Developing Economies and the Protection of Environment
Chapter Twenty-Four
Syllabus topic 2, "Development"
Pages 95 to 98 of 595
In one line
A poor country is told to protect an environment that a rich country damaged while getting rich, and international environmental law has been trying to answer that objection since 1972.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the position of developing economies in environmental protection is governed by the recognition, in both the Stockholm and the Rio Declarations, that under-development is itself a cause of environmental damage, that the environmental policies of States should not adversely affect the development potential of developing countries, that standards appropriate to one country may be inappropriate and of unwarranted cost to another, and that responsibilities are common but differentiated.
The objection, stated fairly
An answer should put the developing country's argument at its strongest before answering it, because that is what the University's short note is asking about.
Historical responsibility. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and much of the damage to the ocean and to global biodiversity, is the accumulated product of two centuries of industrialisation in a small number of countries. The country asked to restrain itself now did not cause the problem.
Present need. A country in which a large share of the population lacks electricity, sanitation and secure food has uses for its capital that a rich country does not.
Cost of standards. Environmental standards are expensive, and technology to meet them is owned abroad and licensed at a price.
Trade effect. Standards can operate as barriers. A requirement that imports meet the importing country's process standards falls on the exporter, which is often the poorer party.
Poverty as a cause. A household with no fuel cuts wood. A farmer with no alternative cultivates a slope. Under-development produces environmental damage of its own kind, and it cannot be regulated away without addressing the poverty.
What Stockholm said
The 1972 Declaration answered the objection more directly than is usually remembered, and quoting it is what separates a good answer here.
Principle 8 states that economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for the improvement of the quality of life.
Principle 9 states that environmental deficiencies generated by the conditions of under-development and natural disasters pose grave problems, and can best be remedied by accelerated development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries.
Principle 10 states that for the developing countries, stability of prices and adequate earnings for primary commodities and raw materials are essential to environmental management, since economic factors as well as ecological processes must be taken into account.
Developing Economies and the Protection of Environment
Principle 11 states that the environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present or future development potential of developing countries, nor should they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all.
Principle 12 provides that resources should be made available to preserve and improve the environment, taking into account the circumstances and particular requirements of developing countries and any costs which may emanate from their incorporating environmental safeguards into their development planning, and the need for making available to them additional international technical and financial assistance upon request.
Principle 23 provides that it will be essential in all cases to consider the systems of values prevailing in each country, and the extent of the applicability of standards which are valid for the most advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries.
Read together, those six principles are a comprehensive statement of the developing country's case, adopted by the whole conference in 1972.
What Rio said
Twenty years later the position had shifted, and the shift is worth noting.
Principle 6: the special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority, and international actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation, but environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply, and standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.
The shift. Stockholm's language is about assistance and about not obstructing development. Rio's language is about responsibility, and it says whose. Principle 7 is the single most important sentence for a developing country in international environmental law, and it is the ancestor of the differentiated commitments in the climate treaties.
The answer to the objection
The objection is strong and it is not the whole story. Four replies, and an answer should give them.
Poverty is worsened by degradation, not relieved by it. The people whose livelihoods depend directly on a resource are the poorest, and they are the first to lose when it is destroyed. A degraded environment is a poverty trap.
Developing Economies and the Protection of Environment
Growing dirty is more expensive than growing clean. Retrofitting is dearer than building correctly, and remediation is dearer than prevention. The Bichhri case is the domestic illustration: the cost of restoring the aquifer exceeded anything the units had saved.
The technologies exist now. A country industrialising today is not obliged to repeat the sequence, because cleaner processes and cheaper renewable generation are available in a way they were not in 1900.
Differentiation is the answer, not exemption. Nothing in Principle 7 says a developing country has no obligation. It says the obligations are common and the responsibilities differ, which is a rule about the share and not about the existence of the duty.
Worked example
MU's short note is about three hundred words. The shape that works:
One sentence stating the problem. Then the objection in four clauses, because putting it fairly is half the answer. Then the treaty response, quoting the substance of Stockholm Principles 9 and 11 and Rio Principle 7 with its common but differentiated responsibilities. Then the four replies. Then one sentence on India, which is that India has argued this position consistently since 1972 and has nevertheless built one of the more extensive environmental statute books in the developing world.
That closing sentence matters, because it shows the objection is not an excuse.
What this topic does NOT mean
It is not an argument that developing countries need not protect the environment. No instrument says that and India has never argued it.
It is not only about climate. The argument covers standards, technology transfer, trade, commodity prices and the cost of safeguards.
It is not settled. Common but differentiated responsibilities is contested, and the Paris Agreement's formulation adds the words "in the light of different national circumstances", which is generally read as softening the fixed division the Convention had used.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Stockholm 1972 | Rio 1992 | |
|---|---|---|
| Frame | Under-development is a cause of environmental damage | Different contributions to degradation give different responsibilities |
| Key principles | 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23 | 6, 7, 11 |
| What developed countries owe | Financial and technological assistance | Acknowledged responsibility, plus resources and technology |
| Standards | Standards valid for advanced countries may be of unwarranted social cost elsewhere, principle 23 | Standards should reflect the context to which they apply, principle 11 |
| Legacy | The developing country's case, stated and accepted | Common but differentiated responsibilities, carried into the climate treaties |
Quick revision
- The objection has five parts: historical responsibility, present need, the cost of standards, the trade effect, and poverty as a cause of damage.
- Stockholm Principle 9: environmental deficiencies generated by under-development are best remedied by accelerated development with financial and technological assistance.
- Stockholm Principle 11: environmental policies should enhance and not adversely affect the development potential of developing countries.
- Stockholm Principle 23: standards valid for the most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for developing countries. Rio Principle 11 says the same about context.
- Rio Principle 7: in view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities.
- The replies: degradation deepens poverty, growing dirty costs more, the technologies exist now, and differentiation is about the share of the duty and not about exemption from it.
Developing Economies and the Protection of Environment
Test yourself
1. State the developing country's objection in four parts.
That the accumulated damage was caused by the countries that industrialised first; that a country with large unmet basic needs has other uses for its capital; that standards are expensive and the technology to meet them is owned abroad; and that standards operate as trade barriers falling on the poorer exporter. A fifth part is that under-development itself causes environmental damage, which cannot be regulated away without addressing the poverty.
2. Give the substance of Stockholm Principle 11.
That the environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present or future development potential of developing countries, nor hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all, and that appropriate steps should be taken with a view to agreement on meeting the economic consequences of applying environmental measures.
3. Quote the operative words of Rio Principle 7 and say why they matter.
That in view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. They matter because they move the argument from assistance, which is what Stockholm offered, to responsibility, and because they are the ancestor of the differentiated commitments in the climate treaties.
4. Why is it wrong to read this material as an exemption for developing countries?
Because the responsibilities are described as common and differentiated, which allocates a share rather than removing a duty. Rio Principle 11 in the same instrument requires States to enact effective environmental legislation, and India has in fact built one of the more extensive environmental statute books among developing countries while making this argument.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.