Message-ID: <gDkaEBABdpgzEwBG@entebbe.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:33:37 +0100 From: cherbert <mailto:cherbert@ENTEBBE.DEMON.CO.UK> Subject: Re: Boring To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
>I am pretty much in agreement and think that it is curious and sad that
>governments of developed countries do not look upon the planet and our
>environment with the same attention that they give economic and "political"
>matters. Altruism is not common in people and is almost non existent in
>governments. But one would think that governments would wake up to the fact
>that air, water, pollutants... do not recognize national boundaries. In
>this I think that the "average U.S. citizen" is ahead of his/her government
>and I think that Rio and the alternate conference demonstrated this.
Apologies if this has already been discussed here.In response directly to above, and indirectly to several other posts, all those involved in/supportive of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 need to be reminding their governments and NGOs of just how much support they do feel for the agreements of Rio 1992. The recent prep-com showed serious signs that at worst agreements could be reneged on in the forthcoming UNGASS Rio II in New York (June). At the least, arguments about them could hold back productive discussions on the next stage of the process which needs to focus on implementation and more widespread education. Inter and intra NGO disunity and even aggression weakens the ability of that caucus to have influence upon the governments' decision making process. In fact, in its extreme forms, it can even persuade governments that NGOs are not worth listening to at all.
As Rio's so-called Environment Summit acted as a forerunner in a process that continued in Copenhagen's Social Summit, and Istanbul's Sustainable Cities Summit, the whole issue of sustainability as an Agenda for international action is facing a serious test in the coming weeks.
Cherbert
-- cherbert