Читать книгу The Political Economy of the BRICS Countries - Группа авторов - Страница 70

Thus far, we have argued that two important aspects of BRICS and sustainable development. The first was that sustainable development is a global issue and the ultimate success or failure of sustainable development depends on a global consensus on a feasible plan that has to be implemented by all. Each nation or region on the other hand has a role to play too. National problems vary from region to region and from country to country. These specific problems have to be tackled locally or at the national level. However, national-level policies must be consistent with globally arrived at solutions and pathways. The second aspect discussed has been the fact that BRICS represent a wide and diverse set of nations covering four continents. Each nation has its own problems. Degrees of success on the broad measures of sustainability vary within BRICS. So do the policy framework and priorities. The only overarching feature of BRICS that might be considered important would be its size and growth potential which would, in the foreseeable future, make it a formidable block with global economic and political influence. The first feature is a matter of fact and evidence. The second feature of size leading to influence and importance is a matter of conjecture and forecast. The answer to the second question will remain contested, but a quick look at the history of BRICS might give us a better clue about the future.

The global sustainable agenda was born in 1992 at the Earth Summit. Two questions emerged from the summit: how to make sustainable development a reality, and who would provide the leadership? The contemporary UN agenda for meeting the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is a reflection of the Earth Summit outcomes. Today’s answers require actionable targets and a new mindset for those actions. Sustainability issues have more often than not been cast in two distinct sets of problems: one for the mature market economies already enjoying a high material standard of living and the other for the poor developing nations of the world with large-scale poverty and unemployment. The BRICS nations provide a midway solution to this dichotomy. The five nations together constitute a block which is neither very poor nor very rich, but growing at impressive rates.

BRICS can be considered to have the political potential as a coalition to provide leadership on sustainable development on a global scale (Papa, 2017). The wide diversity of these nations also allows new and distinct lessons to be learnt about solutions and making things work toward desired targets and priorities. The sheer geo-political weight of this group can help mobilize a diverse set of agents and organizations. Yet, the small number of governments involved can make consensus-building easier. Since the first BRIC summit in 2009, with South Africa joining the following year, the group has made some common progress in terms of cooperation and consensus. BRICS has established several common institutions, including a New Development Bank (NDB) with authorized capital of US $100 billion for infrastructure, and sustainable development projects (Kweitel, 2017).

The BRICS group has established strategic and political dialogue within itself and conducts joint programs through its institutions. The biggest contribution BRICS has been making is that it is setting the common goals for sustainable development for all, not only developing, nations. In this sense, it is providing the global leadership it was supposed to. BRICS has also increased its cooperation with the UN, UNESCO, WHO, and UNIDO. This would help build knowledge as well as share experiences about success stories and best practices.

However, there are many problems that remain in the still-embryonic coalition. Some criticism has come from the perception that the BRICS economic credentials are waning with the recession in Russia and the serious slowdown in Brazil and South Africa. Even the stars as far GDP growth is concerned, China and India, are marginally slowing down. The group’s environmental ambitions are limited, at least in the short term, when looking at the trade-offs between environmental management and rapid economic growth. Finally, it is argued that the political leverage of the block is also declining. Indeed, a new movement called ‘BRICS from below’ started in South Africa, has been claiming that BRICS is promoting ‘maldevelopment’ based on elitism, consumerism, and eco-destructive corporate-friendly policies. Other critiques have pointed out that though all the BRICS nations clearly have sustainable development as a priority of government policies, the group did not speak in one voice during the Open Working Group debates on SDGs set by the UNDP. The lack of progress of sustainability indicators in the BRICS has remained a cause of concern. A 2016 publication by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Bertelsmann Stiftung found that BRICS nations’ rankings on a sustainability index were very poor. Among 149 countries studied, Russia was ranked 47th, Brazil 52nd, China 76th, South Africa 99th, and India 110th.