At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the developed and developing worlds had vastly different agendas.
Developed vs developing:
Pollution vs land degradation
Acid rain/ozone depletion vs loss of biomass
Water quality vs water quantity/access
Over-production of crops vs monoculture crops
Landscape destruction (road-building) vs landscape destruction (mining)
Climate change vs desertification
Population stagnation vs rapid population growth
Crime/drug abuse vs conflicts/civil strife
Loss of biodiversity (in the developing world) vs loss of biodiversity (own)
There were debates on the relative importance of “overpopulation” (seen as a problem in the developing world) and “overconsumption” (considered prevalent especially in developed countries) in environmental degradation.
It was agreed that developed countries would commit to contribute 0,7% of gross domestic product to official development assistance (ODA), for implementation by the developing world of Agenda 21, Rio’s most important outcome.
At an acrimonious Rio+5 conference in 1997 most developed countries stood accused of not having honoured their ODA commitment. Yet the developed countries tried very hard to commit all governments to time frames in implementing all agreements. They also tried to bring new issues to the table.
The developing countries, on the other hand, argued that if developed countries were not serious about contributing to ODA, developing countries would not be prepared to take on board targets or new issues.
By 1997 the ODA level had dropped to 0,34% of gross domestic product. The developing countries were of the opinion that they were not even in a position to implement Agenda 21, which comprised more than 2 500 activities.
Today only 0,25% of gross domestic product is going to ODA for Agenda 21 implementation. There are developed countries that contribute more than the agreed 0,7% and there are some that contribute the agreed percentage, but they represent a minority.
Dual agendas are still a fact of life (also within societies characterised by great disparities between haves and have-nots). Today, however, the talk is about a global compact, or partnership, between the developed and the developing world.
A partnership between Africa and the developed world would most likely be based on the New Africa Initiative (NAI). British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted recently as pledging that Africa’s needs would not be sidelined by the global war against terrorism.
In terms of the NAI, the developed world would:
provide more aid, untied to trade;
write off debt;
encourage investment and access to its markets;
help with good governance;
assist in infrastructural development;
assist in military training; and
assist in conflict resolution.
Africa in turn would be expected to:
embrace democracy;
respect human rights;
fight corruption;
implement commercial, legal and financial systems acceptable to developed world partners; and
broker agreements for peace and provide troops to police them.