By Najib Saab, Issue 9, November-December 1997

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and became known as the Earth Summit, had many offsprings, in the form of initiatives, programmes, treaties and a lot of promises to the Third World. The most confusing of those might be the array of jammed development programmes carrying big names and, for sure, noble causes. But the problem is that objectives of those programmes are spread thin and goals perplexed, in such a way which makes proper evaluation of results a near impossible mission. Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP), Capacity 21, Global Environment Fund (GEF), Mediterranean Technical Assistance Programme (METAP), in addition to the European Union and other funds, all carry great potentials, but are often trapped in confusion and overlapping interests. Rather than serving as a foundation for long-term development plans, independent of political maneuvers, those programmes are becoming an integral part of the political and bureaucratic panorama. What has been planned as sustainable development strategy is more often reduced to short-term tactics, dancing to the tune of the prevailing political mood.

Those are the consequences of projects which refer to the human being, in their extensive literature, as a "stakeholder". As if they aim at stripping man of his dignity and reducing him to a number on the list of the poor, and as if man's dignity and quality of life are no more the essence and aim of development. In the middle of this confusion, it is natural to question whether environment and development slogans have become distraction issues for the third world, to divert attention from the big global decisions taken at the level of finance and economy. Did reports and conferences become an established goal, in isolation from a clear plan and accountability, with each report suggesting a further report, and each conference recommending a follow-up conference? Is it sustainability of privileges, posts, favoritism, reports and conferences that is at stake?

Under these circumstances, how can information be instrumental, in the framework of the current programmes, in integrating environment and development? These programmes carry great potentials when placed on a productive track. And the biggest achievement they can realize would be to help creating reliable factual and background information and data on environment and development matters.

However, an environmental database cannot be created without reliable data. Capacity building means training human resources and helping institutionalization, starting with existing structures, rather than encourage the creation of parallel and satellite administrative structures. Building a network has to attach more weight to the "work" than to the "net".

Environmental information, on the other hand, is by no means advertising programmes, meetings and conferences. Those are being marketed as news for the gossip columns, while the real need is for information that promotes concepts and encourages substantive dialogue.

May I suggest that the best service the media could offer environment and development programmes would be to stop publishing any news and photos of social events, meetings, conferences, workshops, signature of projects and distribution of certificates, and concentrate on substance, analysis, results and investigative reporting. This might lead to streamlining resources in a more productive manner, let alone facing realities of life. Watching all of those social events related to development, with no in-depth analysis and follow-up to monitor results, we tend to believe that all problems will be solved with a magic touch.

Work based on accurate data, identification of clear goals and coordination among different programmes provides the only means to avert transforming the initiatives of Rio Conference on Environment and Development into Rio Carnaval of Environment and Development.