Oleh/By : DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL
Tarikh/Date : 13/06/92
Tajuk/Title : THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to thank our host, President Fernando
Collor de Mello, and the Government of Brazil for the hospi-
tality extended to us at this conference.
2. Malaysia has come to this conference because we are
concerned about the environment. We are here to seek ways
to achieve sustainable development and to establish a solid
foundation for worldwide cooperation on environment and de-
velopment. We appreciate that if anything is to be done to-
wards sustainable development then all countries everywhere
must work together. The boundaries of nations do not limit
the pollution caused by them. Neighbours, both far and
near, are affected by the pollutants produced by any nation.
3. Presently, Malaysia is well able to cope with its own
pollution. In a country about the size of Britain, we have
a population only one third as big. We are a developing
country with a per capita income one-tenth of the developed
countries. Our capacity for wasteful consumption is there-
fore very limited -- roughly one thirtieth that of the de-
veloped countries.
4. On the other hand, our capacity to deal with our own
waste is far in excess of our needs. Our land is almost 60
percent covered with self-regenerating tropical rain forest,
with an additional 15 percent covered by tree plantations.
Any carbon dioxide we produce we can absorb.
5. If pollution can be contained within the boundaries of
a country, then Malaysia has nothing to worry. But Malaysia
has to deal with cross-border pollution. Most developed
countries have already destroyed their capacity to deal with
their own waste. Not only have they clear-felled their for-
ests but their production of waste is so great that they
must rely on the poor countries to dispose of this waste.
6. Malaysia is prepared to do its bit. But can nothing be
done to reduce the waste? Is it right that the poor be
forced to clean up the mess created by the rich? Should
there not be some sharing of the task, the responsibility
and the cost for cleaning up? These are the questions we
would like answered at this conference.
7. For the right answers there must be a modicum of sin-
cerity and honesty on the part of everyone. We talk a lot
now about a new world order, human rights, democracy and
justice. Let there be evidence of all these when we try to
identify the causes and to resolve the problems of
sustainable development.
8. We recognise that man in his pursuit of development is
the cause of the pollution and degradation of the environ-
ment. We cannot stop development altogether but we can at
least minimise the pollution caused by it.
9. If we are to achieve sustainable development then we
must all be prepared to make the necessary adjustments. But
if we begin by saying that our life-style is sacred and not
for negotiation then it would be meaningless to talk of de-
velopment and the environment.
10. It is claimed that one of the causes of environmental
degradation is the size of the population of some developing
countries. We dispute this assumption.
11. However we note that rich developed communities tend to
have low birth rates. If we want to reduce population
growth then we must help poor communities to become devel-
oped. Yet we hear from the rich, proposals which would re-
sult in stopping the development of poor countries in order
to reduce pollution. You may be able to reduce pollution
but you will end up with massive overpopulation in the
poorest developing countries.
12. We know that the 25 percent of the world population who
are rich consume 85 percent of its wealth and produce 90
percent of its waste. Mathematically speaking, if the rich
reduce their wasteful consumption by 25 percent, worldwide
pollution will be reduced by 22.5 percent. But if the poor
75 percent reduce consumption totally and disappear from
this earth altogether the reduction in pollution will only
be by 10 percent.
13. It is what the rich do that counts, not what the poor
do, however much they do it. That is why it is imperative
that the rich change their life-styles. A change in the
lifestyles of the poor only, apart from being unfair, is
quite unproductive environment-wise. But the rich talk of
the sovereignty of the consumers and their right to their
life-styles. The rich will not accept a progressive and
meaningful cutback in their emission of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases because it will be a cost to them and
retard their progress. Yet they expect the poor peoples of
the developing countries to stifle even their minute growth
as if it will cost them nothing.
Excellencies,
14. One of the major issues we are expected to resolve is
Global Warming. Here one of the major industrialized coun-
tries could not agree to cut-back on its emission of carbon
dioxide at the rate generally accepted by others. Since it
is the major source of industrial pollution its decision has
rendered the agreement inequitable and meaningless.
15. Malaysia has for several years been cutting back on the
emission of carbon dioxide. We impose a tax of 300 percent
on cars with large capacity engines. Even small cars are
heavily taxed. But in most developed countries the tax on
automobiles and petrol is minimal thus accounting for the
high car/population ratio. Surely a reduction in the number
of private cars and better public transport would not change
the life-style too much. Yet it will do wonders for Global
Warming.
16. The other issue before us is bio-diversity. The poor
countries have been told to preserve their forests and other
genetic resource on the off-chance that at some future date
something is discovered which might prove useful to human-
ity. This is the same as telling these poor countries that
they must continue to be poor because their forests and
other resource are more precious than themselves. Still
they are not rejecting the value of bio-diversity, at least
not totally.
17. Denying them their own resources will impoverish them
and retard their development. Surely if something is dis-
covered in their forests, they should be entitled to some
returns.
18. But now we are told that the rich will not agree to
compensate the poor for their sacrifices. The rich argue
that the diversity of genes stored and safeguarded by the
poor are of no value until the rich, through their superior
intelligence, release the potential within. It is an intel-
lectual property and must be copy-righted and protected.
19. Developing countries which met in Kuala Lumpur in April
have agreed on a plan to reafforest the whole world. A Fund
for this Greening of the World was proposed. But the North
are resisting this proposal. Perhaps it is considered to be
yet another attempt by the developing countries to squeeze
the rich using the environmental issue. The rich North can
only see the chiselling ways of the South and is determined
that they will not be squeezed. Yet the North demands a
forest convention.
20. Obviously the North wants to have a direct say in the
management of forests in the poor South at next to no cost
to themselves. The pittance they offer is much less than
the loss of earnings by the poor countries and yet it is
made out as a generous concession.
21. We will accept the Global Environment Facility, and we
will accept that it be administered by the OECD dominated
World Bank. But can we not have a little say; can we not
have more transparency in the administration of this Fund?
Surely, this does not amount to the South squeezing the
North.
22. The poor is not asking for charity. When the rich
chopped down their own forests, built their poison-belching
factories and scoured the world for cheap resources, the
poor said nothing. Indeed they paid for the development of
the rich. Now the rich claim a right to regulate the devel-
opment of the poor countries. And yet any suggestion that
the rich compensate the poor adequately is regarded as out-
rageous. As colonies we were exploited. Now as independent
nations we are to be equally exploited.
Excellencies,
23. Malaysia was disillusioned about these inequities long
before we reached Rio. In a world that has been won for de-
mocracy, we find powerful nations laying down terms even for
participating in a democratic process. We find scant regard
for the principles of fairness and equity. We find that
even the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 have been watered
down upon insistence from the powerful and the rich.
24. Notwithstanding all these, we still have high expecta-
tions of this conference and we would consider this Confer-
ence on the Environment and Development a success if there
emerged a better understanding of the enormity of the prob-
lems we face and the need for us to cooperate on an equita-
ble basis. Malaysia will do what can reasonably be expected
of it for the environment.
|
|