Loading...
Environmental Movements, Politics and the Agenda 21 in Latin America: How to Build Consensus
García-Guadilla, María Pilar
García-Guadilla, María Pilar
Author(s)
Author(s) (Additional)
Illustrator(s)
Producer(s)
Contributor(s)
Contributor(s) (Other)
Editor(s)
Advisor(s)
Contact(s)
Data Collector(s)
Collections
Files
Loading...
Garcia.pdf
Adobe PDF, 980.38 KB
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Online Access
Abstract
One reason for the scarce interest and the lack of support given to Agenda 21 (the official, mainstream agenda adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) by Latin American governments, NGOs and social movements is result of economic, political and social crises that have defined priorities other than those stipulated in Agenda 21. The main concerns of the region over the last decade have been poverty and political stability, not sustainable development. Another obstacle for the advancement of Agenda 21 is the fact that sustainable development and participatory democracy are such broad concepts that there is no agreement on their meaning among Latin American governments, NGOs and social movements; not even within NGOs and social movements. This paper analyses the values, expectations and proposals of Latin American governments and environmental social organizations and movements within this context, in an attempt to identify the set of principles, languages of valuation, and economic and political models they propose for achieving sustainable development and with the intention of showing the divergence of perspecitve and the difficulties of reaching a consensual agenda. The results from such analysis show that the values, expectations and demands of NGOs and social movements are very heterogeneous: some of them denounce economic globalization, free trading, privatization and the accentuation of poverty and social inequalities as the causes of environmental problems, while others focus on ecological issues and disregard the socio-political causes; some accept Agenda 21 as the basis for a dialogue with governments and international multilateral institutions and as a platform from which to solve such problems, while others reject it on the basis of a substantive critique, not only of the prevalent economic model but of the civilization model as well, and propose their Alternative Agenda. Information and data for this comparison come primarily from a content analysis of the official and alternative agendas adopted in Rio de Janeiro, as well as multiple official and alternative documents coming out of meetings between 1992 2002, such as the World Summit for Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women, the Documents of Rio+5, Alternative Forum of Porto Alegre and Preparatory Meetings for the Johannesburg Summit, among others. In the ten years since the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Agenda 21 continues to guide the aims, praxis and policy proposals of international institutions and governments, but there are no spaces, mechanisms, set of values, and agendas able to move Latin American governments and social movements in favour of sustainable development. Thus, the main challenge of the World Summit in Johannesburg is the creation of new spaces for the participation of civil society in the decision-making process and the promotion of a dialogue regarding the type of development wanted for the next decade. The instrumental techno-scientificist rationality on which Agenda 21 relies, excludes the visions, aims and proposals of an important group of social organizations and movements. Alone, it does not provide the basis for a democratic agreement. An ample dialogue centered on sustainable development has to focus on a humanistic approach based on the human being, not on technology, or economic growth per se. It has to be grounded in one of the characteristics of democracy, that is, in its pluralism which implies the recognition and the acceptance of the great diversity of beliefs and values human beings uphold. For this to be possible, all parts must have similar bargaining power. Since this is not the case of social movements, there is the need for these organizations to empower themselves through the reinforcement of their already existing, networks thereby creating a space from which to participate in the democratic collective construction of a viable and equitable framework for sustainable development.
Note(s)
Topic
Type
Preprint
Date
2002-08-30
Identifier
ISBN
DOI
Copyright/License
With permission of the license/copyright holder