinary people are aware that something has gone wrong with the way in which we manage our affairs. The environmental dimension is established in public life and has become permanent. The question is how to cope
with that challenge? So far we have staged a procession on Earth days, formed Green parties, passed environmental laws and forged new international treaties. All the while, the decline of Earth's ecosystem has continued
unabated. I end up my paper with the following quotation:
"Any Population- Economy- Environment system that has feed backs, delays and slow physical responses, that has thresholds and erosive mechanism, is
literally manageable. In most (of our computers) runs…… the world system does not run out of land or food or resources or pollution absorption capability, it runs out of the ability to cope".
SO LET US MAKE SURE WE DO NOT DO SO!!!
