Table of Contents
The Cocoyoc Declaration
Reproduced from: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2010/03/the-cocoyoc-declaration/
TMS PEACE JOURNALISM, 29 Mar 2010
Johan Galtung – TRANSCEND Media Service
October 8-12, 1974 a symposium on “Patterns of Resource Use, Environment and Development Strategies” was convened in Cocoyoc, Mexico by the directors of United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Maurice Strong and Gamani Corea. The rapporteurs were Barbara Ward for resource use and the environment and Johan Galtung for development strategies. That part of THE COCOYOC DECLARATION—adopted by the participants–is reproduced below, with a certain sadness: it is as valid today, more than 30 years later. The two directors received a three feet long cable, from the US State Department, rejecting the declaration entirely. Signed by: Henry Kissinger.
From THE COCOYOC DECLARATION (GE.74~10536) [Reproduced in its entirety here.]
1. The purpose of Development
Our first concern is to redefine the whole purpose of development. This should not be to develop things but to develop man. Human beings have basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, health, education. Any process of growth that does not lead to their fulfillment- or, even worse, disrupts them- is a travesty of the idea of development. We are still in a stage where the most important concern of development is the level of satisfaction of basic needs for the poorest sections in each society which can be as high as 40 per cent of the population. The primary purpose of economic growth should be to ensure the improvement of conditions for these groups. A growth process that benefits only the wealthiest minority and maintains or even increases the disparities between and within countries is not development. It is exploitation. And the time for starting the type of true economic growth that leads to better distribution and to the satisfaction of the basic needs for all is today. We believe that thirty years of experience with the hope that rapid economic growth benefiting the few will “trickle down” to the mass of the people has proved to be illusory. We therefore reject the idea of “growth first, justice in the distribution of benefits later”.
Development should not be limited to the satisfaction of basic needs. There are other needs, other goals, and other values. Development includes freedom of expression and impression, the right to give and receive ideas and stimulus. There is a deep social need to participate in shaping the basic of one’s own existence, and to make some contribution to the fashioning of the world’s future. Above all, development includes the right to work, by which we mean not simply having a job but finding self-realization in work, the right not to be alienated through production processes that use human beings simply as tools.
2. The diversity of Development
Many of these more than material needs, goals and values, depend on the satisfaction of the basic needs which are our primary concern. There is no consensus today what strategies to pursue in order to arrive at the satisfaction of basic needs. But there are some good examples even among poor countries. They make clear that the point of departure for the development process varies considerably from one country to another, for historical, cultural and other reasons. Consequently, we emphasize the need for pursuing many different roads of development. We reject the unilinear view which sees development essentially and inevitably as the effort to initiate the historical model of the countries that for various reasons happen to be rich today. For this reason, we reject the concept of “gaps” in development. The goal is not “to catch up” but to ensure the quality of life for all with a productive base compatible with the needs of future generations.
We have spoken of the minimum satisfaction of basic needs. But there is also a maximum level, there are ceilings as well as floors. Man must eat to live. But he can also over-eat. It does not help us much to produce and consume more and more if the result is an ever increasing need for tranquilizers and mental hospitals. And just as man has a limited capacity to absorb material goods, we know that the biosphere has a finite carrying capacity. Some countries tax it in a way that is far out of proportion with their share in world population. Thus they create environment problems for others as well as for themselves.
Consequently, the world is today not only faced with the anomaly of underdevelopment. We may also talk about over consumptive types of development that violate the inner limits of man and the outer limits of nature. Seen in this perspective, we are all in need of a redefinition of our goals, of new development strategies, of new life styles, including more modest patterns of consumption among the rich. Even though the first priority goes to securing the minima we shall be looking for those development strategies that also may help the affluent countries, in their enlightened self-interest, in finding more human patterns of life, less exploitative of nature, of others, of oneself.
3. Self-reliance
We believe that one basic strategy of development will have to be increased national self-reliance. It does not mean autarky. It implies mutual benefits from trade and cooperation and a fairer redistribution of resources satisfying the basic needs. It does not mean self-confidence, reliance primarily on one’s own resources, human and natural, and the capacity for autonomous goal-setting and decision-making. It excludes dependence on outside influences and powers that can be converted into political pressure. It excludes exploitative trade patterns depriving countries of their natural resources for their own development. There is obviously a scope for transfer of technology, but the thrust should be on adaptation and the generation of local technology. It implies decentralization of the world economy, and sometimes also of the national economy to enhance the sense of personal participation. But it also implies increased international cooperation for collective self-reliance. Above all, it means trust in people and nations, reliance on the capacity of people themselves to invent and generate new resources and techniques to increase their capacity to absorb them to put them to socially beneficial use, to take a measure of command over the economy, and to generate their own way of life.
In this process education for full social awareness and participation will play a fundamental role and the extent to which this is compatible with present patterns of schooling will have to be explored.
To arrive at this condition of self-reliance, fundamental, economic, social and political changes of the structure of society will often be necessary. Equally necessary is the development of an international system compatible with and capable of supporting moves towards self-reliance.
Self-reliance at national levels may also imply a temporary detachment from the present economic system; it is impossible to develop self-reliance through full participation in a system that perpetuates economic dependence. Large parts of the world of today consist of a center exploiting a vast periphery and also our common heritage, the biosphere. The ideal we need is a harmonized cooperative world in which each part is a center, living at the expense of nobody else, in partnership with nature and in solidarity with future generations.
There is an international power structure that will resist moves in this direction. Its methods are well known: the purposive maintenance of the built-in bias of the existing international market mechanisms, other forms of economic manipulations, withdrawing or withholding credits, embargoes, economic sanctions, subversive use of intelligence agencies, repression including torture, counter-insurgency operations, even full-scale intervention. To those contemplating the use of such methods we say: “hands-off. Leave countries to find their own road to a fuller life of their citizens.” To those who are the -sometimes unwilling- tools of such designs- scholars, businessmen, police, soldiers and many others- we would say: “refuse to be used for purposes of denying another nations the right to develop itself”. To the natural and social scientists, who help design the instruments of oppression we would say: “the world needs your talents for constructive purposes, to develop new technologies that benefit man and do not harm the environment.”
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 29 Mar 2010.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The Cocoyoc Declaration, is included. Thank you.
Reproduced from: sci-hub.tw/10.1017/S0020818300031805
(1975). The Cocoyoc Declaration. International Organization, 29, pp 893-901 doi:10.1017/S0020818300031805
The Cocoyoc Declaration
Adopted by the participants in the UNEP/UNCTAD symposium on “Patterns of Resource Use, Environment and Development Strategies.” Cocoyoc, Mexico, October 8-12, 1974
On October 8, 1974, a special meeting was convened in Cocoyoc, Mexico, by two United Nations bodies charged with questions of technological and economic import, UNCTAD and UNEP. The meeting was composed of experts serving in their individual capacities, presided over by Lady Barbara Jackson. Since the purpose of the gathering was to discuss the implications of technologies destructive of the physical environment in terms of overall considerations of quality of life, economic development, social harmony, and international concord its conclusions speak directly to the issues addressed in this volume. These conclusions are among the first systematic attempts to state, under United Nations auspices, the connections between the issues of environmental protection and the redistribution of global economic and social resources. We therefore reprint the “Cocoyoc Declaration” in its entirety.
Thirty years have passed since the signing of the United Nations Charter launched the effort to establish a new international order. Today, that order has reached a critical turning point. Its hopes of creating a better life for the whole human family have been largely frustrated. It has proved impossible to meet the “inner limit” of satisfying fundamental human needs. On the contrary, more people are hungry, sick, shelterless and illiterate today than when the United Nations was first set up.
At the same time, new and unforeseen concerns have begun to darken the international prospects. Environmental degradation and the rising pressure on resources raise the question whether the “outer limits” of the planet’s physical integrity may not be at risk.
And to these preoccupations must be added the realization that the next thirty years will bring a doubling of world population. Another world on top of this, equal in numbers, demands and hopes.
But these critical pressures give no reason to despair of the human enterprise, provided we undertake the necessary changes. The first point to be underlined is that the failure of world society to provide “a safe and happy life” for all is not caused by any present lack of physical resources. The problem today is not primarily one of absolute physical shortage but of economic and social maldistribution and misuse; mankind’s predicament is rooted primarily in economic and social structures and behaviour within and between countries.
Much of the world has not yet emerged from the historical consequences of almost five centuries of colonial control which concentrated economic power so overwhelmingly in the hands of a small group of nations. To this day, at least three quarters of the world’s income, investment, services and almost all of the world’s research are in the hands of one quarter of its people.
The solution of these problems cannot be left to the automatic operation of market mechanisms. The traditional market makes resources available to those who can buy them rather than those who need them, it stimulates artificial demands and builds waste into the production process, and even underutilizes resources. In the international system the powerful nations have secured the poor countries’ raw materials at low prices–for example, the price of petroleum fell decisively between 1950 and 1970–have engrossed all the value-added from processing the materials and sold the manufactures back, often at monopoly prices.
At the same time, the very cheapness of the materials was one element in encouraging the industrialized nations to indulge in careless and extravagant use of the imported materials. Once again, energy is the best example. Oil at just over a dollar a barrel stimulated a growth in energy use of between six and eleven per cent a year. In Europe, the annual increase in car registrations reached twenty per cent.
Indeed pre-emption by the rich of a disproportionate share of key resources conflicts directly with the longer term interests of the poor by impairing their ultimate access to resources necessary to their development and by increasing their cost. All the more reason for creating a new system of evaluating resources which takes into account the benefits and the burdens for the developing countries.
The overall effect of such biased economic relationships can best be seen in the contrast in consumption. A North American or a European child, on average, consumes outrageously more than his Indian or African counterpart–a fact which makes it specious to attribute pressure on world resources entirely to the growth of Third World population.
Population growth is, of course, one element in the growing pressures on world supplies. The planet is finite and an indefinite multiplication of both numbers and claims cannot be endlessly sustained. Moreover, shortages can occur locally long before there is any prospect of a general exhaustion of particular resources. A policy for sane resource conservation and for some forms of management of ultimately scarce resources within the framework of a new economic order must soon replace today’s careless rapacity. But the point in the existing world situation is that the huge contrasts in per capita consumption between the rich minority and the poor majority have far more effect than their relative numbers on resource use and depletion. We can go further.
Since a lack of resources for full human development is, as the Bucharest Conference on Population clearly recognized, one of the continuing causes of explosive population growth, to deprive nations of the means of development directly exacerbates their demographic problems.
These unequal economic relationships contribute directly to environmental pressures. The cheapness of materials has been one factor in increasing pollution and encouraging waste and throwaway economy among the rich. And continued poverty in many developing lands has often compelled the people to cultivate marginal lands at great risk of soil erosion or to migrate to the physically degraded and overcrowded cities.
Nor are the evils which flow from excessive reliance on the market system confined to international relationships. The experience of the last thirty years is that the exclusive pursuit of economic growth, guided by the market and undertaken by and for the powerful elites, has the same destructive effects inside developing countries. The richest 5 per cent engross all the gain while the poorest 20 per cent can actually grow poorer still. And at the local as at the international level the evils of material poverty are compounded by the people’s lack of participation and human dignity, by their lack of any power to determine their own fate.
Nothing more clearly illustrates both the need to reform the present economic order and the possibility of doing so than the crisis that has arisen in world markets during the last two years. The trebling of the price of food, fertilizers and manufactures in the wake of world inflation has most severely hit the world’s poorest peoples. Indeed, this winter the risk of a complete shortfall in supplies threatens the lives of millions in the Third World. But it cannot be called absolute shortage. The grain exists, but it is being eaten elsewhere by very well-fed people. Grain consumption in North America has grown per capita by 350 pounds, largely in meat products, since 1965-to reach 1900 pounds today. Yet this extra 350 pounds is almost equal to an Indian’s total annual consumption. North Americans were hardly starving in 1965. The increase since then has contributed to super- consumption which even threatens health. Thus, in physical terms, there need be no shortage this winter. It requires only a small release from the ‘surplus’ of the rich to meet the entire Asian shortfall. There could hardly be a more vivid example of what one might call the overconsumption of the wealthy nations contributing directly to the underconsumption of the world’s poor.
The quadrupling of oil prices through the combined action of the oil producers sharply alters the balance of power in world markets and redistributes resources massively to some Third World countries. Its effect has been to reverse decisively the balance of advantage in the oil trade and to place close to 100 billions a year at the disposal of some Third World nations. Moreover, in an area critical to the economies of industrialized states, a profound reversal of power exposes them to the condition long familiar in the Third World-lack of control over vital economic decisions.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the degree to which the world market system which has continuously operated to increase the power and wealth of the rich and maintain the relative deprivation of the poor is rooted not in unchangeable physical circumstance but in political relationships which can, of their very nature, undergo profound reversals and transformations. In a sense, a new economic order is already struggling to be born. The crisis of the old system can also be the opportunity of the new.
It is true that, at present, the outlook seems to hold little but confrontation, misunderstanding, threats and angry dispute. But again, we repeat, there is no reason to despair. The crisis can also be a moment of truth from which the nations learn to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the old system and to seek the framework of a new economic order.
The task of statemanship is thus to attempt to guide the nations, with all their differences in interest, power and fortune, toward a new system more capable of meeting the ‘inner limits’ of basic human needs for all the world’s people and of doing so without violating the ‘outer limits’ of the planet’s resources and environment. It is because we believe this enterprise to be both vital and possible that we set down a number of changes, in the conduct of economic policy, in the direction of development and in planetary conservation, which appear to us to be essential components of the new system.
I. The purpose of development
Our first concern is to redefine the whole purpose of development. This should not be to develop things but to develop man. Human beings have basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, health, education. Any process of growth that does not lead to their fulfillment–or, even worse, disrupts them–is a travesty of the idea of development. We are still in a stage where the most important concern of development is the level of satisfaction of basic needs for the poorest sections in each society which can be as high as 40 per cent of the population. The primary purpose of economic growth should be to ensure the improvement of conditions for these groups. A growth process that benefits only the wealthiest minority and maintains or even increases the disparities between and within countries is not development. It is exploitation. And the time for starting the type of true economic growth that leads to better distribution and to the satisfaction of the basic needs for all is today. We believe that thirty years of experience with the hope that rapid economic growth benefiting the few will ‘trickle down’ to the mass of the people has proved to be illusory. We therefore reject the idea of “growth first, justice in the distribution of benefits later.”
Development should not be limited to the satisfaction of basic needs. There are other needs, other goals, and other values. Development includes freedom of expression and impression, the right to give and to receive ideas and stimulus. There is a deep social need to participate in shaping the basis of one’s own existence, and to make some contribution to the fashioning of the world’s future. Above all, development includes the right to work, by which we mean not simply having a job but finding self-realization in work, the right not to be alienated through production processes that use human beings simply as tools.
2. The diversity of development
Many of these more than material needs, goals and values, depend on the satisfaction of the basic needs which are our primary concern. There is no consensus today on what strategies to pursue in order to arrive at the satisfaction of basic needs. But there are some good examples even among poor countries. They make clear that the point of departure for the development process varies considerably from one country to another, for historical, cultural and other reasons. Conse- quently, we emphasize the need for pursuing many different roads of development. We reject the unilinear view which sees development essentially and inevitably as the effort to initiate the historical model of the countries that for various reasons happen to be rich today. For this reason, we reject the concept of ‘gaps’ in development. The goal is not to ‘catch up,’ but to ensure the quality of life for all with a productive base compatible with the needs of future generations.
We have spoken of the minimum satisfaction of basic needs. But there is also a maximum level, there are ceilings as well as floors. Man must eat to live. But he can also over-eat. It does not help us much to produce and consume more and more if the result is an ever increasing need for tranquilizers and mental hospitals. And just as man has a limited capacity to absorb material goods, we know that the biosphere has a finite carrying capacity. Some countries tax it in a way that is far out of proportion with their share in world population. Thus they create environment problems for others as well as for themselves.
Consequently, the world is today not only faced with the anomaly of underdevelopment. We may also talk about overconsumptive types of development that violate the inner limits of man and the outer limits of nature. Seen in this perspective, we are all in need of a redefinition of our goals, of new development strategies, of new life styles, including more modest patterns of consumption among the rich. Even though the first priority goes to securing the minima we shall be looking for those development strategies that also may help the affluent countries, in their enlightened self-interest, in finding more human patterns of life, less exploitative of nature, of others, of oneself.
3. Self-reliance
We believe that one basic strategy of development will have to be increased national self-reliance. It does not mean autarky. It implies mutual benefits from trade and cooperation and a fairer redistribution of resources satisfying the basic needs. It does mean self-confidence, reliance primarily on one’s own resources, human and natural, and the capacity for autonomous goal-setting and decision-making. It excludes dependence on outside influences and powers that can be converted into political pressure. It excludes exploitative trade patterns depriving countries of their natural resources for their own development. There is obviously a scope for transfer of technology, but the thrust should be on adaptation and the generation of local technology. It implies decentralization of the world economy, and sometimes also of the national economy to enhance the sense of personal participation. But it also implies increased international cooperation for collective self-reliance. Above all, it means trust in people and nations, reliance on the capacity of people themselves to invent and generate new resources and techniques to increase their capacity to absorb them, to put them to socially beneficial use, to take a measure of command over the economy, and to generate their own way of life.
In this process education for full social awareness and participation will play a fundamental role and the extent to which this is compatible with present patterns of schooling will have to be explored.
To arrive at this condition of self-reliance, fundamental economic, social and political changes of the structure of society will often be necessary. Equally necessary is the development of an international system compatible with and capable of supporting moves towards self-reliance.
Self-reliance at national levels may also imply a temporary detachment from the present economic system; it is impossible to develop self-reliance through full participation in a system that perpetuates economic dependence. Large parts of the world of today consist of a center exploiting a vast periphery and also our common heritage, the biosphere. The ideal we need is a harmonized cooperative world in which each part is a center, living at the expense of nobody else, in partnership with nature and in solidarity with future generations.
There is an international power structure that will resist moves in this direction. Its methods are well known: the purposive maintenance of the built-in bias of the existing international market mechanisms, other forms of economic manipulation, withdrawing or withholding credits, embargoes, economic sanctions, subversive use of intelligence agencies, repression including torture, counter-insurgency operations, even full-scale intervention. To those contemplating the use of such methods we say: “Hands-off. Leave countries to find their own road to a fuller life for their citizens.” To those who are the–sometimes unwilling–tools of such designs–scholars, businessmen, police, soldiers and many others–we would say: “refuse to be used for purposes of denying another nation the right to· develop itself.” To the natural and social scientists, who help design the instruments of oppression we would say: “the world needs your talents for constructive purposes, to develop new technologies that benefit man and do not harm the environment.”
4. Suggestions for action
We call on political leaders, governments, international organizations and the scientific community to use their imagination and resources to elaborate and start implementing, as soon as possible, programs aimed at satisfying the basic needs of the poorest peoples all over the world, including, wherever appropriate, the distribution of goods in kind. These programs should be designed in such a way as to ensure adequate conservation of resources and protection of the environment.
We consider that the above task could be made easier by instituting a new, more cooperative, and equitable international economic order.
We are aware that the world system and the national policies cannot be changed overnight. The major changes which are required to answer the critical challenges facing mankind at this turning point of history need some time to mature. But they have to be started immediately, and acquire a growing impetus. The Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on a New Economic Order has given the process a right start and we fully endorse it. This, however, is a very preliminary step which should develop into a great tide of international activities.
The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, proposed by the President of Mexico, Lie. Luis Echevarria, and now under discussion at the United Nations, would be a further important step in the right direction. We urge that it be adopted as early as possible.
In a framework of national sovereignty over natural resources, governments and international institutions should further the management of resources and environment on a global scale. The first aim would be to benefit those who need these resources most and to do so in accordance with the principle of solidarity with future generations.
We support the setting up of strong international regimes for the exploitation of common property resources that do not fall under any national jurisdiction. We especially emphasize the importance of the ocean floor and its subsoil, possibly also the water column above it. An oceans regime has to be established with all countries of the world represented, favoring none and discriminating against none, with jurisdiction over a maximum area of the oceans. Such a regime would gradually develop the type of resource conserving and environmentally sound technology required to explore, develop, process and distribute ocean resources for the benefit of those who need them most.
The uses of international commons should be taxed for the benefit of the poorest strata of the poor countries. This would be a first step towards the establishment of an international taxation system aimed at providing automatic transfers of resources to development assistance. Together with the release of funds through disarmament, international taxation should eventually replace traditional assistance programs. Pending the establishment of these new mechanisms, we strongly recommend that the flow of international resources to Third World countries should be greatly increased and rigorously dedicated to basic needs of the poorest strata of society.
Science and technology must be responsive to the goals we are pursuing. Present research and development patterns do not effectively contribute to them. We call on universities, other institutions of higher learning, research organizations, scientific associations all over the world to reconsider their priorities. Mindful of the benefits deriving from free and basic research, we underline the fact that there is a reservoir of underutilized creative energy in the whole scientific community of the world, and that it should be more focused on research for the satisfaction of fundamental needs. This research should be done as far as possible in the poor countries and thus help to reverse the brain-drain.
A rejuvenated United Nations System should be used to strengthen the local capabilities for research and technology assessment in the developing countries, to promote cooperation between them in these areas and to support research in a better and more imaginative utilization of potentially abundant resources for the satisfaction of the fundamental needs of mankind.
At the same time, new approaches to development styles ought to be introduced at the national level. They call for imaginative research into alternative consumption patterns, technological styles, land use strategies as well as the institutional framework and the educational requirements to sustain them. Resource-absorbing and waste creating over-consumption should be restrained while production of essentials for the poorest sections of the population is stepped up. Low waste and clean technologies should replace the environmentally disruptive ones. More harmonious networks of human settlements could be evolved to avoid further congestion of metropolitan areas and marginalization of the countryside.
In many developing countries the new development styles would imply a much more rational use of the available labour-force to implement programs aimed at the conservation of natural resources, enhancement of environment, creation of the necessary infrastructure and services to grow more food as well as the strengthening of domestic industrial capacity to turn out commodities satisfying basic needs.
On the assumption of a more equitable international economic order, some of the problems of resource maldistribution and space use could be taken care of by changing the industrial geography of the world. Energy, resource and environmental considerations add new strength to the legitimate aspirations of the poor countries to see their share in world industrial production considerably increased.
Concrete experiments in the field are also necessary. We consider that the present efforts of the United Nations Environment Programme to design strategies and assist projects for ecologically sound socio-economic development (eco- development) at the local and regional level constitute an important contribution to this task. Conditions should be created for people to learn by themselves through practice how to make the best possible use of the specific resources of the ecosystem in which they live, how to design appropriate technologies, how to organize and educate themselves to this end.
We call on leaders of public opinion, on educators, on all interested bodies to contribute to an increased public awareness of both the origins and the severity of the critical situation facing mankind today. All people have the right to understand fully the nature of the system of which he is a part, as a producer, as a consumer, as one among the billions populating the earth. He has a right to know who benefits from the fruits of his work, who benefits from what he buys and sells, and the degree to which he enhances or degrades his planetary inheritance.
We call on governments to prepare themselves for action at the 1975 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly so that the dimension and concepts of development are expanded, the goals of development are given their rightful place in the United Nations System and the necessary structural changes initiated. We affirm our belief that since the issues of development, environment and resource use are essentially global and concern the wellbeing of all mankind, governments should fully use the mechanisms of the United Nations for their resolution and that the United Nations System should be renewed and strengthened to be capable of its new responsibilities.
5. Epilogue
We recognize the threats to both the ‘inner limits’ of basic human needs and the ‘outer limits’ of the planet’s physical resources. But we also believe that a new sense of respect for fundamental human rights and for the preservation of our planet is growing up behind the angry divisions and confrontations of our day.
We have faith in the future of mankind on this planet. We believe that ways of life and social systems can be evolved that are more just, less arrogant in their material demands, more respectful of the whole planetary environment. The road forward does not lie through the despair of doom-watching nor through the easy optimism of successive technological fixes. It lies through a careful and dispassionate assessment of the ‘outer limits,’ through cooperative search for ways to achieve the ‘inner limits’ of fundamental human rights, through the building of social structures to express those rights, and through all the patient work of devising techniques and styles of development which enhance and preserve our planetary inheritance.
Reproduced from: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2011/12/BERNIER/47041 and translated into English by Google Translate. [The original French version is reproduced here.]
At the Cocoyoc conference, the South linked ecology and equality
In 1974, in Cocoyoc, Mexico, a United Nations (UN) conference formulated a radical critique of “development”, the free-trade model, and North-South relations. The conclusions were quickly buried …
by Aurélien Bernier, December 2011
Scheduled every few months, two international meetings on ecology occupy diplomatic calendars: the Durban Conference (South Africa) on climate change, from November 28 to December 9, 2011, and the Earth Summit in Rio , from June 20 to 22, 2012. Against the backdrop of the economic crisis, few are likely to bet on a positive progress of negotiations during these meetings.
After the summits of Copenhagen (2009) and Cancún (2010), the theme of climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases is placed in the range of secondary concerns. As for the summits of the Earth, which take place every ten years, that of Stockholm, in 1972, had raised the hope of a concerted action to protect the planet; the one in Nairobi in 1982 found the complete failure of the “international community”, and those in Rio in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002 hailed the recovery of ecology by multinationals. To be sure, a concert of praises addressed to the “green” capitalism will punctuate the 2012 edition, which will again be welcomed by Brazil.
Yet, forgotten treasures sleep in the archives of the United Nations (UN). Thus, the most radical declaration on the environment resulting from this institution is erased from the official history. Written in October 1974 in the Mexican city of Cocoyoc, it drew the outlines of a new international order at odds with the one currently imposed on us.
It all started in 1971 in the Swiss city of Founex, near Geneva, where the UN brought together personalities responsible for preparing the Stockholm Earth Summit: from northern and southern countries, these experts were selected for their expertise in environment, economics, social sciences and development. They have no mandate from their government and produce an unofficial report, which will nevertheless guide negotiations between states.
The “Founex report”, a summary of the first works, considers that “poverty is the worst pollution” and that it must be combated first. Influenced by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), members of the “Founex Group” defend the right to industrialization of poor countries and believe that free trade is a good strategy to achieve this. A few months later, the Stockholm Summit draws on these reflections. States conclude that ecological issues must be articulated with development problems and laid the foundation for international environmental law, while taking care to confirm the validity of free trade. Unhappy with this compromise, some countries of the South are calling for the establishment of a “new international economic order” to put an end to the hegemony of the Western powers.
Objectors of growth before the letter
From 8 to 12 October 1974, a new UN conference brings together in Cocoyoc international experts to discuss “the use of resources, the environment and development strategies.” The event is coordinated by the man Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and Sri Lankan economist and diplomat Gamani Corea, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD). On the rapporteur’s side are Barbara Ward – a British economist – on natural resource issues and Johan Galtung – a Norwegian politologist and sociologist who is openly anti-capitalist and anti-American – on development issues.
Among the intellectuals gathered in Cocoyoc, many show a penchant for socialism. Corea is a permanent secretary in the Ministry of Planning and Economic Affairs of Sri Lanka, a government that nationalizes oil companies, banks, insurance, schools … and is close to the communist bloc. The co-presidency of the Mexican meeting falls to two personalities from developing countries. The first, Dr. Wilbert K. Chagula, is Tanzania’s Minister of Economic Affairs and Development Planning, chaired by former teacher Julius Nyerere – who, from 1967, nationalizes key industries and service companies. , raises taxes to finance social policies and launches a major agrarian reform. The second, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, a Mexican sociologist, head of the research project on agrarian reform in his country, focused his work on the class struggle in the agricultural world.
Mexico, which hosts the conference, is chaired since 1970 by Mr. Luis Echeverría Alvarez, who nationalizes mines and energy, redistributes land to peasants and implements a progressive (though not revolutionary) social policy. It shows its proximity to the Salvador Allende regime in Chile and Cuba (1). President Echeverría participates in person at the Cocoyoc seminar.
The final declaration, dated October 23, 1974, is an indictment of Western policies. Its first paragraph highlights the failure of the United Nations, whose Charter, drafted in 1945, produced an unjust international order. “The hungry, the homeless and the illiterate are more numerous today than when the United Nations was created. The balance of power from “five centuries of colonial control that has massively concentrated economic power in the hands of a small group of nations” has not changed. For the rapporteurs, the problem is not related to a lack of wealth produced, but to their “poor distribution and [misuse]”.
In a register that the growth objectors of the 2000s would not deny, the Cocoyoc declaration openly challenges the dictatorship of the increase in the gross domestic product: “A growth process that benefits only a very small minority and keeps or increases disparities between countries and within countries is not development. It’s exploitation. (…) Therefore, we reject the idea of growth first and fair distribution of profits next. “
The model of development defended in Cocoyoc does not focus on economic issues. It highlights the importance of lifestyles, values, the emancipation of peoples, individual and collective rights. It includes “the right to work, which does not only mean the right to have a job, but to find a personal fulfillment, the right not to be alienated through production processes that use men as tools “.
The myths of the market economy are swept away. “Solutions to these problems cannot come from self-regulation through market mechanisms,” it says. Traditional markets provide access to resources for those who can pay rather than those who need them; they stimulate an artificial demand and generate waste in the production process. Some resources are even underutilized. “
In contrast to the dominant GATT discourses, environmental degradation is attributed to unfair economic relations and the derisory price of raw materials on the markets. Experts believe that the countries of the South must create alliances on the model of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order to demand decent prices for all raw materials. In parallel, they recommend establishing an international management of the “commons” (read “Making the common goods inalienable“), through the construction of a solid legal system. The goal is to empower nations without falling into autarky. To achieve this, the rapporteurs do not claim “help” from rich countries, but that they pay the right price for raw materials.
Promote economic independence
Instead of blaming the individual – a trend that has been popular in recent years – Cocoyoc’s statement states that “everyone has the right to fully understand the nature of the system of which he is a producer, consumer, and above all as one of the billion inhabitants of the planet. He has the right to know who benefits from his work, who benefits from what he buys and sells, and how it enriches or degrades the global heritage.” Environmental education must find its place in a broader educational project, which does not erase the relations of domination but, conversely, the explicit ones.
Finally, contrary to the “Founex report” preparatory to the Stockholm Conference, which defended free trade and the role of commercial arbitrator held by the GATT, the Cocoyoc declaration affirms the centrality of the United Nations and the principle of “a country, a voice”. “We strongly believe that, since the subjects of development, the environment and the use of resources are essential global problems and which concern the well-being of all humanity, governments should make full use of the mechanisms of the United Nations. to resolve them and that the United Nations system should be renovated and strengthened to meet its new responsibilities.”
Cocoyoc’s statement impresses with the political perspectives she draws. It defines underdevelopment not as a “lagging” development, but as the product of the development of rich countries. The expansion of capitalism passes through the stranglehold of the multinationals on the raw materials of the countries of the South, so that there will always be exploiters and exploited. It is the market economy that is challenged and, hollowed out, free trade. The call to break does not suffer any ambiguity. It is not a matter of simply adjusting the system, but of coming out of it: “Autonomy at the national level also implies a temporary detachment from the current economic system. It is impossible to develop autonomy through full participation in a system that perpetuates economic dependence. Thus states must, according to the declaration, refuse the submission to an external dependence, organize a collective autonomy and cooperate, in particular to manage the common goods.
The declaration therefore calls for the construction of an ecological socialism by sovereign states, in an internationalist perspective. Humorously, the authors go so far as to offer their services to the rich countries to help them get out of their over-consumption and bad living. “There is no point in producing and consuming more if an increase in antidepressant medication and psychiatric hospital stays result,” they say.
Immediately after the publication of the text, the presidents of the conference receive a long telegram from US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who rejects the entire statement. The major economic powers will take matters into their own hands, and the economic crisis of 1973 will offer the opportunity to rediscuss or marginalize too critical states, which are plunged into misery by seeing the price of their imports soar. For the continuation of the negotiations on the “new international economic order”, the rich countries multiply the places of discussions to dilute the influence of the UN, where the South is majority. In December 1975, the conference on international economic cooperation held in Paris unites twenty-seven states: eight rich countries, the main members of OPEC, but none of the countries that dispute the foundations of capitalism or international division of work – which has not yet found its name of “globalization”. Some big southern countries are playing the game of the United States, Europe and Japan by claiming a greater place in the world economy, without wanting to change the rules.
Prescriptions forgotten
Thus, despite the signing of a treaty of friendship, peace and cooperation with the Soviet Union on August 9, 1971, India led by Indira Gandhi pursues an ambiguous economic policy, a kind of “third way” between socialism and capitalism; in Brazil, the current military dictatorship has achieved a record growth rate thanks to an influx of Western capital. In the early 1980s, the neoliberal counterrevolution definitely took away what was left of Cocoyoc’s claims.
Today, a search on the United Nations site gives access to only a few lines evoking the symposium of October 1974. There is a short quote from the final declaration: “The way forward does not go through despair by the end of the world, or by a blissful optimism in the face of successive technological solutions. On the contrary, it passes by a meticulous and passionless appreciation of the “outer limits” [the preservation of a balanced environment], by a collective search for ways to reach the “inner limits” of fundamental rights [the satisfaction of human needs fundamental], by building social structures expressing these rights and by all the patient work of developing techniques and styles of development that enhance and preserve our global heritage. Could Cocoyoc’s work be evoked while at the same time systematically erasing the subversion and political perspectives of the original text?
Aurélien Bernier
Author of Disobedients to the European Union!, Thousand and One Nights, Paris, 2011.
A la conférence de Cocoyoc, le Sud liait écologie et égalité
En 1974, à Cocoyoc, au Mexique, un colloque de l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU) formulait une critique radicale du « développement », du modèle libre-échangiste et des rapports Nord-Sud. Ses conclusions furent vite enterrées…
par Aurélien Bernier, décembre 2011
Programmées à quelques mois d’intervalle, deux rencontres internationales sur l’écologie occupent les calendriers diplomatiques : la conférence de Durban (Afrique du Sud) sur le changement climatique, du 28 novembre au 9 décembre 2011, et le sommet de la Terre à Rio, du 20 au 22 juin 2012. Sur fond de crise économique, peu se risquent à parier sur une avancée positive des négociations lors de ces rendez-vous.
Après les sommets de Copenhague (2009) et de Cancún (2010), le thème du changement climatique et de la réduction des gaz à effet de serre est rangé au rayon des préoccupations accessoires. Quant aux sommets de la Terre, qui ont lieu tous les dix ans, celui de Stockholm, en 1972, avait suscité l’espoir d’une action concertée pour protéger la planète ; celui de Nairobi, en 1982, a constaté l’échec complet de la « communauté internationale », et ceux de Rio en 1992 et Johannesburg en 2002 ont salué la récupération de l’écologie par les multinationales. A n’en pas douter, un concert de louanges adressées au capitalisme « vert » rythmera l’édition 2012, laquelle sera à nouveau accueillie par le Brésil.
Pourtant, des trésors oubliés dorment dans les archives de l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU). Ainsi, la déclaration la plus radicale sur l’environnement issue de cette institution est gommée de l’histoire officielle. Rédigée en octobre 1974 dans la ville mexicaine de Cocoyoc, elle dessinait les contours d’un nouvel ordre international aux antipodes de celui qui nous est imposé actuellement.
Tout commence en 1971 dans la ville suisse de Founex, près de Genève, où l’ONU réunit des personnalités chargées de préparer le sommet de la Terre de Stockholm : venus de pays du Nord et du Sud, ces experts sont sélectionnés pour leurs compétences en matière d’environnement, d’économie, de sciences sociales, de développement. Ils ne disposent d’aucun mandat de leur gouvernement et produisent un rapport non officiel, qui permettra pourtant d’orienter les négociations entre Etats.
Le « rapport Founex », synthèse des premiers travaux, estime que « la pauvreté est la pire des pollutions » et qu’il faut la combattre en priorité. Influencés par l’Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce (Gatt), les membres du « groupe Founex » défendent le droit à l’industrialisation des pays pauvres et pensent que le libre-échange est une bonne stratégie pour y parvenir. Quelques mois plus tard, le sommet de Stockholm puise dans ces réflexions. Les Etats concluent qu’il faut articuler les questions d’écologie avec les problèmes de développement et posent les bases d’un droit international de l’environnement, tout en prenant soin de confirmer le bien-fondé du libre-échange. Mécontents de ce compromis, certains pays du Sud réclament l’instauration d’un « nouvel ordre économique international » pour mettre un terme à l’hégémonie des puissances occidentales.
Objecteurs de croissance avant la lettre
Du 8 au 12 octobre 1974, un nouveau colloque de l’ONU réunit à Cocoyoc des experts internationaux pour débattre « de l’utilisation des ressources, de l’environnement et des stratégies de développement ».L’événement est coordonné par l’homme d’affaires canadien Maurice Strong, directeur exécutif du Programme des Nations unies pour l’environnement (PNUE), et par l’économiste et diplomate sri-lankais Gamani Corea, secrétaire général de la Conférence des Nations unies sur le commerce et le développement (Cnuced). Du côté des rapporteurs, on trouve Barbara Ward — une économiste britannique — pour les questions de ressources naturelles et Johan Galtung — un politologue et sociologue norvégien ouvertement anticapitaliste et antiaméricain — pour les questions de développement.
Parmi les intellectuels rassemblés à Cocoyoc, beaucoup affichent un penchant pour le socialisme. Corea fait partie, en tant que secrétaire permanent au ministère de la planification et des affaires économiques du Sri Lanka, d’un gouvernement qui nationalise les compagnies pétrolières, les banques, les assurances, les écoles… et se rapproche du bloc communiste. La coprésidence de la réunion mexicaine échoit à deux personnalités issues de pays en développement. Le premier, le docteur Wilbert K. Chagula, est ministre des affaires économiques et de la planification du développement de la Tanzanie, présidée par l’ancien instituteur Julius Nyerere — lequel, à partir de 1967, nationalise les principales industries et les sociétés de services, augmente les impôts pour financer des politiques sociales et lance une grande réforme agraire. Le second, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, un sociologue mexicain, chef du projet de recherche sur la réforme agraire dans son pays, a orienté ses travaux sur la lutte des classes dans le monde agricole.
Le Mexique, justement, qui accueille la conférence, est présidé depuis 1970 par M. Luis Echeverría Alvarez, qui nationalise les mines et l’énergie, redistribue des terres aux paysans et met en œuvre une politique sociale progressiste (bien que non révolutionnaire). Il affiche sa proximité avec le régime de Salvador Allende, au Chili, et avec Cuba (1). Le président Echeverría participe en personne au séminaire de Cocoyoc.
La déclaration finale, datée du 23 octobre 1974, est un réquisitoire contre les politiques occidentales. Son premier paragraphe souligne l’échec des Nations unies, dont la Charte, élaborée en 1945, a produit un ordre international injuste. « Les affamés, les sans-abri et les illettrés sont plus nombreux aujourd’hui que lorsque les Nations unies ont été créées. » Les rapports de forces issus de « cinq siècles de contrôle colonial qui ont massivement concentré le pouvoir économique entre les mains d’un petit groupe de nations » n’ont pas été modifiés. Pour les rapporteurs, le problème n’est pas lié à un manque de richesses produites, mais à leur « mauvaise répartition et [à leur] mauvais usage ».
Dans un registre que ne renieraient pas les objecteurs de croissance des années 2000, la déclaration de Cocoyoc remet ouvertement en cause la dictature de l’augmentation du produit intérieur brut : « Un processus de croissance qui bénéficie seulement à une très petite minorité et qui maintient ou accroît les disparités entre pays et à l’intérieur des pays n’est pas du développement. C’est de l’exploitation. (…) Par conséquent, nous rejetons l’idée de la croissance d’abord et d’une juste répartition des bénéfices ensuite. »
Le modèle de développement défendu à Cocoyoc ne se focalise pas sur les questions économiques. Il met en avant l’importance des modes de vie, des valeurs, de l’émancipation des peuples, des droits individuels et collectifs. Il inclut « le droit de travailler, ce qui ne signifie pas seulement le droit d’avoir un travail, mais celui d’y trouver un accomplissement personnel, le droit de ne pas être aliéné à travers des procédés de production qui utilisent les hommes comme des outils ».
Les mythes de l’économie de marché sont balayés. « Les solutions à ces problèmes ne peuvent pas provenir de l’autorégulation par les mécanismes de marché, y lit-on. Les marchés classiques donnent un accès aux ressources à ceux qui peuvent payer plutôt qu’à ceux qui en ont besoin ; ils stimulent une demande artificielle et génèrent des déchets dans le processus de production. Certaines ressources sont même sous-utilisées. »
A rebours des discours dominants du Gatt, on impute la dégradation de l’environnement aux relations économiques inéquitables et au prix dérisoire des matières premières sur les marchés. Les experts pensent que les pays du Sud doivent créer des alliances sur le modèle de l’Organisation des pays exportateurs de pétrole (Opep) afin d’exiger des prix décents pour toutes les matières premières. En parallèle, ils recommandent de mettre en place une gestion internationale des « biens communs » (lire « Rendre inaliénables les biens communs »),grâce à l’édification d’un système juridique solide. L’objectif est de permettre l’autonomie des nations sans tomber dans l’autarcie. Pour y parvenir, les rapporteurs ne réclament pas une « aide » des pays riches, mais que ceux-ci payent au juste prix les matières premières.
Favoriser l’indépendance économique
Au lieu de culpabiliser l’individu — registre en vogue ces dernières années —, la déclaration de Cocoyoc affirme que « chacun a le droit de comprendre pleinement la nature du système dont il fait partie comme producteur, consommateur, et surtout comme l’un des milliards d’habitants de la planète. Il a le droit de savoir qui tire les bénéfices de son travail, qui tire les bénéfices de ce qu’il achète et vend, et la façon dont cela enrichit ou dégrade l’héritage planétaire ». L’éducation à l’environnement doit trouver sa place dans un projet éducatif plus large, qui ne gomme pas les rapports de domination mais, à l’inverse, les explicite.
Enfin, contrairement au « rapport Founex » préparatoire à la conférence de Stockholm, qui défendait le libre-échange et le rôle d’arbitre commercial tenu par le Gatt, la déclaration de Cocoyoc affirme la place centrale des Nations unies et du principe « un pays, une voix ». « Nous croyons fermement que, puisque les sujets du développement, de l’environnement et de l’utilisation des ressources sont des problèmes globaux essentiels et qui concernent le bien-être de toute l’humanité, les gouvernements devraient utiliser pleinement les mécanismes des Nations unies pour les résoudre et que le système des Nations unies devrait être rénové et renforcé pour faire face à ses nouvelles responsabilités. »
La déclaration de Cocoyoc impressionne par les perspectives politiques qu’elle dessine. Elle définit le sous-développement non comme un « retard » de développement, mais comme le produit du développement des pays riches. L’expansion du capitalisme passe en effet par la mainmise des multinationales sur les matières premières des pays du Sud, de sorte qu’il y aura toujours des exploiteurs et des exploités. C’est l’économie de marché qui est contestée et, en creux, le libre-échange. L’appel à la rupture ne souffre aucune ambiguïté. Il ne s’agit pas simplement d’aménager le système, mais d’en sortir : « L’autonomie au niveau national implique aussi un détachement temporaire du système économique actuel. Il est impossible de développer l’autonomie au travers de la participation pleine et entière à un système qui perpétue la dépendance économique. » Ainsi les Etats doivent-ils, selon la déclaration, refuser la soumission à une dépendance extérieure, organiser une autonomie collective et coopérer, notamment pour gérer les biens communs.
La déclaration lance donc un appel à la construction d’un socialisme écologique par des Etats souverains, dans une perspective internationaliste. Avec humour, les auteurs vont jusqu’à proposer d’offrir leurs services aux pays riches pour les aider à sortir de leur surconsommation et de leur mal-vivre. « Cela ne sert à rien de produire et de consommer de plus en plus s’il en résulte une augmentation de la prise d’antidépresseurs et des séjours en hôpital psychiatrique »,soulignent-ils.
Immédiatement après la publication du texte, les présidents de la conférence reçoivent un long télégramme du secrétaire d’Etat américain Henry Kissinger, qui rejette l’intégralité de la déclaration. Les grandes puissances économiques vont reprendre les choses en main, et la crise économique de 1973 offrira l’occasion de rediscipliner ou de marginaliser des Etats trop critiques, lesquels s’enfoncent dans la misère en voyant le prix de leurs importations grimper en flèche. Pour la suite des négociations sur le « nouvel ordre économique international », les pays riches multiplient les lieux de discussions pour diluer l’influence de l’ONU, où le Sud est majoritaire. En décembre 1975, la conférence sur la coopération économique internationale qui se tient à Paris ne réunit que vingt-sept Etats : huit pays riches, les principaux membres de l’Opep, mais aucun des pays qui contestent les fondements du capitalisme ou la division internationale du travail — laquelle n’a pas encore trouvé son nom de « mondialisation ». Certains grands pays du Sud font le jeu des Etats-Unis, de l’Europe et du Japon en revendiquant une plus grande place dans l’économie mondiale, sans pour autant vouloir en changer les règles.
Des prescriptions oubliées
Ainsi, malgré la signature d’un traité d’amitié, de paix et de coopération avec l’Union soviétique le 9 août 1971, l’Inde dirigée par Indira Gandhi poursuit une politique économique ambiguë, sorte de « troisième voie » entre le socialisme et le capitalisme ; au Brésil, la dictature militaire en place obtient un taux de croissance record grâce à un afflux de capitaux occidentaux. Au début des années 1980, la contre-révolution néolibérale emporte définitivement ce qu’il restait des revendications de Cocoyoc.
Aujourd’hui, une recherche sur le site des Nations unies ne donne accès qu’à quelques lignes évoquant le symposium d’octobre 1974. On y trouve une courte citation de la déclaration finale : « La voie à suivre ne passe pas par le désespoir, par la fin du monde, ou par un optimisme béat devant les solutions technologiques successives. Elle passe au contraire par une appréciation méticuleuse, sans passion, des “limites extérieures” [la préservation d’un environnement équilibré], par une recherche collective des moyens d’atteindre les “limites intérieures” des droits fondamentaux [la satisfaction des besoins humains fondamentaux], par l’édification de structures sociales exprimant ces droits et par tout le patient travail consistant à élaborer des techniques et des styles de développement qui améliorent et préservent notre patrimoine planétaire. » Pouvait-on évoquer les travaux de Cocoyoc tout en effaçant de façon aussi systématique la subversion et les perspectives politiques du texte d’origine ?
Aurélien Bernier
Auteur de Désobéissons à l’Union européenne !,Mille et une nuits, Paris, 2011.
