home about ngls un-ngo relations publications un news staff/contacts faq links
|
|
home about ngls un-ngo relations publications un news staff/contacts faq links |
ROUNDUP 96 NOVEMBER 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development
| Introduction | |
After two years of intense preparations at the national,
regional and global levels, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) took place in Johannesburg (South Africa)
from 26 August-4 September 2002, seeking to assess the implementation of the Rio Principles and Agenda 21—adopted ten
years earlier in Rio de Janeiro at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, also known as the Earth
Summit)—and to devise a plan for their further implementation. Opening the WSSD, Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa
and also of the Summit, said, “Ten years after the last gathering in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, the time has come to reflect
a new on the state of the world. None of us cannot but be dismayed at what we see...” (see Box 1). Approximately 22,000 people attended the Johannesburg Summit, including 100 Heads of
State and Government; 10,000 delegates from Member States, intergovernmental organizations, official observers,
specialized agencies and associate members of regional commissions; some 8,000 representatives of major group
organizations (Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous People, NGOs, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions,
Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Communities and Farmers); as well as 4,000 media representatives
accredited to the Summit. A large number of NGO and civil society representatives were also in Johannesburg at
the same time to attend parallel events organized in light of the Summit, such as the Global People’s Forum. Meeting over a period of ten days, the WSSD
produced three main outcomes: As is customary at UN World Conferences and Summits, many governments, collectively
or individually, announced their own initiatives or reaffirmed initiatives they had already taken. Principal among these
in Johannesburg were the announcements by Russia and China that they were preparing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and
that Canada would soon put the issue before its Parliament, which means the treaty could come into force in the very near
future. The WSSD preparatory process encompassed a wide range of activities. Many Member
States convened their own national preparatory arrangements, while regional meetings were held from September
2001-November 2001 in Geneva, Nairobi, Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, and Phnom Penh in an attempt to gather information on
regional trends and policy findings. At the international level, the tenth session of the
UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD-10) acted as the first global substantive Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting. Four PrepComs were
held to determine the Summit’s agenda and negotiate its outcomes. The final preparatory meeting, PrepCom IV, was held at
the ministerial level in Bali (Indonesia) from 27 May-7 June 2002. In response to the challenge facing the WSSD of adopting an action-oriented approach
to sustainable development, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in May 2002, launched the
WEHAB initiative, focusing on the
five thematic areas he identified as key to progress at the Summit: water, energy, health, agricultural productivity and
biodiversity. At the time of the launch, negotiations among Member States on the Plan of Implementation were well
advanced and contained sections addressing these issues. The WEHAB initiative aimed to provide focus and impetus to
action in these five key areas by enlisting the support of the organizations of the UN system in developing framework
papers and related areas of activity. Each of the five papers identified the key issues and challenges, including
resource requirements; took into account the existing multilateral frameworks and agreements; and proposed a number of
targeted actions and examples of related activities. Many Member States followed the lead of the Secretary-General and prepared and
launched in Johannesburg initiatives consistent with the WEHAB approach. This co-ordinated effort of the UN system
enabled the WSSD to “jump-start” the follow-up and implementation process. The
WEHAB
issues also provided the structure
around which the partnership plenaries, initiative announcements and high-level roundtables were grouped in Johannesburg. PrepCom IV in Bali drew upon the Chairman’s text from PrepCom III to prepare a
document that aimed to: emphasize the need for a global partnership to achieve the objectives of sustainable development;
reconfirm the need for an integrated and strategically focused approach to the implementation of Agenda 21; and address
the main challenges and opportunities faced by the international community. Although the session was supposed to
conclude negotiation of the implementation plan, day and night negotiations by ministers during the last three days of
the session failed to produce consensus on crucial areas of the plan, particularly trade, finance, globalization,
governance and the Rio Principles. During the three months between the last meeting of PrepCom IV in Bali and the
Summit itself, it was very unclear how governments—deadlocked on over 150 paragraphs on key issues—would successfully
conclude negotiations on a Plan of Implementation and Political Declaration. A meeting of the “Friends of the Chair”
convened by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa on 17 July 2002 in New York suggested that Johannesburg
might see protracted negotiations over issues such as finance and trade, targets, renewable energy, the Rio Principles
of common but differentiated responsibilities and the precautionary approach, good governance, and human rights. Starting two days before the official opening of the
WSSD, governments began
negotiating these and other unresolved issues. This required establishing multiple points of negotiations that included
the Main Committee, the “Vienna process,” which acted on behalf of the Main Committee, contact groups on the Means of
Implementation and Governance, and flexible “bubble groups” that accommodated informal discussions on specific
paragraphs. A week into negotiations it became clear that a set of issues would have to be referred to the
ministerial-level meetings in order to be resolved. The South African Minister of Environment, Valli Moosa, then
convened such meetings, which came to be known as the “Johannesburg Setting” for three days. In the end, the WSSD resulted in an agreed Plan of Implementation, which, while not
ground-breaking in the way that Agenda 21 established a completely new framework for the environment and development,
nonetheless takes on the difficult task of translating political agreements into concrete actionable outcomes. Although
the POI does not contain a comprehensive timetable for implementation as some had hoped for, it did add value to policy
development in a number of areas that had not been adequately addressed in Agenda 21, such as energy, sanitation,
corporate responsibility and accountability, and ocean fisheries. The Summit also provided renewed political
impetus and mobilized the efforts of a wide variety of development actors. In addition to the intergovernmental negotiations, the WSSD comprised a broad
range of activities, which included seven thematic “partnership plenaries,” on issues such as health, biodiversity and
regional implementation; statements by non-State entities (namely international, regional and non-governmental
organizations); a three-day Summit of Heads of State and Government; a high-level roundtable; a host of side events;
and a series of presentations of partnership initiatives, the Type 2 outcomes.
|
|
| Background | |
The WSSD took place at a time of assessment of the
meaning and practice of multilateralism, and amid many calls for a “new multilateralism.” In the past, multilateral
negotiations with consensus outcomes had provided a policy framework for global standard setting and a follow-up
mechanism for supporting and monitoring national, regional and international implementation. During the ten years since
UNCED and through the deliberations and reporting on Agenda 21 implementation at the annual meetings of the
UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD), doubts were increasingly expressed by governments and civil society about the
effectiveness of consensus-based negotiations among Member States to move forward the sustainable development agenda, or
capture and express the progress that had been made. Over the decade since UNCED and as the process of follow-up fell short of providing
the means and resources for reaching the standards and targets set, particularly in support of developing countries’
efforts, there was increasing reluctance to agree to global targets and timeframes. Some developing countries expressed
scepticism about agreeing to targets and timeframes that could not be reached without additional means of implementation,
yet could become the subject of future review and possible sanction. A multilateral mechanism to encourage the attainment
of international standards became increasingly viewed as a tool of conditionality within a donor/recipient relationship.
This development was accompanied by a growing scepticism among some parts of civil society, especially those focusing on
advocacy and policy work, concerning the political will of Member States and international organizations to carry out the
commitments made at global UN conferences. Agenda 21 had been subject to a five-year review by the UN General Assembly at a
Special Session held in June 1997. The President of the Special Session, Ambassador Razali Ismail (Malaysia), had
underscored the need for a sober assessment and honest acknowledgment that “progress to operationalize sustainable
development remains insufficient.” He had said that lack of agreement in many areas points to “the enormous difficulties
of overcoming short-term and vested interests that would enable concrete commitments to specific targets and to global
programmes....Since Rio we have seen a further continuation of North-South trench politics. Governments and NGOs from
the developed world vigorously promote environmental protection, without shouldering the greater burden of adjustment on
consumption and production patterns....Developing countries continue to emphasize their right to [economic] development,
without placing sufficient stress on social equity and transparent participatory decision-making. Neither approach bodes
well for the future.” A few years later, the very difficult deliberations at the global preparatory
committee meetings for the WSSD continued to raise questions in the minds of many governments and among civil society
about the quality and value of the outcomes being negotiated. The fragile political consensus that was crafted in Rio in
1992 was seriously challenged by a radically changed geo-political environment, and the failure of governments, since
Rio, to fully honour their commitments. But in the end—and despite very divergent policy objectives being pursued in the
negotiations where in many areas consensus agreement could only be reached in very general terms—a number of
action-oriented commitments of the international community were made in areas such as the new sanitation target and the
restoration of ocean fish stocks. At the same time, many Member States continued to express in their policy
statements and negotiating positions the intent and capacity to do more than what was agreed in the official document.
Illustrating this, more than three dozen States, referred to by EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem as the
“coalition of the willing,” unveiled an initiative to promote renewable energy, declaring they wanted to go beyond the
more limited commitments of the POI. Similar initiatives and agreements in areas including water, biodiversity, and
agriculture were also announced in Johannesburg by Member States and others. The status and significance of these
agreements was not clear. Some viewed these commitments and initiatives as the beginnings of new forms of
multilateralism, others as manifestations of its weakening. In addition to being a Summit to combat poverty and environmental degradation, the
WSSD was also held to address the “crisis of implementation” of the UNCED agreements, and was charged to agree to
measures to move forward with implementation and action. “The purpose of this Summit is to tackle what has stood in the
way of us making progress, and what we can do in order to get action, to get results,” said Nitin Desai, WSSD
Secretary-General, on 26 August 2002. During the preparations for the WSSD, government representatives, UN officials and
NGOs had readily agreed that the ten-year record since 1992 for implementing Agenda 21 was poor.
UNCED had launched a
completely new framework for achieving sustainable development and had developed a detailed blueprint for making
significant progress. The approach adopted for the WSSD was built on ten years of experience in the implementation of
Agenda 21, which had demonstrated that much had been achieved at local levels around the world with the establishment
of local Agenda 21 policies and programmes, and with the enactment of environmental legislation and follow-up at local
and national levels. Yet the overall assessment was of little global progress towards sustainable development. The follow-up to UNCED
through the CSD had witnessed the development of different
forms of engagement with various sectors or major groups of society, defined in Agenda 21 as business and industry, trade
unions, indigenous peoples, farmers, NGOs, science and technology, women, youth, and local authorities. The preparatory
process of the Summit, as well as its programme, emphasized these activities and approaches, and also built on CSD practices,
including multistakeholder dialogues, panel presentations with experts, and the use of facilitators. More strikingly, it
moved away from the more traditional UN pattern of a series of speeches from representatives of Member States,
international organizations and NGOs, to one structured around contributions based on longer-term work commitments and
engagement with the further implementation of Agenda 21. WSSD Secretary-General Desai and his Secretariat were committed to bringing into the
Summit process a broad canvas of commitments and actions, of participants and allies, new and old, and having a multiplicity of Summit outcomes
more reflective of what had been happening on the ground in the ten years since
UNCED. To achieve this,
considerable emphasis was placed on developing partnership initiatives and on broadening the possible Summit
outcomes to include what became known as “Type 2” outcomes that included as potential partners with governments and
the UN system the nine major groups and others. However, by the time the WSSD met in Johannesburg so much emphasis had been
placed on partnership initiatives that some major groups, NGOs, women and indigenous peoples in particular, cautioned
against this development as a potential distraction from the central role of governments and the increased power and
influence they felt that this approach might accord to corporations and the private sector. Some Member States too
expressed concern about the meaning and implications of this radically new departure in conducting UN business. Some of the difficulties faced by the WSSD process in promoting the partnership
initiatives were related to the newness of these approaches, some to the lack of understanding of the objectives, some
to the fact that while allies of the UN, a number of the proposed partners could not be allies with each other. NGOs in
particular warned of inequality within and between the “partner groups,” emphasizing the important role and
responsibilities of Member States in creating enabling policy environments and investing the necessary resources in
making progress on the sustainable development agenda. As the ten-year follow-up to the path-breaking Rio Earth Summit, the
WSSD created
political expectations that proved impossible to entirely fulfil in a consensus-driven negotiating process among UN
Member States with widely different, and sometimes conflicting, policy priorities. In the many Summit assessments, it is
not surprising that many commentaries cite as one of its successes that weaker outcomes had been averted, and that some
backtracking from the agreements reached in Rio had been avoided. Some Summit participants and observers were
disappointed by this, while others thought the political reaffirmation of the global sustainable development agenda a
considerable achievement in the current geo-political climate.
|
|
|
|
Plan of Implementation Poverty Eradication The POI also establishes a voluntary “world solidarity fund” to help eliminate
poverty and promote social and human development in the developing countries. It calls for improving access to
environmentally sound energy services and resources, and an increased use of “renewables, cleaner liquid and gaseous
fuels and enhanced energy efficiency.” Health The final three elements are as follows: The POI calls for enhancing health education with targets on achieving improved
health literacy globally by 2010; reducing HIV prevalence among young men and women aged 15-24 by 25% in the most
affected countries by 2005 and globally by 2010, as well as combating malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases; and
calls for the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPs) to “be
interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members’ right to protect public health and in particular to
promote access to medicines for all.”
Changing Unsustainable Patterns of Consumption and Production: Energy Negotiating groups had varied and complex positions that became clear during a
frank discussion at the ministerial level. The EU made well known its commitment to securing global targets. The Group
of 77 developing countries and China (G-77/China) had to craft a fine balance among its large oil producing and exporting
members, large industrializing members and some of its smaller members, in particular Small Island Developing States.
In the end, the G-77/China aligned with the US, which was also opposed to targets, and argued that oil revenues helped
many of its members drive their own development efforts and that targets on renewable energy would unduly
penalize them. The final language on this issue, which does not include a specific target, does
nonetheless stress the urgency of increasing the global share of renewables and calls for the following: “Substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources with the
objective of increasing its contribution to total energy supply….” The paragraph also calls upon governments to
“diversify energy supply by developing advanced, cleaner, more efficient, affordable and cost-effective energy
technologies, including fossil fuel technologies and renewable energy technologies, hydro included, and their transfer
to developing countries on concessional terms….” (20e) After accepting the compromise, the EU reiterated its commitment to renewable
energy as an important way to reduce pollution, diversify and secure energy supplies and help provide access to energy
in support of poverty eradication. It also announced that it would be putting together what it called a “coalition of
the willing;” a coalition of countries including the EU, some other European countries as well as some Small Island
Developing States of the G-77/China that intended to go beyond the agreement reached in the area of renewable energy.
The Danish Minister indicated that members of the coalition had adopted or would be adopting “clear and ambitious”
time-bound targets. Other action falling under the consumption and production chapeau include:
promoting the development of a ten-year framework of programmes to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption
and production; identifying specific activities, policies and other tools for measuring progress; and taking action to
phase out energy subsidies that inhibit sustainable development, paying particular attention to the “different levels of
development of individual countries and considering their adverse effect, particularly on developing countries.” Protecting and Managing the Natural Resources Base Biodiversity Governments were able to agree on establishing a target date of 2010 for the
achievement of a “significant reduction” in the current rate of loss of biological diversity. It was suggested that
although governments were willing to agree that “biodiversity is presently being lost at unprecedented rates,”
developing countries were only willing to accept the target date of 2010 because the text only called for
a “significant reduction” in the current rate of loss of biological diversity rather than the stronger language
from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that makes no allowance for further loss and speaks of “attacking
the causes of loss of biodiversity.” A proposal for a target date to have instruments in place by 2010 to stop the
loss of biodiversity was deleted. Governments also agreed to negotiate an “international regime” to promote
and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. While
some delegations, particularly those of the megadiverse group (the biologically richest countries of the world),
had hoped to have language on a legally binding international regime, others suggested that international regimes
by their very nature are legally binding and should not weaken the intent of the paragraph. Some anticipate that
such negotiations will carry on for years to come as governments decide if and how to go beyond the voluntary Bonn
Guidelines on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, adopted by the Sixth Conference of the Parties
(COP-6) to the CBD at The Hague (the Netherlands) in April 2002. In this section, governments also agreed to promote discussions on the
“relationship” between the CBD and the WTO and its related provisions. When this paragraph was originally under
consideration at PrepCom IV, some delegations favoured focusing on the “relationship between the obligations” of
the two entities while others were concerned that this might allow trade-related agreements, including the TRIPs
agreement, to take precedence over the CBD. In the end, the paragraph in the POI reads: “With a view to enhancing
synergy and mutual supportiveness, taking into account the decisions under the relevant agreements, promote the
discussions, without prejudging their outcome, with regard to the relationships between the Convention
[on Bio-Diversity] and agreements related to international trade and intellectual property rights, as outlined in
the Doha [WTO] Ministerial Declaration.” (44r) Ocean and Fisheries
— Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals
for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015. (31a) Atmosphere and Climate Change The full text on the Kyoto Protocol reads as follows: Another action point on atmosphere includes: Other action points on Protecting and Managing the Natural Resource Base
include: Rio Principles The Precautionary Approach A drawn out negotiation was also needed before governments agreed to
establish the target of 2020 for the production of chemicals that leads to the “minimization” of significant
adverse effects on human health and the environment. Negotiations involved Norway advocating for strong language
calling for the end to the production of chemicals with harmful effects. This was countered by the US and the
G-77/China who were in favour of more general language. The final language reads as follows: The precautionary principle/approach was included in full in paragraph
109 (f) related to promoting and improving science-based decision making. It states: “In order to protect the
environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-effective measure to prevent environmental degradation.” However, it was agreed that no mention would be made of the principle having
been “further developed in international law,” (through the work of the numerous multilateral environmental
agreements). Some delegations argued that by invoking multilateral environmental agreements, to which not all
Member States adhered, the principle would be weakened. Other action points on chemicals include: Globalization Many governments, in most cases being represented by environment, development cooperation or foreign ministry
personnel, preferred to defer trade-related issues to ongoing negotiations at the WTO. Corporate Accountability However, this became one of the last paragraphs to be resolved owing to differences of opinion over what
happened in negotiations conducted by the contact group on the Means of Implementation and whether or not the group
had agreed that the paragraph would relate to existing agreements and measures only. An interpretive statement to
this effect was eventually disallowed by the Chair after several delegations questioned the consistency of the
statement in light of the provisions in the paragraph calling for the “full development” as well as “effective
implementation” of agreements, measures, initiatives, etc. At the closing plenary and after formal adoption of
the POI, the US delegation said that it interpreted paragraph 49 as referring to “existing” agreements only. Other action under this section calls for encouraging international
financial and trade institutions to ensure that decision-making processes and institutional structures are open
and transparent. Means of Implementation The principle/approach was included in full in paragraph 81 and reads as
follows: “In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but
differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the
international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global
environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.” Trade, Environment and Development The draft text proposed: “Continue to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development in
a manner consistent with WTO rights and obligations, with a view to achieving sustainable development, including
through actions at all levels ….” Negotiations produced a number of alternatives including “while ensuring WTO
consistency” and the Norwegian proposal “Striving to avoid WTO inconsistency.” The G-77/China finally agreed to support the deletion of reference to the WTO and allowed the paragraph to be
adopted as follows: “Continue to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development with a
view to achieving sustainable development through actions at all levels….” Other action points on Means of Implementation include: Sustanable Development of Small Island States (SIDS) Governments agreed that instead of assisting SIDS to “define” their coastal areas and exclusive economic zones
(the area of sea that belongs to a coastal State and which it can exploit for economic benefit), they would assist
to “delimit” such areas that could include continental shelf areas beyond 200 miles from coastal baselines. They
also agreed to a target of 2004 to undertake initiatives to reduce, prevent and control waste and pollution and
their health-related impacts for the protection of the marine environment. Sustainable Development in Africa Governments also agreed to assist Africa with technical support in the areas of environmental legislation,
institutional reform, environmental impact assessments, negotiating and implementing multilateral environmental
agreements, as well as afforestation and reforestation. Another action point on Africa states a commitment to: Institutional Framework and Follow-up The chapeau of this section states that an effective institutional framework for sustainable development at all
levels is key to the full implementation of Agenda 21, the follow-up to the outcomes of the WSSD and meeting
emerging sustainable development challenges. Measures to strengthen this framework, the chapeau says, should build
on the provisions of Agenda 21 as well as the 1997 Programme for its further implementation and the Rio Principles.
After much discussion, it was agreed that a reference highlighting the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities would be deleted. This section also opens by stating that good governance is essential for sustainable development. Governments
agreed that sound economic policies, solid democratic institutions responsive to the needs of people, and improved
infrastructure are the basis for sustained economic growth, poverty eradication and employment creation. Additional
essential factors identified include: freedom, peace and security, domestic stability, respect for human rights,
including the right to development, and the rule of law, gender equality, market-oriented policies, and an overall
commitment to just and democratic societies. Other action points include: In the section on the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), the UN body responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the UNCED agreements, the action points for the future include: Johannesburg Declaration The Johannesburg Declaration lists numerous conditions that are posing severe threats to sustainable development,
including: chronic hunger; malnutrition; foreign occupation; armed conflicts; illicit drug problems; organized
crime; corruption; natural disasters; illicit arms trafficking; trafficking in persons; terrorism; intolerance and
incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds; xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and chronic
diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In order to counter these problems, governments call for a number of actions including reaching internationally
agreed levels of ODA, supporting NEPAD, continuing to work with major groups, as well as the need for the private
sector to enforce corporate accountability. The Plan of Implementation and the Johannesburg Declaration are available online
(www.johannesburgsummit.org).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Partnership Plenaries |
|
|
|
A key innovative feature of the Summit was the holding of a series
of “partnership plenaries” during the first five days of the conference. Instead of a conventional series of speeches
by dignitaries, partnership plenaries were organized in the form of interactive dialogues among governments, UN
agencies, experts, and major group representatives on the five WEHAB themes proposed by the Secretary-General, as well
as on cross-sectoral issues and regional implementation. The sessions, which were moderated by the Secretary-General’s
Special Envoy to the Summit Jan Pronk, focused on challenges of implementation in these five strategic areas.
Water and Sanitation A number of speakers emphasized that access to water for basic human needs was a fundamental human right and,
along with improved sanitation, was a key component of any effective poverty-reduction strategy. The NGO
representative insisted that partnership initiatives in the area of water and sanitation must: be developed in
response to locally articulated needs through a democratic process; be in keeping with Type 1 outcomes; include
mechanisms for democratic accountability for government partners; and include corporate partners only when
enforceable and functional standards for corporate accountability are in place. Many speakers suggested that the low priority currently assigned to water issues is linked to the fact that
water shortages are primarily affecting low-income countries and population groups, while the better-off countries
and income groups are not yet affected by such problems. Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Director of the UN Human
Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), said water availability in growing cities was in such a crisis situation that
the poor were often paying four to five times more for water than better-off people connected to the water system.
Questions related to cost recovery—whether through tax transfers, user fees, or cross-subsidization—were one of the
most hotly-debated topics during the discussion. The trade unions representative expressed reservations as to the role
the private sector should play in meeting basic needs given the fact that the primary motive of business is profit and
not welfare. The business representative argued that in his experience of public-private sector service delivery
programmes, it was not only rich people who could pay for water. As a matter of fact, he said, the poor were willing
to pay more, but it was often the politicians that were not willing to charge them. Ronnie Kasrils, the South African
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, said that appropriate financial systems were required to ensure that water
services were financially sustainable. For the poor, she added, while there was a willingness to pay, there was not
always the ability to pay for water. There was a need for subsidies, either from tax revenues or cross-subsidies from
other water users. Miloon Kothari, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, said
that recent experiences with privatization of water services tended to reveal three sets of problems from a human
rights perspective, namely: an overemphasis on profit-making and cost recovery; inadequate coverage of vulnerable
groups, such as slum dwellers; and lack of accountability of service operators. These privatization schemes overlook
the precise
commitments that States have undertaken under specific human rights instruments, including the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention
on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. He also noted that once privatization has failed, it is
difficult for local municipalities and governments to recover the initiative. He further warned that these issues
were not adequately taken into account in the ongoing negotiations on liberalization of trade in services at the
WTO.
Discussions also focused on the sustainability of water sources, which are fast becoming depleted in many parts
of the world. Some said this required an ecosystems approach to water management that would integrate
environmental protection and biodiversity concerns. Energy According to one speaker, energy interventions in the past have not been efficient.
Small-scale technologies, with costs ranging from US$50 to US$300, are available as a means for providing energy services
to the poorest, particularly
in rural areas. Such technologies include mechanical water pumps, solar dryers and bio-fuel furnaces. He encouraged
developing countries to allocate a quarter to a third of their energy budgets to small-scale energy technologies, which
he said should be as self-reliant as possible in terms of inputs, local equipment manufacturing and maintenance. Moving away from fossil fuel-based technologies to combat pollution and climate change was noted as a major
challenge. However, such a shift would not, in the immediate future at least, be driven by scarcity of oil
reserves—thus many participants called for the need to focus on time-bound targets on increasing the use of
renewable energy. Commenting on the proposed (but eventually rejected) target on renewable energy being negotiated
by governments, the UN representative said that such a target was feasible but depended on the structure of the energy
sector. The lack of consensus on a renewable energy target during the intergovernmental
negotiations was reflected in the subsequent exchange by governments in the plenary. The minister in charge of
petroleum from the Office of the President of Nigeria said it must be acknowledged that access to modern forms of
energy was out of the reach of most developing countries. Economic development, he said, could not be achieved in the
developing world without affordable energy sources. He added that it was presumptuous for the Summit to tell any
government to establish numerical targets or timetables on energy. He urged the international community to focus its
efforts on helping developing countries to enhance their capacity for affordable sources of renewable energy. In sharp
contrast, the representative of Tuvalu insisted on the importance of such targets and timetables. He expressed his
disappointment that Tuvalu’s proposal earlier in the WSSD preparatory process—to develop a legally binding arrangement
on energy—was rejected. Health The discussion also emphasized major resource allocation questions. A representative
of the World Health Organization (WHO) said that, according to a 2001 report of the WHO’s Commission on Macroeconomics
and Health, an increase in domestic budgetary resources of 1% by 2015 and donor grant resources of US$27 billion a year
by 2007 and US$38 billion by 2015 would be needed to effectively tackle the diseases of the world’s poor. A
representative of the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) said that country-level coordination among partners in the
field of immunization programmes was a good example of the effective use of funds through partnerships on the
ground. Agriculture Much of the discussion focused on international trade issues and problems related to the high level of agricultural
subsidies in developed countries. Many called for the phasing out of such subsidies which are also environmentally
harmful, and the dismantling of developed countries’ trade barriers to developing countries’ agricultural exports.
However, the farmers’ representative stressed that what farmers were really asking for was to be able to earn a living
by farming. If production costs were compatible with market prices, then no subsidies would be needed. It was not that
farmers were clamouring for subsidies, he said, but subsidies were required in the current state of the world market. Later in the discussion, the agriculture minister of Tanzania emphasized the fact that
while rich countries were subsidizing their agriculture to the tune of US$1 billion a day, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and the World Bank continued to pressure developing countries to remove subsidies to support their own
farmers. It was noted in this regard that cheap subsidized food imports in liberalized developing countries’ markets
were undermining local farmers’ livelihoods and cutting jobs in the domestic agricultural sectors. Improving the
competitiveness and productivity of small farmers, while creating a level playing field vis-a-vis large agribusiness,
was highlighted as a key priority by a number of speakers. Reversing the downward trend in ODA to agriculture was also
emphasized. According to a representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the millennium development
target of cutting hunger by half by 2015 will require additional public investments of US$24 billion a year over the
next 13 years. One speaker noted that an enormous financial potential could be freed up to combat hunger and poverty in
developing countries if only a small proportion of rich countries’ US$1 billion daily agricultural subsidies was
allocated for that purpose. The discussion also sought to draw lessons from the Green Revolution, which some
described as technology-driven and input intensive. While it enabled the world to make a quantum leap in agricultural
productivity, it also led to environmental degradation and favoured capital-intensive producers. It was suggested that
the future agricultural revolution should be sustainable, small-farmer and low-input based. In this respect, many
participants shared their experiences in organic farming and the use of indigenous farming methods, which they said
offered great promise as a way forward in agriculture, but were often undermined by current trade practices and
agricultural policies that favour resource-intensive mass production methods. Although it did not receive much attention during the partnership plenary discussion
on agriculture, the issue of biotechnology and genetically-modified (GM) foods was raised in the session on
cross-sectoral issues, and hotly debated in the corridors of the conference and in the streets of Johannesburg.
The issue became all the more controversial since the Summit was taking place in the midst of a food crisis in Southern
Africa, in response to which the United States was offering genetically modified maize food aid to the affected
countries. Biodiversity A senior UNEP representative said that unless governments took immediate action to address critical matters related
to biodiversity, particularly environmental degradation and overuse of natural resources, the future of the world could
soon be irreparably undermined. He said there had been some achievements, particularly with the support of NGOs. Major
treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) had been developed, some species had been saved from
extinction, and tracts of land were under protection. However, he expressed concern that protected areas were in fact
not well protected and many treaties were not fully implemented. A representative of the secretariat of the Convention
on Wetlands said it was “shameful” that international treaties related to biodiversity were negotiated at a very high
level, but such instruments were subsequently handed over to small agencies with very little power to ensure
implementation. During the interactive session, some participants linked the lack of public awareness
of biodiversity issues as an important reason for lack of progress and called for public education campaigns as a new
phase of implementation. However, other participants insisted that beyond public awareness raising, it was the wider
economic forces at play that needed to be tackled. Several speakers cited the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), which they said gave corporations monopoly over biological resources and the
ability to patent life forms, adding that it needs to be rebalanced to ensure equitable benefit sharing. It was
essential, one NGO representative stressed, to re-examine macro-economic policies which undermined sustainability, and
to set limits to industrial exploitation of natural resources on which local communities’ livelihoods depend. In this
regard, the UK environment minister emphasized the necessity to have incentives to reduce commercial pressures leading
to the over-exploitation of natural resources. He said that in addition to the need to strengthen time-bound targets
for biodiversity, effective mechanisms, monitoring and funding were also required. A business representative said partnerships were at the heart of solutions. No single
sector was responsible for biodiversity, he said. The root causes of biodiversity loss had to be addressed, which meant
giving priority to equity sharing and giving local communities a stake in conservation. In this respect, the environment
minister of India noted that his country’s conservation strategy had depended heavily on partnerships and cooperation
with all stakeholders. However, the environment minister of Gabon cautioned that partnerships in his country had not
always attracted “the most virtuous partners.” While Gabon had a product that could be useful to treat drug addiction,
a transnational corporation wanted to patent that product, he said. The so-called “Type 2” outcomes, he insisted, must
provide safeguards against such situations. In closing, Mr. Pronk said that there was overall consensus that the international
community was not on target. The necessary knowledge was present; what was needed was action to meet the commitments
undertaken. The urgency of the matter could not be overstated. The greater the threat of further loss, he said, the
greater the need to change the models and policies of the past. Cross-sectoral Issues A representative of the scientific community stressed the importance of partnerships
between scientists and other stakeholders in all key areas. He said new lines of research were needed to address the
links between natural systems, socio-economic systems and sustainable consumption and production patterns. A UNEP
representative said a key example of the link between science and policy making was the problem of the ozone layer,
where scientific evidence had led to an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting substances. An NGO representative, however, sounded a note of caution on the far-reaching effects
of partnerships, noting that such arrangements can also produce harmful or inequitable results. By way of example, he
cited the increasingly connected nature of the science/biological research community and transnational corporations—and
the biases this may imply in partnership agreements. In this regard, the farmers’ representative argued that there was
an increasing imbalance in scientific interests that were becoming more and more market-driven, while governments shied
away from public spending on research and technology development. Several speakers noted that the business community was much more present at
Johannesburg than it was ten years ago in Rio. The business representative described this as a “transitional period in
social history,” as awareness was growing about the ecological footprints left by current models of production and
economic growth. Still, business needed to be more open and involved, he said, noting that its role is both facilitated and
constrained by government action. Asked whether governments were not constrained by corporate pressure, he said that there
were “myths” about those relationships, which he described as not valid. The corporate structure, he said, had proven to
be sufficient for providing for the large-scale needs of society. The youth representative noted with concern that so few speakers had addressed the critical
issue of patterns of
unsustainable consumption. He argued that everyone knew that large corporations were more interested in selling their
products than in conservation. Later in the discussion, the Swedish minister noted how controversial the topic of
unsustainable consumption and production patterns had been in the Summit’s intergovernmental negotiations. Her
country’s experience had shown that prevention was less expensive than the cure, adding that the key to changing
production and consumption patterns was the younger generation. The NGO representative stressed that the Rio
Principle of common but differentiated responsibility indicated that the North should take the lead in this area
because it had the resources and capacity to do so, and should transfer that capacity to the South.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TOP | Partnership Outcomes |
|
Partnerships and initiatives to implement Agenda 21 became an important element of the
Summit’s outcomes. Termed “Type 2” outcomes, the over 220 WSSD partnership initiatives identified so far between
different stakeholders (including governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and business entities) are meant to
complement and reinforce “Type 1” outcomes—namely the intergovernmentally negotiated plan of implementation and the
political declaration. The inclusion of partnership initiatives as part of the formal WSSD outcome was endorsed last year by the UN General
Assembly in Resolution 56/226, which encourages “...global commitment and partnerships, especially between Governments
of the North and the South, on the one hand, and between Governments and major groups on the other.” Many participants viewed Type 2 outcomes as a potentially empowering and complementary way
of making progress towards
sustainable development. Various stakeholders could commit considerable resources, as well as the expertise and energy
to invest in implementing Agenda 21. The Type 2 track opened the door for practical ways to make concrete commitments,
without being held back by the limitations of the intergovernmentally-agreed POI. Over 220 partnerships (with US$235 million in financing) were identified in advance of the
Summit and around 60
partnerships were announced during the Summit by a variety of countries and organizations. They include multi-million
dollar initiatives in a host of domains, including the five WEHAB areas identified by the Secretary-General, as well as
other issues such as environmental governance, the development of small-and medium-sized enterprises, and marketing
communications programmes to promote the concept of sustainable development. A number of initiatives publicized at the
Summit will support the POI commitment to halve the proportion of people without access to sanitation by 2015 together
with the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve the proportion without access to safe drinking water. The US has
announced US$970 million in investments in water and sanitation projects; the EU announced its “Water for Life”
initiative; the UN has received an additional 21 water- and sanitation-related initiatives with at least US$20 million
in funding. Similarly, the POI commitment on energy access will be accompanied by financial commitments from the EU
(US$700 million), the US (US$43 million), and 32 separate partnership initiatives garnering up to US$26 million in
investment. The latest list of partnership initiatives is available on the WSSD website
(www.johannesburgsummit.org). During the preparatory process a wide range of concerns were expressed by a number of governments and NGOs on the
nature of Type 2 outcomes, their relation to Type 1 outcomes, and the criteria used to determine which partnership
initiatives should qualify to be part of the formal Summit outcome. In the course of PrepComs III and IV, a series of
informal consultations were conducted by the PrepCom’s Vice-Chairs, Jan Kara (Czech Republic) and Diane Quarless
(Jamaica). On this basis, they produced a set of guiding principles for Type 2 outcomes, against which partnership
submissions to the Conference Secretariat were checked before being posted on the Summit website. Concerns about the nature and content of partnership outcomes were vigorously debated
during the multistakeholder
dialogue on partnerships held during PrepCom IV in Bali. NGOs and a number of other major groups expressed serious
reservations as to the involvement of transnational corporations in partnership initiatives. These concerns related to
what they perceived as the rapid rise of transnational corporate power and efforts by corporate lobby groups to
“greenwash” their activities by claiming to contribute to sustainable development with a few isolated flagship projects.
Would Type 2 partnerships give carte blanche for transnational corporations to obtain UN endorsement under a voluntary
scheme? Was this part of a trend by governments to abdicate more power to the corporate sector without mechanisms of
regulation, accountability and enforcement corresponding to this increased power? In their statements, NGO
representatives expressed concern that talk of partnerships in the WSSD process was diffuse and distant from the
realities of power inequalities. In closing the session, Mr. Desai underlined that Type 2 partnerships were no substitute for strong commitments
between governments. “The real action,” he said, “is out there in the negotiating room.”
. On the eve of the Summit, the ECO-Equity Coalition (regrouping Consumers International, the Danish ’92 Group,
Greenpeace International, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED), Oxfam International and WWF International)
released a discussion paper entitled “Critical considerations about Type 2 partnerships.” The paper stresses a number of
issues not covered in the Vice Chairs’ guiding principles for Type 2 outcomes. These include questions such as:
| |
| TOP | Civil Society and Other Activities Around WSSD |
|
Approximately 3,500 NGOs were accredited to the WSSD. Throughout the preparatory process they
played a prominent role, mobilizing their constituencies, lobbying governments, and raising awareness around the world
of the issues at stake. The Sustainable Development Issues Network (SDIN)—which was a joint collaborative effort between several NGO groupings,
such as the Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI), ANPED and Third World Network—played an important
facilitating and information disseminating role for major groups, notably through their daily plenary briefing and
strategy sessions. Other networks, such as the Stakeholder Forum, focused more on facilitating discussions on
partnership-based implementation issues. During PrepCom IV in Bali, a two-day Multistakeholder Dialogue was held among all major groups with the participation
of governments and international institutions. The objectives of the Multistakeholder Dialogue included a discussion on
partnerships and providing inputs into the intergovernmental negotiating process. However, because of the slow pace of
negotiations during earlier PrepComs, many of the dialogues took place while governments were negotiating the draft Plan
of Implementation in another room. During the closing plenary of the Multistakeholder Dialogue in Bali, NGOs delivered a sobering statement on the
nature of the much discussed “lack of political will” in implementing the Rio agreements and those of the other major
UN conferences of the 1990s. It captured many of the major concerns of NGOs throughout the WSSD process. On Saturday 31 August, on the eve of the arrival of Heads of State for the high-level segment of the conference,
a large peaceful demonstration marched from one of poorest slums of Johannesburg, the township of Alexandra, to the
prosperous neighbourhood of Sandton, where the Summit was being held. Between 10,000-50,000 people participated,
depending on estimates. The majority of the marchers came from marginalized groups: landless people from rural areas,
fisherfolk, the unemployed and people without electricity or adequate housing. They were supported by a range of
international social movements opposed to “corporate-led globalization,” from Indonesian women’s organizations to
Italian NGOs mobilizing around water issues. In the preceding weeks, a number of other demonstrations, such as those
by the landless movement and the South African Anti-Privatization Forum, had led to serious clashes with the police. Inside or near the official conference venue, a series of side events were organized daily by major groups,
international organizations and governments on an enormous range of topics, including: the Sustainable Agriculture
and Rural Development (SARD) Initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) on implementation of Chapter
14 of Agenda 21; promotion of the MDGs by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) as strategic tools for joint UN/civil
society campaigns; and consultations with civil society by the newly established World Commission on the Social
Dimension of Globalization of the International Labour Organization (ILO). At different stages of the conference, safety-related access restrictions at the Sandton Convention Centre led to
considerable disruptions in the organization of some side-events and in the coordination of major groups’ and NGO
caucuses’ contributions to the formal negotiations. Following complaints addressed to the Secretariat and the South
African Government, these problems were resolved through discussions with a delegation of major groups representatives. The Global People’s Forum In the programme of action adopted at NASREC, comprised of 20 thematic sections, the action points are mostly
directed at governments, but also to the UN, international financial institutions, the WTO and civil society. Towards the end of the two weeks of various civil society activities around Johannesburg, a number of NGO
declarations emerged, at least one of which disassociated itself from the outcome of the Summit. Both the declaration and programme of action of the Global People’s Forum can be found on its website
(www. worldsummit.org.za). “...Like you, I am deeply troubled by the slow pace of progress over the past decade. Like you, I am alarmed at what
may be in store for us 10, 20 or 30 years from now, if we continue with business as usual. I am baffled when urgent
issues are ignored, when common sense suggestions fall on deaf ears, or when available solutions are not pursued. And I
am disappointed when old and long unfulfilled promises are trotted out as new proposals, or when it appears that those
with power to do the maximum profess to be able to do only the minimum. “The question is what to do in a world of entrenched interests, political inertia, and hard-to-break habits on the
part of governments and individuals. Dire predictions, apocalyptic talk and doom-and-gloom scenarios are not enough to
inspire change. But it would be irresponsible to downplay the problems we face, or to think that a technological
breakthrough will come to rescue us. “Your challenge, or our challenge, is to calibrate the strategies and actions required. Purism and pragmatism both
have their place, as do market solutions and mandates set out by governments. There will be days when bold action is
called for, and times when more nuanced approaches are more effective. Civil society, too, in challenging business as
usual, must also be ready to make difficult adjustments in its own perspectives and points of view.
|
|
| Implementation and Follow-up | |
|
UN officials are currently preparing the groundwork for a system-wide approach to implementing
the targets, timetables and commitments that were agreed upon in Johannesburg. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), which was established to oversee implementation efforts after the
1992 Earth Summit in Rio, is expected to see the biggest changes. As agreed in Johannesburg, the CSD will continue to
meet every year, but hold negotiations on substantive matters every other year. Although no new substantive negotiations
are envisioned in the near future, the GA, in its deliberations this November, is expected to take several procedural
decisions that will help maintain the momentum of Johannesburg, such as setting a date for an organizational session of
the Commission. The responsibility for tracking partnerships—the more than 220 voluntary initiatives by governments, NGOs,
intergovernmental organizations and business—that were launched prior to and during the Summit will also fall under the
CSD. While the Commission has to “nurture” the partnerships, JoAnne DiSano, Director of the Division for Sustainable
Development at the UN in New York, has said it cannot hold the initiatives accountable through the same formal processes
used to monitor government action. There will still be a measure of accountability, however, although the partnerships
are voluntary. One option, Ms. DiSano suggested, would be to have the partnerships report to the CSD periodically. If
they wanted to showcase themselves, she said, they would then have to demonstrate tangible results.
|
|
|
home about ngls un-ngo relations publications un news staff/contacts faq links |
|