The partial failure of the RIO+20 Conference was the outcome of three negative factors. The first is that there was too much on the agenda, justified by the fact that in the last twenty years the globalisation process has enormously increased the seriousness and the number of environmental problems. These environmental issues have, in fact, become “global” and therefore require “global” solutions, which must be jointly adopted by all the main polluting countries, which alone couldn’t manage borderless concerns. The second factor is that the economic and financial crisis affecting mainly Western economies has weakened the interest of countries in solidarity and makes them less sympathetic with others. The third and the most important factor is that the world leaders have not fully accepted the idea that the current economic crisis is ending a cycle in history and that neither the economy nor policies can go back to the way they were before.
Since it is commonly agreed that this crisis is “structural” in nature, the economy and policies should be planned with different and completely new criteria, otherwise there will be a collective disaster. The growth model adopted by Western countries, and followed by developing countries, –based on producing consumer goods and on “affluent” consumption backed by easy credit, by energy still reliant on fossil fuels, by squandering natural resources while not allowing for ecological self-regeneration – has had and still has destructive effects on the environment. It is clear that a growth model based on consumption and funded by accumulating debts cannot go on forever.
To achieve significant goals it will be necessary to identify good targets and a few proper programmes:
- Reduce global warming, limiting the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the basis of an Agreement signed by the main polluting countries, in which the reductions in allowances for each country are calculated on emissions per capita and not on total emissions, thus complying with the principles of fairness and transparency. To be effective, the Agreement should be implemented by a new institution (the World Environment Organisation), operating within the UN, which should have effective powers and should be funded by its own resources (such as a world tax on financial transactions and/or a world Carbon Tax).
- Promote sustainable agriculture which, as demanded by the UN and FAO, requires ecological methods that preserve the soil quality, indigenous crops and traditional methods, local trading and input, and thus guarantees everyone’s right to food. The FAO must be in the position to redirect world agriculture properly.
- Coordinate development aid, at least among Western countries, centralising management within the UN, under the control of a Committee of guarantors composed of people coming from all continents that meet requirements of unquestioned ability and moral integrity, to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness of the aid, avoiding corruption. The aid should follow the guidelines set by the Millennium Development Goals and by their subsequent specific targets.
There is a common feeling among ecological movements that Summits are useless and that it is necessary to act locally because, by ‘defending the tree to protect the forest’, defending the individual to protect the species, the river for the sea, it will be possible to piece together a jigsaw puzzle resulting in an overall programme for saving the world. Obviously local commitment should not be underestimated but it is also necessary to reiterate the obvious truth that global issues must be dealt with by institutions operating at the same level.
It is true that, up to now, the fundamentals do not seem to be in place for overcoming these challenges. It should however be noted that the current situation could radically change in a favourable way if the European Union were to head towards becoming a federal union, if it were to introduce a European Tax on Financial Transactions and/or a European Carbon Tax, and if the EU were really able to speak internationally with “just one voice”. By the power of example, what happens in Europe could be a model for the entire world, in due time and manner, thus helping to achieve the goals that the planet needs.