EVENTS

Towards Johannesburg

On the agenda and the imponderables before the World Summit for Sustainable Development scheduled to be held in Johannesburg from August 26.

ASHA KRISHNAKUMAR

"WHAT are we going to do about the U.S.?" asked chairperson Dr. Emil Salim, at the end of the fourth and final preparatory committee meeting held at Bali, Indonesia, ahead of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg from August 26 to September 4. The former Indonesian Environment Minister did not know that the microphone in front of him had not been switched off. And those words of Emil Salim became part of the rallying cry for the non-official groups at the meeting. The question best summarises the concerns of the rest of the world today with the United States, the most powerful nation and the biggest polluter, refusing to ratify any of the nearly 400 multilateral treaties relating to sustainable development.

The champions of development and the defenders of the environment have been battling each other ever since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in 1972 in Stockholm, launched the 'sustainable development' debate. That conference, for the first time, articulated the theme of harmony between humankind and nature. Global environmental governance systems such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) were also put in place.

And, by the time the indignant politicians and social activists from the developing and developed countries, who were locked in battle since the Stockholm Conference came to Rio de Janeiro for the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, they seemed to have reached an understanding that development and environment were inextricably linked and that environmental protection and natural resources management had to be integrated with socio-economic issues. The deal was facilitated by the World Commission on Environment and Development, or the Brundtland Commission, led by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland.

The Rio Summit - where leaders from over a hundred countries signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity; endorsed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Forest Principles; and adopted the centrepiece, Agenda 21, a 400-page plan of action for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century - defined sustainable development as that which is economically sound, environmentally benign and socially equitable.

As a follow-up to Rio, the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 under the U.N. Economic and Social Council in order to ensure the effective implementation of what was agreed upon at Rio. The five-year review of the progress of the moves initiated by the Earth Summit, by a special session of the U.N. General Assembly held in June 1997, led to the adoption of a comprehensive document titled "Programme for Future Implementation of Agenda 21" prepared by the CSD, which also organised the four preparatory committee meetings leading to the WSSD.

But, by near-universal agreement, the grand aspirations that the understanding on sustainable development generated and all the treaties agreed upon have fallen flat in the decade since Rio. According to institution-builder and agriculture scientist Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, since Rio the world has seen too much of economic and trade crises, social and economic exclusion, and gross inequality.

THE main reason for the disappointment, and also the chief lesson for Johannesburg, is that in the desperation to reach a political consensus, the Rio Summit overreached itself. Commitments remained unmet while the developed world not only pursued its own agenda but forced the developing nations to go on a path of unsustainable development. The rich-poor divide within, and among, countries widened. As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it mildly, there are "gaps in the implementation that are particularly visible".

It is in such a context that the WSSD is being convened. Will it achieve anything at all? Member-countries have been unable to arrive at a consensus on contentious issues even at the last of the preparatory meetings. The U.S. abruptly pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, there are no major set-piece political treaties scheduled to be signed at the WSSD. In fact, the writing was on the wall at the final preparatory meeting in Bali itself, reflected in appeals by civil rights groups to the U.N. Secretary-General: "Mr. Annan, the Earth Summit is sinking."

The Draft Plan of Implementation that emerged in Bali was supposed to lay out concrete targets and deadlines. But reaching an agreement on deadlines - for instance, a review of the progress achieved by the developed countries in phasing out environmentally harmful energy subsidies by 2007 - proved to be impossible. Finance, trade and 'other means of implementation' to help developing countries move towards sustainable practices also proved to be a stumbling block in Bali. The developed countries were unwilling to agree on targets to remove trade distorting subsidies, improve market access to developing countries, provide new and innovative means of funding and make the international financial system more transparent. They also opposed the elimination of unilateral trade sanctions to fulfil environmental agendas and time-bound targets. There were also disagreements on issues such as technology transfer and governance.

In fact, some developed countries, led by the U.S., are questioning some of the basic principles that were agreed upon at Rio. Every reference to the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities', which takes into account the varying contribution of countries to environmental degradation, stands bracketed. Emil Salim said: "Nearly 98 per cent of the issues related to globalisation stands bracketed."

More worrying is the importance given to Track-II negotiations, which means encouraging partnerships between the private sector and civil society. This, says Centre for Science and Environment director Sunita Narain, allows governments to abdicate the responsibility for implementing Agenda 21 and undermines the multilateralism that was carefully nurtured at Rio.

According to a coalition of activists who include those from Consumer International, Friends of the Earth International (FoEI), Greenpeace and the WWF, the WSSD, which seeks to lift millions of people out of poverty and protect the environment, may neither have any relevance nor be able to offer meaningful action for the poor. According to the coalition, Asia's poor, who account for two-thirds of the world's 500 million hungry people, have nothing to look forward to from Johannesburg - except perhaps a reaffirmation of the factors that have made them poor.

According to the coalition, the document that is to serve as the action plan at the WSSD is short of specifics on how the developed countries will deliver on their funding pledges, a key issue in implementing the sustainable development agenda.

At Rio, governments had agreed in Agenda 21 to set goals for financing development. According to U.N. calculations then, implementing Agenda 21 in the developing countries would cost over $600 billion annually. The developed countries agreed to pump in $125 billion every year through Official Development Assistance, which meant each country raising its ODA levels to 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Only five countries - Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden - have met this target. Since 1992, fourteen of the 21 donor countries have lowered their aid budgets. Now, the developed countries, led by the U.S., are linking aid with "good governance".

According to Sunita Narain, the biggest challenge relates to how the world is going to deal with the disengagement of the U.S., whose position is dominated by business interests. The developing countries, India in particular, do not have a clear agenda and their views are only articulated during international negotiations. And, even when they come out with proposals, these are half-hearted ones. On the other hand, the developed countries have clear plans which they do not reveal until the end. Only now is it known that they have a two-point agenda - to weaken the Rio agreement and roll back what was agreed on 10 years ago; and to legitimise the involvement of their business and industry in the sustainable development of developing countries, thereby weakening the process of multilateralism.

PLANNED as an "implementation summit", the WSSD is intended to find ways to generate actions that bring about real improvement in peoples' lives and the natural ecosystems that support them. The summit is expected to ratify the plan of action negotiated in Bali; issue a political declaration as adopted by world leaders; and decide upon partnership initiatives by and between governments, citizens' groups, and the private sector to meet the commitments that governments agree upon. According to Emil Salim, the focus in Johannesburg would be on dealing with poverty, changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and protecting ecology and life-supporting systems.

A message that found an echo at all preparatory meetings is that the core development issues of eradicating poverty and meeting basic human needs remain the prime challenge in the developing countries and, unless the needs of the weakest are given primacy, all efforts to preserve the environment or promote sustainable development would be futile.

Stating that there is no common willingness among governments to respond to societal concerns, since the U.S., Australia, Canada and members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) resisting any new commitments, the FoEI sets two challenges for governments to show that they are willing to act. One is to launch negotiations to set down binding global rules relating to corporate accountability and to establish that multilateral environmental agreements will not be subordinate to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. According to the FoEI, voluntary initiatives cannot be a credible alternative to internationally agreed binding rules of accountability.

Eager to prevent a failure of the summit, South African President Thabo Mbeki has set up a 25-country group, known as 'Friends of the Chair', to try and forge agreements on some unsettled issues before the summit begins. The "intensified behind-the-scene meeting" was held in New York on July 17 and was led by South African Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and Kofi Annan.

The WSSD, which will bring together over 60,000 representatives of governments, business, non-governmental organisations, labour, media, and civil rights groups, besides activists, would have, apart from the main programme, a parallel session of activists and civil rights groups. Among the world leaders who may attend are 58 heads of state, 40 heads of government and seven vice-presidents.

But will all this help the developing countries' cause? It well might. Dr. Swaminathan said: "The developing countries should focus on a three-point agenda: First, to agree to implement, in letter and spirit, the conventions negotiated and agreed upon over the years. Second, to address issues such as unfair trade, growing economic inequity, unemployment and marginalisation of the poor, and the increasing dichotomy of unsustainable lifestyles and unacceptable poverty. It is important to stress at the summit that trade should not only be free but also fair. The developed countries should not increase subsidies with impunity like what the U.S. has done in agriculture. This impacts severely on developing countries. Their farm products become uncompetitive in the international market; jobs disappear and livelihood systems are killed. Third is the issue of institutional and governance structure, including strengthening the UNEP. The summit should look at instruments that would implement the conventions and also monitor it."