We have to be careful not to paint the beast green, says activist

06/01/2012 - 11h26

The Indian physicist and activist Vandana Shiva, one of the most recognized voices on sustainable development, believes that Rio+20 will not be a failure, unlike other more pessimistic predictions.

In her view, the conference will not be saved by the agreements that are signed that will probably have less impact than those that were drawn up during Eco-92, but rather by the strength of society and social movements.

"People are connected now more than ever, and they will make the difference in moving towards the construction of new paths forward for the world," says the activist, who came to Brazil to participate in the lecture series "Frontiers of Thought."

A fierce critic of globalization and biotechnology, Shiva points out that governments are apathetic on the main environmental conventions (climate, biodiversity) because of advances made by big transnational groups and their powerful lobbies, which have more influence than ever on the decisions that governments make. Here she discusses the risks associated with the concept of a "green economy," the focus of the conference.

FOLHA - Will you be coming to Rio+20?
VANDANA SHIVA - Yes, I arrive on June 17 for the panels that are being prepared by the Brazilian government. One of them is about food and energy security. One of the big changes at Rio+20, compared to Eco-92, which I also participated in, is that now agriculture is at the center of the discussion. Especially traditional agriculture, which is becoming more important as an ecological question. I was also a part of various activities associated with the People's Summit, which was designed to wake up world leaders.

World leaders need to wake up to sustainable development? There is criticism of the broad agenda of Rio+20.
In 1992, the agenda was very clear: include the protection of nature in the obligations of the international community. This convention generated the main environmental conventions, such as climate and biodiversity, as well as the Principles of Rio+20, which were a model for environmental laws in the whole world. But the agenda for Rio+20 is broad and unfocused for one clear reason: the increase, in the past few years, of the power wielded by big multinational corporations.

So businesses are influencing global decisions about the environment?
Without a doubt, and not for the better. The increasing power of big companies comes from the free trade agreements of the WTO (World Trade Organization). These agreements allow companies to have ample access to natural resources and to help deregulate all of the hard-won regulations during Eco-92. Since then, the multinationals are destroying the future of humanity. They are the reason why there have not been any advances in climate negotiations, for example.

And climate change is not on the agenda for Rio+20.
There has not been much progress in this area since the conference in Copenhagen. Then came the meetings in Cancun and Durban, also without effective results. All because of the lobbying efforts of big corporations, countries are 'deregulating' what had been regulated before.

Could you give n example of what you mean by 'deregulation'?
Brazil is an example, look at what happened with genetically modified crops. When I came to Rio Grande do Sul for the first time, invited by José Lutzenberger [former minister of the environment], there was a strong movement among farmers against genetically modified seeds.
Now the fields are covered with genetically modified soy. This is part of the changes brought by globalization, by the power taken by the multinationals that are against any kind of environmental agreement.
The most harmful sectors are the fossil fuel companies, the giants of agribusiness and biotechnology. Canada was a progressive country during Eco-92, and now it's stuck in environmental negotiations because of companies that want to search for oil in bituminous areas.

How can the conference be made more relevant?
The answer is in the people. That's why the People's Summit is so important. The people behind these social movements are going to impose a new agenda for humanity. People are connected now more than ever, and they will make the difference in moving towards the construction of new paths forward for the world. Look at the Occupy movement, for example.

Another discussion at Rio+20 will be the formation of new economic indicators. Will you be following this debate?
Yes, I'm glad that many mainstream economists, like Joseph Stiglitz, are committed to this debate. But what we shouldn't do is transform nature into a commodity. We should value nature, but not transform air, water, forests into marketable goods.
This is one of the risks inherent in the concept of a green economy. It's not a bad idea in itself, but what worries me is that this is just going to be another way for powerful people to take natural resources in the name of this "new economy." We have to be careful not to paint the beast green.

Translated by ANNA EDGERTON