8 Responses to “Port of Spain Declaration: A Critical Analysis, Mervyn Claxton”

• Norman on May 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  I must admit I never paid any attention to the content of the Summit Declaration, and not only or even mainly because of the fiasco over the non-signing by the Heads of State and the self-evidently face-saving device of having the Summit Chairman sign it (which fooled nobody). Having attended one previous Summit in the series—the 3rd, In Quebec City in 2001—and having been centrally involved in another Summit—the ACS Summit of 2001 held in Margarita Island, Venezuela, when I was ACS Secretary General—as well having attended numerous Caricom Summits; I have long since realised that Summit ‘Declarations’ are intended mainly for public consumption and serve the political purpose of providing justification for the holding of the Summit itself to an increasingly sceptical, cynical and summit-weary public. The Declarations have no binding force on the countries adopting them, even when all the leaders sign, and follow up is either weak or non-existent.

  An analysis undertaken of implementation of the commitments undertaken at previous Summits of the Americas, I believe I read somewhere, showed that few if any, had been implemented. A similar analysis I undertook when I was ACS Secretary General concluded, if my memory serves me right, that there was at best partial implementation of about one-third of the elements in the previous ACS Summit Declaration and Plan of Action. The governments never thought to provide the resources necessary to carry out the commitments that they themselves had accepted; but the leaders had a great time coming to the next Summit and complaining about lack of implementation of previous commitments. In other words, it’s a game; and the main point of the Summit was for leaders to meet and assess one another and have bilateral meetings.

  But I am sure you know all of this, from your own wide international experience. And the Declarations do have the value; nonetheless, of serving as a kind of bell-weather of political opinion and identifying points of poltical convergence and divergence—which is one reason why I believe the exercise you have undertaken is great value.

  Before going further, however, I must take issue with your view that the Declaration is of far greater importance, in terms of the impact it will have on the lives of Caribbean people, than the Economic Partnership Agreement that has been signed and is now in force with Europe. Indeed it might well have been so, if the Declaration had legally binding force and provides an elaborate and virtually watertight machinery of implementation; and is supported by the provision of resources to ensure compliance with its Northern agenda. But the Declaration has none of these things. And the EPA does. The EPA spells out its legally binding provisions in over 1,000 pages of text; in minute detail, evidently designed to be legally actionable. It has the force of international treaty law. It provides for compulsory, legally binding arbitration; backed by resort to sanctions for Parties that do not comply; in the event of breaches of the treaty. As Ronald Sanders has recently pointed out, the fact that the EPA is legally structured as an agreement between the EU and 15 separate Cariforum states means that individual states will be hard pressed to afford the costs of arbitration in the event of disputes. And the EU has now programmed hundreds of millions of Euros to finance implementation of these provisions through the European Development Fund. These are some of the reasons why some of us continue to believe that the EPA is the most important single agreement that Caricom nations have entered into since formal independence; and that in substantive terms, it takes us several steps backwards into the colonial era. In other words, as ‘stand-alone’ documents, the EPA is of far greater force and potential impact than the Declaration.

  But of course, neither the Declaration nor the EPA is just a ‘stand-alone’ document. In spite of what I said about the Declaration, I think that the exercise you have undertaken has put us all in your debt; and that, for two reasons. One I have already mentioned—the Declaration may become a point of reference for positioning other fora, for example, in the on-going climate change negotiations (even this I doubt, however, as this particular declaration carries little if any political weight due to the circumstances attending its non-signature).

  The other reason why I belive your exercise is important is to serve as lesson in the politics of ‘knowledge construction’, in the broadest sense; and the role of power in establishing mental constructs, paradigms, commonly and widely accepted cause-effect relationships; that eventually find themselves into documents of this kind, and through that into government positions and policies, including the policies sponsored by international agencies. I have been interested in this subject for some years and in reading your comments on the prevalence of the ‘Northern view’ in the Declaration it struck me that here was another prime example of this phenomenon. It would certainly be interesting to enquire exactly how this particular document was prepared. Apart from the fact that there was an obvious disconnect between the drafters and their political masters on issues such as Cuba and the environment; how both the content and the omissions follow the pattern you identify would make a fascinating study in the ‘politics of document drafting’ and the role of power.

  So many current examples come to mind about the way in which the ‘Northern view’ has permeated public discourse and the mass media that one does not know where to start. Use of the term ‘the international community’ to refer to a handful of (mainly) Western countries; universal condemnation of North Korea for exploding a relatively primitive nuclear device whilst the US has some 5,000, Israel at least 200; and Obama is lauded for declaring his vision of a nuclear-free world – but “not in my lifetime”–reference to Haiti as ‘France’s former colony’ while the US is never referred to as ‘Britain’s former colony’, blaming over-population rather than over-consumption and inappropriate technology for the ecological crisis (we darkies breed too much), the EU imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe but not on Israel, BBC making casual reference to hundreds of deaths in Somalia as being the result of “clashes between nomadic tribesmen over land” rather than pointing out the pressures of shrinking resources due to desertification and water shortages associated with global climate change, etc. Etc. Just last week I was astounded to learn from the History Channel that, while (the then) Soviet Union lost 27 million dead from the Second World War, the total loss of life of the USA and Britain, including civilians, was around 800,000!! And yet the Western narrative of the turning point in the War is centered on D-Day and ‘Europe was liberated by Allied forces’!! And so on, and so on.

  So I hope your critical analysis of the Declaration, long though it might be, is read by everyone and more widely disseminated. I am also happy at the recognition of the South Centre—an independent think tank of the South, and of the fact that a three-person unit was able to derail a Northern plan to extend Intellectual Property Rights. It is a reminder and example of what is possible.

  More anon, and thank you again, Norman

• Yash Tandon on June 1st, 2009 at 6:41 pm

  Dear Mervyn,

  I have read the brief summary of your critique of the PoS declaration (and will read the full text some time), and Norman`s comments. Your critique is a valuable exercise, and indeed we must never allow such declarations to go unchallenged. I agree with Norman that it is largely an exercise in public posturing, a “game”. Nonetheless, we must take it seriously because the big powers, when it serves their interest, draw legitimacy for their positions out of selective references from such declarations.

  I draw a distinction between what I call “diplomatic reality” and “existential reality” (see attached). The latter is for real, but the former, which is essentially a product of asymmetical power configueration, is also a reality — but of a different kind. Therefore, when dipomatic texts are negotiated (even if they do not have the force of law), one must be engaged in their drafting. It is a “game” we cannot afford to lose. This is what Norman calls “politics of document drafting”.

  This said, I agree with Norman that the EPAs have far more serious and potentially damaging impact on our countries (ACP) than the PoS declaration. We must put EPAs in the front line of our struggle, together, I am now convinced, with the struggle to liberate ourselves from the dead weight of “development aid”. Aid is the sweetner that the EU has added to EPAs, and our bureaucrats tend to have a sweet tooth.

  Your reference to South Centre underlines another point. Academic writings are fine, but a timely intervention (by even just one or two persons) at relevant policy-making institutions, especially those with power of sanctions (WTO, EPAs, WIPO) can make a hell of a difference. The South Centre, in this sense, is a unique organisation which I had the privilege to serve for 4 years. It is a pity our governments in the South do not provide it with the funds needed to making the Centre independent of donor funds. It is a battle Norman and I (among others) have been fighting, but often with disapppointing results. We need more media and parliamentary coverage of the work of the Centre.

  Best,

  Yash

• Wendy Lee on June 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  Thank you very much for this, Norman. The question I keep asking is, how can we get decision-makers to absorb and act on the information that is so readily available about sustainable development imperatives, including critical ecological requirements, instead of pursuing the same old false, unjust and unsustainable models? Obviously, politicians are not going to read Mr. Claxton’s paper or anything like it, in its entirety.

  We cannot assume that politicians are any more well-read or ‘educated’ or concerned about the state of the planet than the average person on the street, so we must try to communicate with them using methods that grab the attention of average people. I think that the many critical points in this paper should be covered in serial form - perhaps with the same basic introduction for the series - and profusely illustrated with images depicting the contrasts between the disasters inherent in the current approach and those where sustainable systems are in place and functioning. I would like to see it published in the press as well as formally presented to our decision-makers with an indication of how widely supported these observations are in the academic community and civil society (i.e. endorsed by a list of names/organisations).

  There is also a huge gap between academia and the public in terms of “translating” the countless studies and theories of social and economic development, history and culture into plain language that could enlighten ordinary people about the social, cultural, historical and other reasons for the differences between ’sustainable’ societies (in the broad sense) and unsustainable ones. It takes special writing skills such as those of John Maxwell, who has elucidated the case of Haiti, but we need to see more like this - about the good models as well as the disasters.

  How many of you are horrified, as I am, at the current prescriptions for “development” being trumpeted by our decision-makers? An “endless supply” of limestone to be mined and exported, massive public works programmes, tax breaks lasting over a decade for massive, destructive hotel projects and ports, $9 BILLION dollars spent on a cricket tournament leaving a further US$3 million (JA$270 million) in debt? How can politicians prescribe a cure when they don’t know what ails us?

  Wendy Lee
  Northern Jamaica Conservation Association

• Wendy lee on June 9th, 2009 at 9:32 am

  From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy

  This makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?
  Lead Author: Herman Daly (other articles)
  Article Topic: Ecological economics
  This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Robert Costanza (other articles)
  Last Updated: June 5, 2009
  URL: http://www.eoearth.org/article/From_a_Failed_Growth_Economy_to_a_Steady-State_Economy#
  Source: The Encyclopaedia of Earth / Earth Portal website

• Mary Otto-Chang on June 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

  Also, check out the ‘Gross National Happiness Index’ developed out of a proposal from the King of Bhutan
  http://grossnationalhappiness.com/gnhIndex/intruductionGNH.aspx

  Mary

• Mervyn Claxton on June 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am

  Although Daly’s basic tenet has considerable merit, Steady-state economy theory is a Northern-centered theory that is written from an exclusively Northern viewpoint. It reflects Northern interests and Northern fears. It does not take into consideration the situation of the South. Given their present circumstances, virtually all countries in the South would require many years of positive growth to be able to significantly alleviate (not to speak of eradicating) poverty, and for their populations to be able to attain a decent living level.

  Reading Daly’s paper, I hear Malthusian and Club of Rome undertones. Perhaps not Malthus, but certainly the earnest members of the Club of Rome feared that Europe and the North would be overrun by hordes of poor people from the South, because of the latter’s unrestrained population growth rates and, of course, because of their allegedly gargantuan sexual appetites to which they are supposed to give free rein, unlike the more responsible, more sexually-abstemious peoples in the North. Almost all countries in the North reached a balanced population growth rate some decades ago, Without massive immigration (which is politically difficult), current birth rates in virtually all of them are too low to even maintain populations at present levels. Over the next few decades, those low birth rates will, nevitably,restrict their economic growth. Thus the North will not experience very much difficulty in maintaining the zero population growth required by a steady state economy.

  However, zero population growth is a non-starter for most countries in the South where there are high infant mortality rates and no social security net. Consequently, lots of children are needed to ensure that a sufficient number will survive to take care of parents in their old age. Those countries will need to achieve high levels of economic growth for many years before being able to afford the social security, the health services, and the public sanitation infrastructure that will eliminate the need for families to have many children. Another condition is also necessary – the benefits of economic growth should be distributed in equitable measure and not be concentrated in the hands of corrupt, self-serving political leaders and elites, who stash away their ill-gotten gains in off-shore banking havens.

  The author is right to criticize the bigger is better approach that prevails in the North. Economic growth should be qualitative as well as quantitative. Also, it should not be unfettered, unsustainable growth of the sort that creates increasingly great income disparities which characterizes American economic growth. That is the culturally-determined model of development which continues to be urged upon us by the North. Daley is absolutely right in making the point that some economists think of nature “as the set of extractive subsectors of the economy….[and that] the economy, rather than the ecosystem or the biosphere is seen as the whole; nature is a collection of parts.”

  My comment on that remark is, why does Daly attribute that type of thinking to only “some economists”? The attitudes underlying such thinking are integral to Western culture, and to none other. It is due to the dominant influence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. In those parts of the South which have inherited that tradition (such as Caricom countries for example) that influence is attenuated, to some extent, by the vestigial influence of their ancestral cultures – African and Indian - which display totally different attitudes towards Nature.

  The essentially reductionist and atomistic nature of Western thought and values, which has led to a separation of Man from Nature and to an exploitative human approach to the latter, can be traced to the cultural/religious roots of Western civilization: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl over the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28). The Bible is one of the principal sources of Western man’s ideas concerning his place in the universe of living creatures, and his attitudes towards nature in general and nature’s resources - conservation or unrestrained exploitation - in particular. The radical changes needed in the attitude towards Nature, which Daly mistakenly attributes only to “some economists”, would violate Northern man’s fundamental Judaeo-Christian values – values which have been inculcated from the time of Abraham. Is that possible,even in the long term? I very much doubt it. To borrow an expression commonly used in another context, the problem is one of [N]ature not nurture.

  One can understand why the fundamentalist Christian Right in America have always vehemently opposed policies and actions intended to protect the environment, to establish natural reserves where wildlife is in danger of extinction and could be protected from man’s predatory actions, or to extend existing ones. The anti-environmentalism chant which punctuated the 2008 Republican Party Convention, “Drill Baby Drill”, is so much in line with the views of the Christian Right who dominate Republican thinking that it could well become the party’s signature tune. Some American evangelist ministers have even gone so far as to denounce, from the pulpit, proposals to combat global warming, claiming them to be a communist plot.” The Bush administration, which wholeheartedly subscribed to those fundamentalist religious values, effectively blocked all efforts of American environmentalists to put global warming on the political agenda.

  Early in his presidency, Bush declared that he did not believe in global warming. His fundamentalist belief in the literal, divine truth, as revealed in the Old Testament, obviously trumped anything men of science - mere human beings - produced. Such exploitative, man-centred, Western/Northern attitudes contrast starkly with the holistic, environmentally-friendly/protective/conserving approach which virtually all cultures in the South have traditionally adopted. All the indigenous cultures and communities in the Americas espoused an environmentally-friendly philosophy. The North American Iroquois (who are part of the geopolitical South) considered that the lands they inhabited did not belong to them. They merely held them in trust for future generations. Hinduism has always been an environmentally sensitive religious philosophy, ecology being inherent to Hinduism’s spiritual world view. Hindu holy texts contain the earliest known statements on preserving the environment and maintaining an ecological balance.

  Perhaps no other religion places as much emphasis on environmental ethics as Hinduism does. It does not consider Nature or the Earth a hostile element which man must conquer or dominate, as Christian man was instructed to do in Genesis. Indeed, in the Hindu tradition, man is explictly forbidden to exploit nature. He is taught to live in harmony with it and to recognize that divinity is embodied in all natural elements, including plants and animals.

  All life is considered sacred in Buddhist philosophy and culture, even that of the most lowly creature in the animal kingdom. To live in harmony with nature is a crucial Buddhist ideal and practice because human culture, in all its aspects, is regarded as being deeply intertwined with the environments in which they are formed. The Dharma teaches that the idea of separate selfhood is a profoundly damaging delusion. We are all part of each other and the world we inhabit, and whenever we harm another being or injure our environment we harm ourselves. Traditional sacred groves, which exist in most of Africa, helped protect and preserve the natural habitat.

  A field study of small mammal communities on the Accra Plains of Ghana, which was conducted in 1997, examined, inter alia, the traditional values that helped preserve the sacred groves - up to several hundred years in certain cases. The study found convincing evidence of their ecological value and recommended that because the sacred groves shelter unique small mammal and plant communities, traditional African values and protection mechanisms should be integrated into envrionmental policies and pragmatic approaches that combine conservation and sustainable resource use.

  That is just one small example that the values and cultural resources of the South give us an enormous advantage over the North in devising models of development which, to be sustainable, must necessarily be environmental-friendly. The North is handicapped in that respect because of the innate values of their cultures which generate cavalier, exploitaive attitudes towards Nature. A recent example of such attitudes is the law that was adopted last week (I think) by Congress allowing concealed guns in Federally-managed natural parks. There is no sacred conception of Nature in the thinking that led a majority of Congress to pass such legislation. What a far cry from the thinking that preserved sacred groves.

  Daly cited the first two laws of thermodynamics to underpin his argument about the impossibility of achieving indefinite continuous growth, but he overlooked an important, determining effect of the Second Law. The Indian scientist, C. V. Seshadri, has pointed out that, due to its origins, the Second Law of Thermodynamics had constantly favoured the definition of energy in a way that was calculated to favour big industry in the allocation of resources. (Development and Thermodynamics, 1986). It resulted in the thermodynamic definition of efficiency becoming the principal criterion, not only for evaluating technologies themselves but also development itself, since greater energy efficiency was considered synonymous with greater development. The higher the temperatures attained, the greater the efficiency achieved, and that translated into greater growth. That high-energy development principle, first applied to the steam engine, found its most effective application in fossil fuel use.

  Notwithstanding the immense pollution and environmental damage fossil fuels cause, they are utilized in every aspect of modern agriculture,including fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, the use of which could be avoided, or at least reduced to an absloute minimum as Cuba has so successfully done, by making use of available, well-proven alternative methods that are both economically productive and protective of the environment. The rub is that most such methods have been developed by indigenous cultures in the South. Becaue of that very fact, we in the South consider it “infra dig” to resort to them. We prefer the unsustainable methods of the North. That can be the only explanation why the Mexican President did not even mention, in a conference that discussed environmental problems, the ingenious indigenous technique, Milpa, which has proven so extraordinarily effective in reversing the process of environmental degradation in the state of Oxaca.

  Daly proposed ecological tax reform, which would “shift the tax base from value added (labor and capital) and on to “that to which value is added’ ”. I have often argued that the term “value-added” should have a cultural as well as an economic connotation – that it should reflect “values” as well as “value”. Japan and the S.E. Asian “Tigers” (or “Dragons”) have demonstrated that that is not only possible but also essential for “appropriating” or “owning” foreign models. All models of development are essentially cultural because they are inspired by the worldview of the people/society who conceive them and, as such,are infused with their values. Foreign models, which are adopted and applied without any adaptation to the culture of the borrowing countries, become dysfunctional. That is why we in the South should make a “shift” to a model(s) “to which value is added”.

  In the case of sustainable development, we should adopt the features of the Northern model(s) that we borrow which are relevant and compatible to our own values and circumstances and eschew those which either are not relevant and compatible or cannot be adapted to make them so. If we in Caricom and other LAC countries were to apply that principle we would not be advocating policies for carbon emissions trading (as we did in the Declaration) which are totally irrelevant, and advocate, instead, policies to reduce nitrous oxide emissions which are most relevant to our own situation, because the latter are produced by our unsustainable agricultural systems. But we are still in imitative mode. Octavio Paz has called such imitation “extra-logical”. He was much too kind. I call it “stupid”.

  Assimilating, into our agricultural development model,local/indigenous practices such as “Milpa” and “waru-waru”, which have proven their extraordinary effectiveness, would be investing that model with “added-value”. Are we psychologially capable of doing so? Of ridding ourselves of our cultural inferiority complex towards the North and developing a psychologically-healthy attitude towards our indigenous cultues?

  Finally, Daly states that “without growth the only way to cure poverty is by sharing. But redistribution is anathema.” That single phrase suffices to demonstrate how parochial is Daly’s argument for a steady-state economy. Sharing/redistrubition is certainly anathema to Americans, but it is mush less so for Europeans, as their tax and welfare systems show. Sharing is a fundamental value in many cultures in the South. It is a social imperative in Africa. The report of the Constitutional Drafting Committee, appointed in 1975 to draft a new federal constitution for Nigeria, stated that politics in Nigeria turned on “gaining the opportunity to acquire wealth and prestige, to be able to distribute benefits in the form of jobs, contracts,scholarships, and gifts of money and so on to one’s relatives and political allies.”

  Sharing is also a socio-cultural imperative in Japan where it assumes the form of giving gifts. Gift giving is a deeply entrenched Japanese social custom, a legacy of traditional rural society where village relationships were cemented by gift exchange. As Brian McVeigh, (”The Nature of the Japanese State: Rationality and Rituality”, 1998) points out, Japanese gift giving in modern life is essentially associated with giri, which places a person under an obligation to reward another for services rendered in the context of a particularistic relationship.

  Different American and Japanese values make such gifts criminal in the US, if given to a government official for services rendered, but legally acceptable in Japan if they do not exceed an unspecified value, the level of which is left to the Judge’s discretion. The principal reason why the same basic Western legal/judicial model, which both Japan and South Africa borrowed, has produced extraordinarily high levels of compliance in the former country and extraordinarily low levels in the latter is because Japan added (indigenous) “value” to its borrowed model while South Africa failed to do so.

  A recent study by two Harvard economists demonstrate (unsurprisingly)that attitudes to redistribution have a strong cultural component. They proceeded by examining the attitudes of 6000 residents/citizens with an immigrant background (from 32 different countries). Even after controlling for income, education and other relevant economic and social factors such as work history and age, they found that the views about redistribution in an immigrant’s home country, are a strong predictor of his own opinions, which he generally never abandons. (Erzo Luttmer & Monica Singhal, “Culture, Context, and the Taste for Redistribution”, May, 2009). The study can be accessed at: ksghome.harvard.edu/~msingha/CultureRedistribution.pdf

  In conclusion, every single one of the conditions (except zeropopulation growth) that Daly considers necessary for achieving a steady-state economy – sharing/redistribution, acceptance of and respect for the holistic character of Nature, renunciation of continuous individual and societal wealth creation (that goes against the protestant ethic), zero economic growth (that goes against the technological imperative of the Second Law of Thermodynamics), are culturally impossible for America and, probably, for most of the North because of deeply-ingrained values. Fundamental cultural values almost never change. The few known cases of such fundamental cultural change occurred over a period of centuries, with only one exception that I know of – Japan in the 7th century. But that is another story.

  Mervyn

• Margaret Kawamuinyo on June 13th, 2009 at 9:56 am

  Dear Mervyn:

  Mostly agreeing with you as I do from my readings alone of the poetry of many cultures, I hesitate to differ on anything. But I will if I may.

  Your argument on religio-cultural underpinnings of the “Northern” ethic is founded on migration of meanings of two words in the passage of the Bible you quote. That those migrations are based in exegeses of the Bible suggests that Judeo-Christianity may in fact not be the source of the problem. It may be one imposed on the Word by another word.

  “Subdue” equivocates into “conquer” in your analysis, and “dominion over” equivocates into “dominate.” The thesaurus gives two synonyms for “subdue”: “restrain” and “overmaster”. Do they not suggest vastly different attitudes from which one may choose?

  Secondly, I know nothing of the original Greek language of the first found texts of the Bible, but I offer this reasonable hypothesis: Knowing the Greeks, they would have had a very distinct word for “dominate”; therefore,they could presumably have had little need to produce a word that translates into “dominion over.” My elementary etymology here suggests that they and/or their translators were forced to reach for some notion that suggests what the Iroquois and Ghanaians are attempting to effect.

  I guess all I am saying is that you place a source of bad behaviour in a specific religious attitude and that attitude is only available to us in quite specific uses/understandings of language. The language of domination used to understand the King James version which the North would have been working with for some time is the language imposed by kings and imperialists. (It is not the language you have to choose as you seem to have done.) Therfore, the quite unmistakable verse in the King James Version of the Judeo-Christian Word after your selection is always missed by everyone - except RastafarI.

  That verse was meant, ones feel, to direct all man and beast to vegetarian living, and hence an attitude of holding nature in trust with theological governance: Genesis 1:29 “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.(30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

  One so desires the lamb to lay down with the lion and a little child to lead them - an environmental miracle of high order, because children both lead and follow.

  Guidance, Margaret

• John Maxwell on June 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

  The Bruntland Commission echoed the Haitian constitution when it declared that “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The Haitians’ version was that no one was allowed to disinherit their children. The Bruntland Commission prepared the way for the groundbreaking conference of heads of government - the so-called Earth Summit of 1992 at which every country in the world was represented - to design a road map for sustainable development to give all human beings an opportunity to satisfy their basic needs within the limitations of the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

  The Earth Summit was an attempt to give effect to the promise of universal rights through universal action. The key element of the agreement, the Treaty of Rio - Agenda 21 - was that every community in the world should be entitled to decide its own way to sustainability and that every person should have a say in this global decision-making. It was a noble aim and every world leader signed on to it, including our own P J Patterson and George Bush I of the US. The signatories committed themselves to a variety of objectives, the most important of which was the idea of community agendas designed by the people for the people.

  Spectacular Disrespect

  Few states in the world have failed as spectacularly as Jamaica to honour their obligations under the treaty. We actually drew up a document to guide Local Development Planning in Jamaica but there has essentially been no action to enforce the people’s rights to a clean, supportive and productive environment.

  The main guarantee of this, Environmental Impact Assessments, are a bad and stale joke.

  Read More at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20090627T220000-0500_154330_OBS_HUMAN_RIGHTS___THE_ENVIRONMENT_.asp
  Jamaica Observer 28/06/09