 |
|
José Carlos Carvalho
|
"Oil should pay for sanitation" |
|
By Mario Osava*
Brazil proposes in Johannesburg: a dollar per barrel of petroleum to create a global fund to provide sanitation services for the world's poor population.
RIO DE JANEIRO - Brazil's Environment Minister José Carlos Carvalho is bringing before the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Aug 26-Sep 4) a controversial proposal to create an international fund to provide water-related services to the world's poor, paid for by a dollar-per-barrel tax on all petroleum sold.
This brainchild of Carvalho and the president of the National Water Agency Jerson Kelman is the second initiative Brazil will defend at the Johannesburg Summit that runs counter to big oil interests.
The first, embraced by Latin America and the Caribbean, sets a target for each country to be using 10 percent "clean energy" sources by the end of the decade.
The oil-financed water fund would not finance the construction of infrastructure but would rather pay the providing companies according to the poor population's needs. "It will not finance promises, but rather will pay for results," say the initiative's authors.
Tierramérica: Why tax petroleum to pay for sanitation and water
services?
Carvalho: On the one hand, it means applying the principle of "polluter pays". Petroleum is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction. All those who consume it, in rich and poor countries alike, should bear part of the costs. On the other hand, sanitation is a priority in fighting poverty. A third of humanity faces great difficulty in obtaining access to potable water, a factor that contributes to mortality and disease.
But the proposal excludes coal and natural gas?
Ideally, it would impose a tax on all polluting fossil fuels, which includes coal. But we don't have a final formula yet, but we do have an idea that opens up the debate. In addition to sanitation, the fund's resources could be applied to reforestation to absorb (greenhouse gas) carbon dioxide and recover environmentally degraded areas.
How much would this tax represent in revenues?
If all countries supported it, revenues would be nearly 30 billion dollars annually. That sum could ensure water and sanitation for all of the world's poor population in less than 20 years.
Do you think the adoption of this initiative is viable?
We want to put it up for debate. We have to include in the balance the costs of environmental damage and the interests of big oil. If a project wins the support of powerful actors like the United States, Japan and the European Union, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) would not have the political strength to reject it. The fund would benefit Latin America, Asia, and especially Africa. The Clean Development Mechanism that Brazil proposed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro Summit became a reality five years later (in 1997) in the Kyoto Protocol (on climate change). We hope this idea has the same luck.
What are Brazil's priorities at the Johannesburg Summit?
To ensure the application and effectiveness of the Rio 1992 commitments: the conventions on biodiversity, desertification and climate change, including the Kyoto Protocol. Brazil, alongside the rest of the Latin American and Caribbean countries, will propose a modification in the world energy matrix. The goal is that in 2010, ten percent of all energy used on the planet will come from renewable sources (such as wind, solar and water).
Do you think the emphasis that many countries are placing
on poverty could derail the debate and cause the Summit to fail?
The fight against poverty is an undeniable priority. But the solutions require changes in the global economic order. The farm subsidies granted in the rich countries -- which reach astronomical 400 billion dollars a year -- prevent the development of the poorest nations because they do not have access to markets. We do not accept alternatives based solely on philanthropy, in part because in 1992 it was established that the contribution of industrialized countries to international development should rise from 0.4 to 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product, but 10 years later it shrank to 0.2 percent. Furthermore, a profound change in the consumption patterns in wealthy countries is indispensable, and would have direct effects in improving the global environment.
But don't all of these issues lead in the end to the dead-end
of North-South disparities?
That's what this is about: the reconstruction of North-South relations. The solutions imply changing the world order that lies at the root of these problems. Without it, all the debate is mere rhetoric.
* Mario Osava is an IPS correspondent.
|
