The concept of development strategy of the developing countries around the globe

            The affiliation integrated between growth and the environment is not a newfangled concept as it is based on concentrated project assessment and setting up new reforms based on modern technology. The fiscal growth of the embryonic countries was one of the leading issues in the world’s first environmental symposium, in Stockholm in 1972. The consecutive consultation explained that without taking into explanation the improvement issue of the developing countries environmental issues would not be resolved and revitalized. The development issue of the South helped to develop the concept of ‘sustainable development’. This concept gives emphasis on development despite the fact that at the same time recognizes its relationship with environment. Although there exists acknowledgement of the need to achieve a sustainable balance between environment and development,  the perspectives of the North and South differs in this respect. The North gives more emphasis on environmental protection while the South on development. Even though these different attitudes create some situations of conflict between the two sides, there are number of examples of some sort of co-operation also existing between them.

           

           

            The development strategy means promoting development with preserving the environment for the interest of present as well as future generations. Sustainable development gives emphasis on the fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor people. It aims at solving   ecological problem and poverty at the same time. In a simple phrase, it means economic development with low environmental pollution. According to Gary S. Hartshorn The development strategy means to improve the quality of life of humans without depleting renewable and non-renewable natural resources. This contrasts with traditional development models that  stresses the increase of Gross National Product(GNP) through economic growth which is often based on rapid depletion of the natural resources base

           

            The outlook of the developing countries on the environmental issue differs significantly from that of the developed countries. According to  view from the South,  as the Northern countries are the main beneficiaries of the process of economic growth so they are responsible for the world’s environmental problem. As the South have no economic substitute, they exploit their natural resources only for their economic development. They exploit their natural resources to deal with their poverty. For example it is very difficult to tell a rural farmer in Brazil to stop cutting the rain forest where he must grow crops to feed his family. In the developing countries, forest clearance is not essentially for timber, domestic use or export, but rather for agricultural cultivation. High population growth is a serious problem for the Southern countries. It increases pressure on natural resources and creates more environmental problems. For that reason it is not very easy for the developing countries to attain ‘sustainable development’. Nafis Sadik mentioned in one of her writings that these developing countries understand the importance of protecting the environment, but are compelled to resort to environmentally unsound practices in order to survive.(Source, Towards Sustainable Development: The Critical role of Population, Nafis Sadik, page 450, Perspective of Global Responsibility). For sustainable development therefore, developing countries need technological and financial support from the developed world.

            On the other hand, as the developed countries have already achieved their economic growth, so it is comparatively easier for them to concentrate on environmental issue. They can use alternative way which will be more environmentally sound for them. However, they also have  their own problem. For example, the people in the developed countries do not want to assume any new burden. There exists an unemployment problem in many developed countries. For these reason overseas aid is always under financial pressure in developed countries. Technology transfer is also a problem for the developed countries, as it is usually  in the possession of private companies, which usually have their own priorities about the countries to which they  can or should be advantageously be supplied to. For that reason, they do not transfer their technology at a cost that the South can afford. On the other hand, a minority of developed country still deny the connection between economic development and environmental protection   What ever is the problem and position taken by  both the developed and developing countries, the transition of the developing countries to sustainability will require support from the developed countries. If the Northern does not help in the development needs of the South, then the environmental issue is bound to create conflict.

            Before the emergence of the concept of the development strategy the development issue of the Southern countries was raised several times in international environmental conferences. In the world’s first major environmental conference, in Stockholm in 1972, the Northern environmental alarm was not shared universally. The main emphasis of the developing countries was their economic growth, not pollution. Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandi emphasized that poverty was the principal problem confronting India, not pollution The South was much concerned about possible pressure by the West to slow down their economic growth and  impose environmentally motivated restrictions on aid, investment or trade policies. They gave emphasis on their sovereignty and the right to choose their own path of economic development. The North wanted to emphasis the issues of marine pollution, over consumption and global population, but on the insistence  of the South, global poverty and aid issue were also included in the agenda. Both the North and South were almost divided on the question of development. However they were successful to reach  an agreement about the creation of the United Nations Environmental Programme UNEP, to work as a unit on the environment within the existing UN structure. In order to meet the concern of the developing countries it was given a large governing council and after some argument it was sited in Nairobi.(Ibid p 48).

           This North-South tension was dominant up to the 1990 London  meeting scheduled to review the Montreal Protocol. In London, it was extremely tense contest between North and the South on these financial issues. The South was trying to get  the best possible financial and technological terms, while on the other hand, the North was trying to get the South on board without vast financial and technological commitments. The final result was the agreement to establish a new fund, initially of 160-240 million US$ to be contributed by the North for use by the South. The Northern companies also assured the south about the substitute technology which would be transferred later on. All the major developing countries consequently later joined the process.  The developing countries view about the climate change was that the developed countries were responsible for most of the accumulated green house gases in the atmosphere. For that reason also, their opinion was that the North should provide financial assistance to the South to help them adapt to the changing climate. The united developing country approach caused difficulties for the North.The North was not in a position to accept any historic responsibility.

           

            For negotiating the climate change issue, an  International Negotiating Committee on Climate Change (INC) arranged the first negotiating meeting in Virginia in 1991.In the initial meeting the South demanded new and additional resources for their economic development. The North was very much interested to know about Southern commitments before dealing with the financial issue.No substantive result was therefore achieved .

            In the Geneva meeting, (1991) the North and South were in a situation of confrontation on the question of creating a climate fund.The North was in favour of  using the  World Bank in this regard, but the South was against the idea.The idea of ‘pledge and review’ was rejected by the South that they should commit themselves to a process and no external could judge their domestic policies.The difference of opinion was evident  in the third session of the INC in Nairobi. The pattern was continued when the INC met for its fourth session in Geneva in December 1991. In New York (1992) the fifth session of the INC showed the same situation between the North and South. The North was pressurizing the South for accepting the Global Environmental Facility(GEF) as the funding channel.The North and South were therefore in a position of conflict  in the meeting. The mood of the meeting was not improved by suggesting that if no climate change convention was negotiated President Bush would not go to Rio. At the same time to  sweeten the threat, the US announced  a $75 million aid plan  to help curb developing countries green house emission.  

Finally the developing countries thought that the failure to finalize the convention would postpone the prospect of  Western aid and technology to help tackle the effect of climate change  they therefore accepted the GEF as an ‘interim’ financial mechanism of the convention.

           

             In the biodiversity negotiation, the developed countries were more united than they were in the case of the climate change negotiations. The developing countries were also united in the biodiversity negotiations. The North argued firmly for the GEF(funded through voluntary contribution) and the South insisted on a special biodiversity fund( funded through compulsory contribution) compromise was finally reached in Nairobi in May 1992. Soft words with limited force were used for conservation strategies. The issue of financing channels was settled in an even more indirect way.

           

            In the case of Earth Charter the same concerns were expressed by  both parties. The Northern countries were concerned about environment and Southern countries with their development objectives. Very skillful balance was maintained between them by incorporating language like the need for all states to pay attention to the environment and , on the other, the special needs of developing countries( and responsibilities of developed countries) with regard to global economic development.  In the case of finance and technology the North-South attitude was almost like all previous conferences. The developing countries demanded their green fund. The Northern countries pointed to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). The closing stages of the preparatory process  saw a series of confrontation, both within the North and between North and South . Lastly, as situation did not change, so the issue passed to Rio.

           

           

            In view of the above it is evident that there are differences of estimation stuck between the North and the South on the technique of achieving sustainable development. Even though there exists inconvenience, it has also publicized that some sort of co-operation exists from previous initiatives on the issue.   It is true that some Southern countries apportion much of their hard earned money for defence purpose, but in environmental conference they always fight for economic prop up. This glasses case is nonetheless not true for most of the Southern countries. Most of the Southern countries are unnatural to exploitative the natural resources on which their future depends. For that reason, the North has to spare additional financial help to the South to face these environmental challenges. Though the North has given commitments of financial support, these have not been sufficient for achieving sustainable development. If the North provides enough financial possessions and environment  friendly technology  at a good price to the South, then the sustainable development will bring co-operation sandwiched between them, or else  conflicts will  not only stay behind, but will also be exacerbated.