3. EQUITY AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: FROM
3.2 Equity and the global South at the Stockholm Conference
68 equity in international climate change law was being laid in these pre-Stockholm reports and processes.
69 education, health and sanitation.’44 As the Prime Minister of India quipped, ‘are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?’45
It is impossible to talk about the preservation of the environment when the humans habiting such an environment are deprived.46 Mr Adebayo Adedeji, the representative of Nigeria, also added that ‘political disunity, economic fragmentation and racial segregation are the three canker worms that are eating away the world’s body politic and poisoning the atmosphere.’47 He emphasised that even though there was only one earth, ‘we certainly do not have one world economy. We have instead an economically segmented world - a world of haves and have nots.’48
Developing states would, therefore, rather direct their efforts to economic development. They insist that support for environmental action cannot be a reason to reduce developmental efforts, there should rather be a considerable increase in the level of developmental assistance.49 The success of any environmental programme was to be determined by its ability to boost the quality of life of those living in poverty.50 Without reducing the existing space between rich and poor states, there could be no improvement in the human environment.51 The Chinese delegation particularly noted that:
… no country whatsoever should undermine the interests of the developing countries under the pretext of protecting the environment. Any international policies and measures for the improvement of the human environment should respect the sovereignty and economic interests of all countries and conform to the immediate and long-range interests of the developing countries.52
These submissions confirmed that it was impossible to separate the need for global environmental action from the need for economic growth in developing states. There are existing inequalities in the global distribution of wealth, and it is impossible to take collective action on the environment without directing some of that collective action to the issue of poverty and under-development in the developing world. It is impossible to talk about a
44 Ibid, para 70.
45 Indira Gandhi ‘A special report: What happened at Stockholm v. what they said’ (1972) 28(7) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 35, 36.
46 Ibid.
47 Adebayo Adedeji ‘Deeds vs intentions’ (1972) 28(7) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 53.
48 Ibid.
49 Stockholm Report, para 44.
50 Ibid, para 47
51 Ibid, para 44.
52 Tang Ke ‘The case of China’ (1972) 28(7) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 55.
70 framework for a sustainable global environment without considering how to improve the quality of life of the individuals within that global environment. For such people, to improve their environment is to enhance their standard of living.
Furthermore, the representatives of developing states highlighted their historically disadvantaged position in comparison with most of the developed world. These states had suffered from the unfair utilisation of their natural resources by developed states.53 These exploitations were primarily carried out through multinational companies without recourse to sustainable practices.54 Developing states, therefore, contended that the real conflict was between ‘conservation and reckless exploitation by developed states.’55
Developed states were also guilty of the exploration of international marine resources in a manner that had direct negative impacts on developing states.56 The representative of the Philippines, for example, reported that the state’s rich marine resources were being drained by developed states using ‘sophisticated technological instruments to track down and harvest in excessive quantities schools of fish and other marine creatures.’57 These explorations were carried out with no regard for the ecological cycles and balances.58 In her address, the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, noted:
Many of the advanced countries of today have reached their present affluence by their domination over other races and countries, the exploitation of their own masses and their own natural resources. They got a head start through sheer ruthlessness, undisturbed by feelings of compassion or by abstract theories of freedom, equality or justice…The riches and labour of the colonized countries played no small part in the industrialization and prosperity of the West.59
In making this claim, developing states were pointing out the fact that there was inequality in the level of utilisation of natural resources by various states and this inequality favoured developed states. When compared to developing states, developed states got a head start in the
53 Ibid; Gandhi (n45); Helena Z. Benitez ‘Only one Earth: For whom?’ (1972) 28(7) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 56.
54 Tumai Murombo ‘Regulating mining in South Africa and Zimbabwe: Communities, the environment and perpetual exploitation’ (2013) 9(1) Law, Environment and Development Journal 31, 48; Samson Omofonmwan
& Lucky Odia ‘Oil exploitation and conflict in the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria’ (2009) 26(1) Journal of Human Ecology 28; Richard Drayton ‘The wealth of the West was built on Africa’s exploitation’ Guardian 20 August 2005 available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05 (accessed 30 October 2021).
55 Gandhi (n45).
56 Stockholm Report, para 45.
57 Benitez (n53) 55-56.
58 Ibid.
59 Gandhi (n45).
71 pursuit of economic development.60 The general rhetoric was, therefore, that the paramount environmental issue faced by developing states was poverty caused by developed states’
profiteering from their natural resources. Developed states were culpable in the global degradation of environmental resources and both groups of states cannot be saddled with the same level of responsibility. The unequal contribution of each group of states to the environmental problem must be considered in developing a global framework on the environment. To do otherwise would be an injustice to developing states.
Flowing from this, developing states pushed for the relaxation of the conditions of trade between developed and developing states.61 Existing international trade conditions were regarded as protectionist trade barriers, which hindered the potential for developing states to partake in global trade on fair conditions.62 Developing states warned against the possibility of an increase in the price of goods coming from developed states.63 They feared that this act of environmental neo-protectionism would be a way for developed states to shift the cost of new environmental policies to developing states.64 This would imply that developed states enjoyed the benefits of environmental exploitation while developing states continued to bear the cost of such exploitations.
These positions reflect a desire by developing states not only to ensure justice and fairness within international environmental law but to use it as a means for addressing some of the other global inequality issues, such as unfair global trade practices and the inequality in the distribution of global wealth. By pointing out the possibility of transferring the cost of environmental action, developing states sought to ensure that developed states do not exploit their stronger economic positions to further entrench poverty and inequality in developing states.
Despite the foregoing, developing states generally acknowledged that environmental concerns cannot be neglected.65 They only insisted that environmental actions must be considered in the light of national developmental needs. The prevailing position among developing states was not a rejection of environmental action. It was rather an insistence on the developmental
60 Ibid.
61 Stockholm Report, para 47.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid; Louis B Sohn ‘The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment’ (1973) 14 Harvard International Law Journal 423, 469.
65 Gandhi (n45) 38; Benitez (n53).
72 priorities of states of the global South, the existing imbalance between developed and developing states and the culpability of developed states for environmental damage.
Developing states were unwilling to agree to any commitments which would restrict the exploitation of their environmental resources for developmental purposes. The eradication of poverty and the pursuit of economic development was a bigger priority for developing states, and it defined not only their participation in global environmental law but also their conception of equity and fairness within the system.
Overall, the position of developing states not only reveals the connection between development and the environment, but also highlights the need for justice within any international agreement on the environment. The inequality in the distribution of global wealth implies that states do not have equal economic capacity, and it behoves them to create laws that distribute rights and responsibilities in a manner that does not further entrench these inequalities. Instead, these laws must be targeted at narrowing this gap. As much as possible, these agreements must foster a redistribution of wealth in a manner that ensures that the conditions of those who are worse- off are improved.
At the end of the Conference, three texts of significant importance were adopted: the Action Plan, the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment and the Resolution on Institutional and Financial Arrangements.66 Although these agreements did not have the status of a treaty and none of them expressly used the term ‘equity’, these documents set the pace for the subsequent growth of international environmental law generally and highlighted some of the important inequality questions which became central in the international agreements on climate change. These agreements are, therefore, important markers in understanding the history and development of equity within climate change treaties.