See more coverage of this event on the main IISD ENB website

We have launched a new website to better share our reports of global environmental negotiations.

As well as current coverage of new negotiations, you can find our original reports from this event by clicking here.





 

 WSSD.INFO NEWS

 

WSSD Info. News

ISSUE # 10 (D)
"A SNAP-SHOT OF THE SUMMIT" – MAJOR GROUPS

Issue # 10 (A) ~ Issue # 10 (B) ~ Issue # 10 (C) ~ Issue # 10 (D) ~ Issue # 10 (E)

Compiled by Richard Sherman

Edited by Kimo Goree 

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

Distributed exclusively to the 2002SUMMIT-L list by IISD Reporting Services

For more information on the WSSD, visit IISD's Linkages Portal at http://wssd.info

Editor's note: Welcome to the tenth and final issue of WSSD.Info News, compiled by Richard Sherman. WSSD.Info News is an exclusive publication of IISD for the 2002SUMMIT-L list and should not be reposted or republished to other lists/websites without the permission of IISD (you can write Kimo for permission.) If you have been forwarded this issue and would like to subscribe to 2002SUMMIT-L, please visit http://iisd.ca/scripts/lyris.pl?join=2002summit-l.

Funding for the production of WSSD.Info News (part of the IISD Reporting Services annual program) has been provided by The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the United States (through USAID), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development - DFID), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany (through German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the Bulletin during 2002 is provided by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment of Finland, the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment of Norway, Swan International, and the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES). If you like WSSD.Info News, please thank them for their support.


CIVIL SOCIETY

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)

  1. CONSERVING THE EARTH CAN KEEP THE PEACE, SAVE LIVES 3 September 2002

  2. NEW SOFTWARE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY 30 August 2002

  3. IISD RELEASES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT'S TOP TEN OF THE DECADE 26 August 2002

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI)

  1. WRI EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT OVER MANY WSSD OUTCOMES World Resources Institute 4 September 2002

  2. WRI AND PARTNERS LAUNCH NEW PARTNERSHIP AT WORLD SUMMIT TO PROMOTE MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING 29 August 2002

WORLDWATCH INSTITUITE

  1. WORLD SUMMIT POST-MORTEM September 2002

IUCN

  1. IUCN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT POLITICAL DECLARATION 3 September 2002

  2. CONSERVING THE EARTH CAN KEEP THE PEACE, SAVE LIVES 3 September 2002

  3. NELSON MANDELA AND HM QUEEN NOOR OF JORDAN LAUNCH THE VTH WORLD PARKS CONGRESS 2003 AT WORLD SUMMIT Celebrating the vital contribution of Protected Areas to sustainable Development 2 September 2002

  4. BUSINESS MAKES THE CASE FOR BIODIVERSITY! 1 September 2002

  5. IUCN ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF WSSD NEGOTIATIONS 1 September 2002

  6. IUCN CALLS ON GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WORLD NEEDS A CONCRETE PLAN OF ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, NOT A NEW TRADE AGREEMENT 30 August 2002

GREENING THE SUMMIT

  1. GREENING THE WSSD MEASURES IMPACT OF WORLD SUMMIT ON JOBURG RESOURCES 5 September 2002

  2. GREENING THE WSSD MEASURES IMPACT OF WORLD SUMMIT ON JOBURG RESOURCES 5 September 2002

  3. CONSUMPTION BAROMETER SHOWS HOW SUMMIT DELEGATES IMPACT ON JOHANNESBURG 29 August 2002

TATA ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (TERI)

  1. CONSENSUS SANS COMMITMENT TERI'S REVIEW AND CRITIQUE ON WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THIRD WORLD NETWORK (TWN)

  1. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PASSED, DRAMA ON CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY SUNS 4 September 2002

  2. UN INFECTED BY WTO VIRUS SUNS 6 September 2002

  3. EFFORTS FOR WTO SUPREMACY OVER ALL FUTURE ACCORDS FAIL SUNS 6 September 2002

CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT (CSE)

  1. NGOS BOO POWELL'S SPEECH 4 September 2002

  2. MORE PAINS THAN GAINS 2 September 2002

  3. WSSD ENDS WITH A WHIMPER Down to Earth 31August 2002

  4. DIFFERENCES REMAIN, COMPROMISES IMMINENT FOR DEVELOPING WORLD 31 August 2002

  5. WSSD TURNED INTO PARTNERSHIP MARKET 31 August 2002

STAKEHOLDER FORUM FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE

  1. AGRICULTURE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 27 August 2002

WWF

  1. WSSD: WORLD SUMMIT OF SHAMEFUL DEALS 3 September 2002

  2. FINAL UPDATE FROM THE WSSD WWF

  3. WSSD ON ENERGY -- NOTHING FOR THE POOR, NOTHING FOR THE CLIMATE WWF 3 September 2002

GREENPEACE

  1. SUMMIT FAILS GREENPEACE'S REPORT CARD ON THE SUMMIT 3 September 2002

  2. WHY ARE WE BEING IMITATED? Sun 1 September 2002

  3. TRADITIONAL ADVERSARIES CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 28 August 2002

  4. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL FOR FOSSIL FUELS 30 August 2002

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI)

  1. BETRAYAL.... BUT SEE YOU ALL IN MEXICO! 3 September.

  2. SASOLBURG COMMUNITY RAISES CONCERNS AROUND SASOL'S POLLUTION WITH SCOTLAND'S FIRST MINISTER Groundwork / FOEI 4 September 2002

  3. GOVERNMENTS MISS HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY 4 September 2002

  4. KYOTO LIVES - BUSH FOILED AGAIN 3 September 2002

OXFAM

  1. CRUMBS FOR THE POOR September 2002

  2. OXFAM DUMPS SUGAR ON THE WSSD 29 August 2002

MAJOR GROUPS
 

TRADE UNIONS
 

INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU)

  1. UNIONS ASSESS THE WSSD  -MOVING BEYOND THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION   TUAC17 SEPTEMBER 2002

  2. WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT A LACK OF CONCRETE COMMITMENTS ICFTU 6 September 2002

  3. WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: JOHANNESBURG 2002: UNIONS DEFEND WOMEN'S RIGHTS AT WSSD ICFTU3 September 2002

  4. GROUNDING SUSTAINABILITY IN REALITY Union Network28 August 2002

  5. MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK: DECENT JOBS AT THE HEART OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Union Network 24 August 2002

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
 

BUSINESS ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

  1. WSSD: THE BUSINESS CONCLUSION 4 September 2002

  2. KEY BUSINESS MESSAGES 4 September 2002

  3. MINING INDUSTRY AND IUCN - THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION ANNOUNCE PARTNERSHIP ON MINING AND BIODIVERSITY 31 August 2002

  4. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN ON SAFE CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. 30 August 2002

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

  1. FIRST COMMENTS: THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Written by Gino Van Begin, Regional Director, ICLEI European Secretariat 5 September 2002

  2. LOCAL LEADERS URGE DELEGATES TO TAKE STRATEGIC APPROACH 2 September 2002

YOUTH

  1. YOUTH CAUCUS INPUT TO POLITICAL DECLARATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DELEGATES OF JOHANNESBURG +10.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

  1. HISTORICAL USE OF LEGAL TERM "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES" IN UN DECLARATION

FARMERS

  1. WSSD PRESS STATEMENT BY SMALL-HOLDER FARMERS AND FISH HARVESTERS

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY

  1. RICH NATIONS 'MUST BOOST SCIENCE IN POOR AREAS' Scidev.Net 13 September 2002

  2. SUMMIT BOOSTS FUNDS FOR SCIENCE IN POOR NATIONS SciDev.Net 5 September 2002

  3. POPULATION IS KEY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Scidev.Net 3 September 2002

  4. HIGH-LEVEL PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA Ubuntu Village (Johannesburg, South Africa), Third World Academy of Sciences 1 September 2002

  5. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg, South Africa, Professor Mohamed H.A. Hassan Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) 29 August 2002

WOMEN'S CAUCUS

  1. WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN DANGER Women's Caucus 1 September 2002

  2. STATEMENT TO THE PLENARY OF THE WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DELIVERED BY MUBORAK SHARIPOVA* Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) 29 August 2002

FAITH BASED ORGANISATIONS

  1. WSSD: "KYOTO IS NOT ENOUGH" ECUMENICAL STATEMENT WARNS World Council of Churches (WCC) 3 September 2002

  2. ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT AT WORLD SUMMIT CAFOD 3 September 2002

PARLIAMENTARIANS
 

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

  1. MPs PLEDGE ACTION BEYOND WSSD 30 August 2002

WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING'S

  1. WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING'S PRESENTATION OF DRAFT FINDINGS INDEPENDENT CIVIL SOCIETY ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT STATE OF THE WORLD RELEASES FINDINGS FROM JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA SUBMITTED BY WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING PROJECT

  2. KEEPING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE EARTH'S PEOPLE Civil Society Assessment of Globalization & Sustainable Development to Boost Grassroots Voices at the World Summit World Sustainability Hearing's 25 August 2002

ON THE WEB

POSITION STATEMENTS BY MAJOR GROUPS, ISSUE CAUCUSES & OTHERS

Ford Foundation Rio+10 Project

GLOBAL PEOPLE'S FORUM: CIVIL SOCIETY DECLARATION

GLOBAL PEOPLE'S FORUM: PROGRAMME OF ACTION

DECLARATION OF ARAB NGOS
WATER COMMISSION STATEMENT
BIOTECHNOLOGY & GMO COMMISSION

TRADE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

COMMISSION: CONFLICT AND PEACE
SOCIAL PROTECTION AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY

COMMISSION ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION

AGRICULTURE COMMISSION SESSION FIRST DRAFT REPORT

BIODIVERSITY COMMISSION REPORT
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY COMMISSION REPORT

OUTCOMES OF THE COMMISSION OF FORESTS
JOBS, LIVABLE WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT
REPORT ON COMMISSION ON DEBT ERADICATION

FINANCING DEVELOPMENT
MINING, HUMAN SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

POVERTY AS A PRIORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

PARTICIPATION AND ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL SOCIETY MARINE, INLAND FISHERIES AND COASTS COMMISSION
POVERTY, RACISM, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

SAFS CAUCUS RESPONSE TO "A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION ON AGRICULTURE"

COMMISSION ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DEVELOPMENT

DECLARATION OF THE "AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES ON LAND AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT" FORUM

DRAFT APPEAL TO HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

KIMBERLEY DECLARATION (ENGLISH)

KIMBERLEY DECLARATION (SPANISH)

AFRICA TRADE POLICY WORKING GROUP

CONVERGENCE STATEMENT FROM SMALL FARMERS

AFRICA CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS: THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION

COMMISSION: LAND AND LANDLESSNESS

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION

POVERTY AS A PRIORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

WOMEN'S ACTION TENT DEMAND

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

LIBERTY THEATER STRATEGY MEETING - 1 AUGUST 2002

LIBERTY THEATRE MEETING - 31-8-02

LIBERTY THEATER STRATEGY MEETING SUMMARY - 2 SEPTEMBER 2002

THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION ON BIOPIRACY, BIODIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS

 

MAJOR GROUPS DAILY NEWSLETTERS


ECO-EQUITY


Johannesburg Summit ECO#8, 4 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#7 3 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#6, 2 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#5, 30 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#4, 29 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#3, 28 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#2, 27 September 2002

Johannesburg Summit ECO#1, 26 September 2002


WBCSD DAILY BUSINESS BRIEFS

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development daily updates:

28 August 2002

29 August 2002

30 August 2002

31 August 2002

2 September 2002

3 September 2002

4September 2002


OUTREACH DAILY WSSD NEWS

Monday 26th August

Tuesday 27th August

Wednesday 28th August

Thursday 29th August

Friday 30th August

Monday 2nd September

Tuesday 3rd September

Wednesday 4th September

 
CIVIL SOCIETY

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)

WSSD Web page: http://wssd.info/

Earth Negotiations Bulletin: Daily Coverage: http://enb.iisd.org/2002/wssd/index.html

Earth Negotiations Bulletin: Summary and Analysis: http://enb.iisd.org/vol22/enb2251e.html


1. CONSERVING THE EARTH CAN KEEP THE PEACE, SAVE LIVES

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iisd.org/media/2002/aug_30_2002_c.asp

Johannesburg, South Africa, September 3, 2002 (IISD/IUCN) - As the World Summit on Sustainable Development enters its final 48 hours the issues of environment and security will be front and centre. A new publication by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the IUCN - World Conservation Union says that while wars between countries are increasingly unlikely, over three-quarters are fought within developing countries, by armed bands financing themselves with diamonds, drugs and illegal logging. The fatal blow for  Governments already weakened by economic downturn is increasingly environmental-from natural disaster or famine to rapid deforestation or toxic pollution-which deepens ethnic divides and sparks violence. In a series of case studies ranging from the role of land scarcity and population growth in densely populated Rwanda to the "war" between Canada and Spain over the Atlantic fisheries, "Conserving the Peace: Resources, Livelihoods and Security" examines how natural resource management is linked to social tension and conflict, and spells out the value of protecting the environment in addressing the roots of insecurity. "The impact of today's wars is overwhelmingly felt by the poor," stressed Richard Matthew, security expert at the University of California and co-author of the report presented today. Pointing out that 15 of the world's 20 least-developed nations were torn by internal conflicts in the 1990s, he cautioned that unresolved conflicts can spill across borders and even onto the Main Streets of the world's financial centres, with global implications. "Addressing the roots of conflict means safeguarding the critical resources which people need to survive and thrive," said Achim Steiner, Director General of IUCN - The World Conservation Union. "As much as 50 per cent of wood imported into Europe may come from illegal sources, much of which is harvested at gunpoint, with devastating impacts on traditional communities and on wildlife." "Conserving the Peace: Resources, Livelihoods and Security," which can be accessed in its entirety here asks the question: is conflict on the rise because of mismanagement of the planet's natural resources? And if so, what can be done about it? "Security is at the top of the political agenda, particularly with September 11th only a week away," observed David Runnalls, President of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "The global community spent nearly US$30 billion on humanitarian assistance in the 1990s, an ever-increasing part of foreign aid. This trend is unsustainable. Our two years of research in this field shows that protecting critical natural systems can be a cheap investment in peace." The world leaders attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which comes to a close on September 4th, are aiming to confront serious and growing threats to human well-being, from water scarcity to land degradation to biodiversity loss. For example, every year land degradation and desertification cause an estimated $42 billion in damage and lost income, but the cost to prevent degradation would total only $2.4 billion a year, according to United Nations. Conservation action in different parts of the world has shown that these alarming trends can and should be reversed and that environmental health is key to long-term economic and political stability. "The Johannesburg Summit promises the world a new comprehensive agenda that, by addressing all aspects of the development process at the same time, offers a realistic framework for lasting global security," noted Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, IUCN Patron, who addressed the delegates at the launch of the book at 5:30 p.m. at the IUCN Environment Centre Atrium. 

2. NEW SOFTWARE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO MEASURE SUSTAINABILITY

30  August 2002

Internet: http://www.iisd.org/media/2002/aug_30_2002.asp

The Dashboard of Sustainability, a new online tool that helps policy-makers and the public visualize and track progress towards sustainable development, will be presented at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The software communicates complex information in a user-friendly format, allowing people to see sustainability performance between countries, through the use of numerous indicators. The Dashboard of Sustainability was developed by the Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (CGSDI), a group of leading indicator experts from five continents. It is based on the United Nations CSD indicator set and contains 19 social, 20 environmental, 14 economic and eight institutional indicators. It includes data for over 200 countries. The latest version, RioJo, allows a comparison of the situation at the time of the Rio Summit in 1992 with the current state of the world.

The Dashboard is the product of a six-year international project led by the Canadian-based International Institute for Sustainable Development, with headquarters in Winnipeg, Manitoba. "It provides a tool to signal what is significant and to go deeper into the underlying causes," says Peter Hardi, Director of Measurement and Indicators at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "Like the instrumentation of an aircraft, the Dashboard offers a visual signal of progress towards sustainable development, and warnings of problems." "The Dashboard helps the 'pilots' of our societies to understand the complexity of sustainable development, and to discuss and communicate their ideas," adds Jochen Jesinghaus, a civil servant at the European Commission and author of the Dashboard software.

The prototype will be demonstrated on August 30, 2002, 11:00 am - 3:00 pm at the Ubuntu Village Conference Centre, room F - Fever Tree.

BACKGROUND

An aircraft dashboard contains instruments that signal the flight path and performance, enabling the pilot to know when corrective action is needed. The signals are often integrated in one panel to avoid overwhelming the pilot with information, but individual problems and more specific information can be traced back through the detailed instrument displays. The Dashboard of Sustainability takes an analogous approach to the presentation of sustainable development indicators. It is an instrument panel designed to inform decision-makers and the public on the status of a nation's progress toward (or movement away from) sustainability. The concept grew out of the work of the Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (CGSDI), engaged in critical assessments and design discussions since 1996. Recently, the Dashboard was made functional by using 57 indicators offered by the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) to compose the three main clusters for over 100 countries. Algorithms and graphic presentation software have been developed; data are presented in an animated version of the Dashboard. The specification has a built-in flexibility and the clusters can be modified according to the end-users' specific needs, without changing the functioning of the Dashboard. It allows the presentation of four dials, corresponding to the four clusters of the CSD indicator set (economic, environmental, social and institutional). The Dashboard allows presentation of complex relationships in a format that is digestible for decision-makers and other persons who might specialize in one field (e.g., environment or social issues or economics), but need to integrate policy fields in which they are not experts, into their work.

The correlation between any pair of indicators can be shown graphically. A list of indicators, sorted by "best fit," allows identification of the most relevant linkages (for example: is unemployment correlated with GDP growth?). In particular, these functions allow identification of synergies (indicators whose "desirable" values are positively correlated) and potential conflicts (e.g., environment vs. many economic and social variables). Work on the Dashboard has brought together a multidisciplinary team and a unique constellation of partner institutions. One particularly important area where significant efforts are still needed is the input of developing countries to enrich the selection of sustainability measures.

ABOUT IISD

The International Institute for Sustainable Development is an independent, not for profit corporation headquartered in Canada whose mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. Established in 1990 with continuing support from the governments of Canada and Manitoba, IISD also receives revenue from foundations and other private sector sources. The Institute is a registered charitable organization in Canada and a 501(c)(3) tax exempt, nonprofit corporation. Dr. Peter Hardi is the Director of the Measurement and Indicators Program at the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Over the past decade he has designed and implemented sustainable development indicator projects in a variety of settings, ranging from local communities to international agencies and from highly developed countries to developing nations and countries in transition. Jochen Jesinghaus is an economist, engineer and author of the Dashboard indicator software. As a civil servant of the European Commission, he worked since 1992 on environmental and sustainable development indicators at Eurostat and the Joint Research Centre. Other work areas include Ecological Tax Reform and indicator linkages.

3. IISD RELEASES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT'S TOP TEN OF THE DECADE

26 August 2002

Internet: http://www.iisd.org/media/2002/aug_26_2002.asp

The Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero held over a decade ago brought global attention to the environmental, social and economic crises facing the world. A new publication released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ten + Ten, assesses the progress we have made since then, examining the 10 under-celebrated successes in the last 10 years and the 10 glaring failures. The publication, available online, asks the questions: what has the world accomplished since 1992, where have we all fallen short and what do we need to do next? While acknowledging the lack of political will to honour many commitments made in Rio, there is hope for the future. "We wanted to illustrate successes as well as failures to offer some real hope that, slowly, the world is starting to shift direction. The successes signal the hard work of scientists, bureaucrats, business people and citizens around the world to respect and safeguard humanity and the ecosystems," says Heather Creech, Director of Knowledge Communications at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, who led the editorial committee for the publication. The ten failures include the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the human tragedy of AIDS, the continued extinction of rare species of animals and the continued armed conflicts raging around the globe. Successes include landmark agreements reached on chemical and biological risks, the thousands of practical grassroots projects and the emergence of corporate social responsibility. For more information please visit: http://www.iisd.org/briefcase/ten+ten.asp


WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI)

Internet: http://www.wri.org

4. WRI EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT OVER MANY WSSD OUTCOMES

World Resources Institute

4 September 2002

Internet: http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?NewsReleaseID=135

WASHINGTON, DC and JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, September 4, 2002 -- Despite some advances made by negotiators at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which ends today, the World Resources Institute (WRI) expressed disappointment in the overall outcomes incorporated in the WSSD Plan of Action.  "Over-all we must ask, will the poor be better off ten years from now? Will our world be safer or more secure from global environmental threats ten years from now?" said Jonathan Lash, WRI president. "Unfortunately, there are too many gaps and too few teeth in the WSSD Plan of Action." The WRI delegation was particularly disappointed over the governments failure to set targets for increases in renewable energy like solar or wind. The United States and other oil producing countries have resisted setting targets for renewable energy, while European countries and some developing countries like Brazil and the Philippines lobbied hard for such targets.  While the Plan of Action contains language on actions to help solve climate change, it is silent on the need for all countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty is needed to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was adopted by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The United States has lobbied hard against it. "Energy and climate change are inextricably linked. Energy generated by fossil fuels is driving global climate change," said Jonathan Lash. "We have missed an opportunity to increase energy production from non-polluting sources like solar, biomass, and wind, and to provide the many companies taking action to reduce emissions with a secure framework for their actions." The head of WRI's WSSD delegation, Dr. Tony La Viña, also criticized the lack of commitment to provide more financial resources to implement this plan. He also criticized the government's failure to guide the World Trade Organization in implementing the Doha Agreement and to look at globalization from a sustainable development perspective. While expressing disappointment over these issues, WRI welcomed many of the targets adopted by the WSSD, especially on water, sanitation, and biodiversity. The WSSD Plan of Action calls for halving the number of people without access to proper sanitation by 2015; restoring depleted fish stocks by 2015; and significantly reducing the extinction rate of the world's plants and animals by 2010.  "While far from perfect, the WSSD Plan of Action brings us forward in some issues," said Dr. La Viña. "The problem is that small steps are no longer sufficient when the world is faced with enormous environmental and development problems." The WRI delegation also welcomed the WSSD's reaffirmation of Principle 10 and its support for the Partnership for Principle 10 (PP10). This principle was first enshrined in the 1992 Earth Summit Declaration and calls for public access to information, participation, and justice to ensure environmentally sustainable decisions. The WRI delegation stressed that solutions to global environmental problems can be more effectively addressed through collaborations like PP10, rather than leaving them entirely to governments.  "This Summit will be remembered not for the treaties, the commitments, or the declarations it produced, but for the first stirrings of a new way of governing the global commons -- the beginnings of a shift from the stiff formal waltz of traditional diplomacy to the jazzier dance of improvisational solution-oriented partnerships that may include non-government organizations, willing governments and other stakeholders," said Lash.  

5. WRI AND PARTNERS LAUNCH NEW PARTNERSHIP AT WORLD SUMMIT TO PROMOTE MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING

29 August 2002

Internet: http://newsroom.wri.org/newsrelease_text.cfm?NewsReleaseID=132

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, August 29, 2002 -- A new initiative called the Partnership for Principle 10 (PP10) will be launched today by governments, donor groups, and non-governmental organizations as one of the first outcomes of the on-going World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).  Organizers said that the new partnership provides a way for governments, civil society organizations, donors, and other stakeholders to work together to implement practical solutions to increase public access to information, participation, and justice for environmentally sustainable decisions. "A public participation system that integrates social and environmental concerns in economic decisions is essential to promote sustainable development," said Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute (WRI), one of the leading partners of PP10. The PP10 is a Type 2 outcome in UN parlance, meaning it involves non-government stakeholders, compared with a Type 1 outcome, which is an inter-governmental agreement. Type 2 partnerships have been criticized as a loophole which governments may use to dodge making meaningful commitments. PP10, however, is explicitly linked to inter-governmental commitments, including Principle 10 of the 1992 Earth Summit Declaration and Paragraph 111 of the WSSD Plan of Action.

"We see the PP10 as a transparent, accountable, and flexible mechanism to accelerate implementation of multilateral commitments at the national level, and therefore a model of how Type 2 partnerships should be structured," said Dr. Corrado Clini, director general of Italy's Ministry for the Environment and Territory. PP10's strategy is to support independent assessments of national performance, based on a common framework, and collaborate with others to address the results of those assessments and capacity-building needs. Each partner makes specific commitments upon joining and is held accountable for delivering on these commitments.  Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) do independent assessments of how their governments are ensuring public participation. Together with government agencies and other stakeholders, their findings are reviewed and priorities for action are identified. Donor agencies may then choose to fund these priorities or further assessments. "Through this partnership, we are seeking international cooperation to improve our capacity to provide public access to information, participation, and justice in decision-making that affects the environment," said Ruhakana Rugunda, Uganda's Minister of Water, Lands, and Environment and president of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN). "We look forward to collaborating with NGOs, other governments, and international organizations to ensure that local people have a voice and influence decisions that affect their livelihoods." By February 2003, PP10 expects that governments, donors, and NGOs from at least 20 countries will be represented in the partnership. Over the next 10 years, the partnership will produce three global reports and 45 national assessments. It is expected to deliver US$25 million in aid to implement the priorities identified by the assessments.  "It is vital that individuals are able to learn about the quality of their air and water, that they are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives," said Michael Meacher, Minister of the Environment of the United Kingdom. "This partnership will empower citizens to gain access to essential information and to make their voices heard in decision-making, ensuring that governments are held accountable for their actions that affect the environment. The UK is proud to financially support the Partnership and looks forward to collaborating with its partners." Governments that have expressed support for PP10 include Chile, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uganda, as well as the European Commission. The United Nations Development Programme, IUCN-the World Conservation Union, and the World Bank are also partners.  Among the founding NGO partners are Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment of Uganda, Corporación Participa of Chile, the Environmental Management and Law Association of Hungary, Presencia Ciudadana Mexicana of Mexico, the Thailand Environment Institute, the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, and Ohio Citizen Action in the United States.  The Partnership for Principle 10 is based on the work of The Access Initiative, a global NGO coalition of over 25 organizations from nine countries. They pioneered the development of a set of tools that allow civil society to conduct independent assessments of national performance on access to information, participation, and justice in decision-making that affects the environment.
 

WORLDWATCH INSTITUITE

WSSD Web Page: http://www.worldwatch.org/worldsummit

6. WORLD SUMMIT POST-MORTEM

Internet: http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/20020903.html

Washington, D.C. - After 10 days of contentious negotiations, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) concludes this Wednesday, September 4, in Johannesburg, South Africa.  The Worldwatch Institute has been monitoring and analyzing World Summit preparations over the past several months. Seven members of the Institute's staff and board were non-governmental delegates to the Summit. Christopher Flavin, the Institute's President, and several of his colleagues have returned to Washington and are prepared to provide analysis and commentary on the Summit's outcome.  The Institute's assessment includes:

1. The agreement reached in Johannesburg is weak on targets and timetables. It will also be more difficult to enforce as it lacks sanctions for non-compliance. (To the contrary, such sanctions were included in a world trade agreement struck last year.) The question now is whether government leaders will enact and enforce laws needed to make the vision of a sustainable world a reality.

2. World Summit deliberations revealed widening splits between nations. Europe, for example, is now far more willing than the United States to adopt tough new environmental standards. The divide is even greater between industrial and developing countries on the question of economic assistance for reducing poverty. The next few years will reveal whether progress over the past two decades toward multilateral cooperation on pressing environmental and social issues will continue.

3. A vigorous debate over renewable energy lasted right up to the end of the Summit, with Europe and several Latin American countries arguing for a firm commitment to move away from fossil fuels. Although the United States, China, and OPEC were ultimately successful in weakening this provision, the fact that the debate progressed as far as it did reflects strengthened confidence in the ability of new energy technologies to move quickly into the marketplace, a perspective that was shared by many industry representatives in Johannesburg.

Read more on the World Summit on Sustainable Development here! http://www.worldwatch.org/worldsummit/

IUCN
 

WSSD Web Page: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/

Press releases: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/pressreleases.htm

IUCN ENVIRONMENT CENTRE AT THE WSSD:

GLOBALISATION WITH EQUITY
Monday 26 August
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_m26.htm

 

IMAGINE FEASIBLE FUTURES
Tuesday 27th August
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_t27.htm

 

BIODIVERSITY AND POVERTY
Wednesday 28th August
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_w28.htm

 

AFRICA DAY RICH BUT POOR: CONFRONTING AFRICA'S CONTRADICTIONS
Thursday 29th
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_t29.htm


DIGITAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD
Friday 30th August
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_f30.htm


BUSINESS & BIODIVERSITY DAY
Saturday 31st August
http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_s31.htm

 

WATER DAY
Sunday 1st September

http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_s01.htm

 

PARKS DAY

Monday 2nd September

http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_m2.htm

 

HUMAN SECURITY & ENVIRONMENT

Tuesday 3rd September

http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_t3.htm

 

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE FUTURE

Wednesday 4th September

http://www.iucn.org/wssd/summit/sofar/index_w4.htm

7. IUCN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT POLITICAL DECLARATION

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/0409/prpoldeclar0409.pdf

IUCN welcomes the draft political declaration tabled on Monday, 2 September. There is much to commend in the draft. It includes many (but not all) of the major themes debated throughout the process including each of the WEHAB themes. It also highlights the interdependency of the three inseparable pillars of sustainable development, namely economic well-being, social equity and environmental protection. Sustainable development must include efforts to eliminate poverty and to improve standards of living, as well as the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, and the achievement of sustainable production and consumption patterns. Indeed, sustainable development should be at the core of the United Nations System and the Bretton Woods institutions. The draft declaration could, however, be shorter and more tightly focused. That said, IUCN would like to highlight four critical issues that need attention, either to be included or simply to be retained and strengthened in the text.

RIO PRINCIPLES AND SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS: IUCN fully endorses paragraph 23 reaffirming the commitment to uphold the Rio Principles and fully implement Agenda 21. In addition, IUCN suggests an amendment to paragraph 10 to urge the immediate ratification and accelerated implementation of the conventions and protocols adopted at and since Rio to implement sustainable development. In addition to reaffirming the commitment to achieving sustainable development (para. 2) the declaration should also reaffirm the principles agreed in Rio ten years ago. The importance of mentioning these principles lies in the fact that they were agreed upon in Rio as fundamental to achieving sustainable development.

BIODIVERSITY: IUCN fully endorses paragraph 44, as it recognizes the essential linkage between sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity. Biodiversity - the variability among living organisms from all sources and the ecological complexes of which they are part, including diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems - is vital to the wellbeing of people and is the foundation upon which sustainable development is built. The poor, in particular, rely more heavily and more directly on natural resources for their livelihoods than other socioeconomic groups, and the poor are more vulnerable to loss of environmental resources due to their lack of alternative assets.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & TRADE

IUCN believes that the Political Declaration should contain a commitment to enhance coordination and consistency across the different sectoral regimes through the United Nations and Bretton Woods systems in order to ensure their contributions to sustainable development. The Doha Ministerial Declaration provided an opportunity for Trade Ministers to articulate their vision of the relationship between environment and development and the Monterrey Consensus provided an opportunity for Finance and Development

Cooperation Ministers to add their contribution. So far, the global vision of this relationship is incomplete and inadequate, especially in relation to environment and development concerns, as shown in the debate over "mutual supportiveness" in the Plan of Implementation. The Johannesburg Summit provides the opportunity for Environment Ministers and Heads of State and Government to complete this discussion and articulate a vision of trade, development and environment in which each contributes to sustainable development.

MULTILATERALISM

IUCN fully endorses paragraphs 61 and 62 calling for "enhanced and accountable international and multilateral institutions" and the "strengthening of multilateralism." Global environmental problems, as well as the challenges of poverty on the scale we see in the world today cannot be solved by any one country acting alone. These challenges can only be solved through a multilateral approach. Indeed, the unique value of a summit such as WSSD is that it provides the opportunity to articulate and mobilize collective action for sustainable development.

8. CONSERVING THE EARTH CAN KEEP THE PEACE, SAVE LIVES

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/0309/priucniisd.pdf

Johannesburg, South Africa, September 3, 2002 (IISD/IUCN) - As the World Summit on Sustainable Development enters its final 48 hours, the issues of environment and security will be front and centre. A new publication, a collaborative work by the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the World Conservation Union, says that while wars between countries are increasingly unlikely, over three-quarters are fought within developing countries, by armed bands financing themselves with diamonds, drugs and illegal logging. The fatal

blow for nations already weakened by economic downturn is increasingly environmental - from natural disaster or famine to rapid deforestation or toxic pollution - which deepens ethnic divides and sparks violence. The book is a series of case studies examining how

natural resource management (or mismanagement) is linked to social tension and conflict, and identifying a role for the conservation community in addressing the environmental roots of insecurity. "The impact of today's wars is overwhelmingly felt by the poor", stressed Richard Matthew, security expert at the University of California and co-author of a new report on the links between Environment and Security presented today. Pointing out that 15 of the world's 20 least-developed nations were torn by internal conflicts in the 1990s, he cautioned that unresolved conflicts can spill across borders and even onto the Main Streets of the world's financial centers, with global implications.

"Addressing the roots of conflict means safeguarding the critical resources which people need to survive or thrive. And it means regulating the international markets for natural resources that allow these gangs to purchase arms," said Achim Steiner, Director General of IUCN - The World Conservation Union. "As much as 50 percent of wood imported into Europe may come from illegal sources, harvested at the point of a gun, with devastating impacts on local communities and the biodiversity resources their nations rely on for development".

The new publication "Conserving the Peace: Livelihoods, Resources and Security" finds, which can be accessed at  http://www.iisd.org/natres/security/publications.asp  asks the question, is conflict on the rise because of mismanagement of the planet's natural resources? And if so, what can be done about it?  "Security is at the top of the political agenda, particularly with September 11th only a week away", observed David Runnalls, President of Canadian think-tank the International Institute for Sustainable Development. "The global community spent nearly US$30 billion on humanitarian assistance in the 1990s, an ever-increasing part of foreign aid. This trend

is unsustainable. Our two years of research in this field shows that protecting critical natural systems can be a cheap investment in peace."

For example, every year land degradation and desertification cause an estimated $42 billion in damage and lost income, but the cost to prevent degradation would total only $2.4 billion a year, according to United Nations. Conservation action in different parts of the world has shown that these alarming trends can and should be reversed and that environmental health is key to long-term economic and political stability. "The Johannesburg Summit promises the world a new comprehensive agenda that, by addressing all aspects of the development process at the same time, offers a realistic framework for lasting global security," noted Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, IUCN Patron, who will be addressing the delegates at the launch of the book held at 5:30 p.m. at the IUCN Environment Centre Atrium.

9. NELSON MANDELA AND HM QUEEN NOOR OF JORDAN LAUNCH THE VTH WORLD

PARKS CONGRESS 2003 AT WORLD SUMMIT Celebrating the vital contribution of Protected Areas to sustainable Development

2 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/0209/pr0209parks.pdf

Johannesburg, 2 September (IUCN) - Mr Nelson Mandela and HM Queen Noor of Jordan, along with a number of Heads of

State and other dignitaries, today launch the 2003 World Congress on Protected Areas at the IUCN Environment Centre in Johannesburg.

This once-in-a-decade event will be held 8 - 17 September 2003 in Durban, South Africa, under the theme of "Protected Areas:

Benefits Beyond Boundaries". Mr Mandela and HM Queen Noor share the Patronage of the Congress. "The challenges that face conservation and sustainable development have clearly been identified. We need to deal with inequality and divisions," Mr Mandela said.

Protected Areas - a generic term covering national parks, wilderness areas, multiple-use areas and other types of reserves - conserve those special places on earth that are vital for sustainable development. They provide water, protect soils and filter air. They help to regulate our climate and provide a buffer against natural disasters. They offer materials from nature to meet the needs of poor communities and hold the promise of improving foods and medicines from their unexplored genetic resources. There are now 44,000 protected areas in the world, covering ten per cent of the world-s land surface - an area equivalent to India and China combined. Mr Mandela emphasised this relevance of protected areas for the debates currently underway in the Johannesburg Summit, as such areas protect the basic life support system for the earth and are an inextricable part of sustainable development in rural areas. He added: "Many of our protected areas have proved themselves to be vital sources of economic development, bringing a wide variety of benefits to a broad spectrum of society." Mr Mandela particularly endorsed the Congress Theme of "Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries" and noted that: "We in South Africa can associate closely with this theme as we have worked to break with the boundaries and isolation of the past, and to forge new partnerships with one another and with the world". "I have no doubt that the World Parks Congress comes to South Africa at just the right time" said Mr Mandela. He stressed that "the key to a sustainable future lies in the development of partnerships". It is only through alliances and partnerships that parks can improve the contribution of these areas to the needs of society. Partnerships need to be created between parks and neighbouring communities, entrepreneurs and governments. Mr Mandela expressed "particular pleasure and pride in the new international partnerships we are developing in Southern Africa, partnerships between neighbouring states to create transboundary protected areas and peace parks". "The Vth World Parks Congress reinforces a philosophy of reaching out with its theme 'Benefits beyond Boundaries' perfectly reflecting the need to think, plan and work at the broadest possible level and with its widest range of players", said Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan, joint patron of the World Parks Congress 2003 with Mr Mandela. Her Majesty noted the relevance of protected areas to security and environment, which will be major themes of the 2003 Congress. She highlighted the relevance of environmental degradation to many situations of tension and conflict, and emphasised that "Peace Parks" - transboundary protected areas - can also contribute to enhanced cooperation between countries and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Her Majesty urged all "to think beyond boundaries, beyond ethnic and religious grounds and beyond nations in our global quest for a just world that values and conserves nature". Protected Areas are an important tool to halt the destruction of our natural wealth, yet they face many challenges as we move into the new century. They are at risk as never before from human infringement, pollution through water and air, and illegal exploitation. The 2003 World Parks Congress will reflect on the past and look to the future to chart new directions for the worlds protected areas. Other dignitaries present at the launch included President Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya of Mauritania, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, King Goodwill Zwelithini of the Zulu Nation, Mohamed El-Ashry of the Global Environmental Facility, and Yolanda Kakabadse and Achim Steiner of IUCN - he World Conservation Union. A surprise very special guest was Rigoberta Menchu Tum, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who also addressed the assembly. President Cardoso of Brazil called biodiversity protection and his country's new national park a form of "planetary citizenship." Mr. Cardoso received a carbon neutral certificate for agreeing to offset his personal consumption of carbon dioxide involved in his trip to South Africa.

10. BUSINESS MAKES THE CASE FOR BIODIVERSITY!

1 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/3108/prbusinessday3108.pdf

Johannesburg, 1 September (IUCN - The World Conservation Union) - In a day filled with dialogues and briefing sessions, businesses, banks, conservation NGOs and intergovernmental organizations highlighted the business case for biodiversity at the IUCN Environment Centre. "There has always been profit in using natural resources, often at the expense of the environment. Now business increasingly realises there is money in biodiversity conservation and environmental protection", says IUCN Director General Achim Steiner. The 45 parallel events of the Business day convened 80 speakers representing BirdLife International, British American Tobacco, Earthwatch, Future Forests, General Motors, Green Globe 21, IIED, the International Finance Corporation, the International Labour Organization, Northumbrian Water, Pro- Natura, Rio Tinto, Shell, The Nature Conservancy, UNCTAD,  UNEP, the World Bank Group, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, WWF and many others.  A diversity of businesses - from biodiversity-based businesses such as the Vilanculos Wildlife Sanctuary, Mozambique to multinationals - recognised and presented the business case for biodiversity. Sessions focusing on partnerships, consumers, employees and communities stressed the many opportunities from integrating biodiversity into the core of business operations - including securing the license to operate, strengthening the supply chain, bolstering stakeholder relationships, appealing to ethical consumers, ensuring sustainable growth, attracting socially responsible investors, and improving employee productivity. "Biodiversity fits well as being part of an environmental management system" says Chris Spray, Environment Director of Northumbrian Water (part of Suez), who presented Northumbrian Water's biodiversity strategy. "We at Shell believe biodiversity is a core business issue. Our main challenge is to integrate it into our business processes consistently and globally. We see partnerships as a critical element in helping us achieve this aim," says Shell Chairman Philip Watts. The Business Day was also an opportunity to announce new partnerships and launch publications. IUCN promoted the BIO+10 Partnerships Initiative, convened by the IUCN Business Unit and founded by Earthwatch, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN, British American Tobacco, and Rio Tinto. Agreements were signed with the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Business and Biodiversity: The Handbook for Corporate Action, a joint publication produced by Earthwatch Insitute (Europe), IUCN and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development contains many pioneering examples from businesses taking action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, many of which were highlighted during the day. "I hope that businesses worldwide will take advantage of this important publication and apply its principles to their business practices. For business and biodiversity are ideal partners for ensuring a better life on our planet" says H.M. Queen Noor of Jordan, IUCN Patron, in a recorded message. "The business case for the 21st century is that businesses have to be legal, profitable and socially and environmentally responsible" says Tom Burke, Environmental Advisor, Rio Tinto. Burke further called for more interaction between governments, businesses and NGOs, highlighting that the convergence in their main requirement - stability – far outpaced their divergences. "The two most important messages from this day are that business is increasingly taking its responsibility for the environment without impeding vital business processes – it often even increases the long-term profitability - and that the private sector and the conservation community can work together in sustainable development", says Steiner.

11. IUCN ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF WSSD NEGOTIATIONS

1 September 2002

Internet:  http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/0209/pr1sepjuanita.pdf

Johannesburg, 1 September (IUCN) - The official Summit negotiations are still in search for direction after one full week - a great concern for IUCN - The World Conservation Union. While the rest of the Summit City is demonstrating success and creativity from around the world in advancing the sustainable development agenda, the official deliberations still face numerous critical issues that will determine whether the official process builds on the achievements of Rio, maintains the status quo, or slides backwards. The arrival of Heads of State and Ministers in Johannesburg today may be reason for some hope that the Summit will find a way forward on each of them. IUCN believes that three essential clusters of issues are at the heart of the deliberations by which the success of the negotiations will be judged. These are the extent to which political leaders:

1. Advance or retreat on the Principles of Sustainable Development Law and Policy that were adopted at Rio;

2. Commit to bold new Targets for sustainable development or weaken existing ones; and

3. Provide the Means of Implementation to advance sustainable development or subordinate it to decisions taken in other negotiations, such as WTO rounds. This document is a brief assessment of some of the critical pending issues, as identified by IUCN.

PRINCIPLES

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

There is a risk of retreating from one of the basic principles agreed at Rio. The Precautionary Approach, which deals with decision-making under uncertainty, was agreed as Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. It has been further elaborated in international law through the Biosafety Protocol and the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The WSSD Plan of Implementation refers to the Precautionary Principle in several places. At various points in the discussions, alternative formulations would have represented an advance from Rio, a restatement of the status quo, or a retreat from the spirit of the principle. The current formulation for consideration by Ministers refers to Rio Principle 15 and the precautionary approach as embodied in the conventions (a restatement of the legal status quo), but then declares that the precautionary approach should not be used for protectionist purposes. This concluding caveat would have the effect of subordinating a fundamental principle of international environmental law, developed at and since Rio, to narrow trade considerations, and fails to reflect the legitimate use of the precautionary approach to protect public health and the environment.

TARGETS

Ministers have to agree on several targets that are still unresolved. As a conservation organization, IUCN is particularly concerned with the targets on natural resources and biodiversity.

1. NATURAL RESOURCES

The introduction of the entire natural resources chapter of the Plan of Implementation was weakened to a very general statement containing no specific targets to reverse the current trends in natural resources degradation. The paragraph also deleted the suggested references to the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach. These two elements are critical foundations for policy and action with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of forests, water, wetlands, arid and semiarid, marine and mountain ecosystems as well as sustainable agricultural practices.

2. BIODIVERSITY

In contrast, the paragraph on biodiversity recognizes the CBD as the key instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and reiterates the pre-existing CBD target of 2010 to achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss. In order to achieve this goal, the text calls for the provision of new and additional financial and technical resources for developing countries. In addition, Ministers agreed on the need for an international regime to promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The text was amended to ensure that the negotiation happens within the context of the CBD and takes into account the experience gained with the CBD's existing Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

1. "MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS" OF TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

Several paragraphs in the trade section of the Means of Implementation chapter seem to subordinate environmental concerns in general and multilateral environmental agreements in particular to trade concerns and the agenda of the WTO. For example, there are draft references to make trade and environmental agreements compatible to support the work of the WTO, which is a one-sided and unbalanced approach. The draft formulation of the precautionary principle is another example.

Alternative, balanced formulations regarding the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment are available which would allow better coordination between the trade and finance regimes and the multilateral environmental agreements. Trade liberalization is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, and the objective is sustainable development. Trade agreements and institutions should be judged by their contribution to sustainability.

2. BALANCED ASSESSMENT OF GLOBALIZATION

The current text contains alternative characterizations of globalization with varying assessments of its negative aspects. While globalization in the 1990s has produced the fastest growth in wealth in human history, it has also left billions of the world's poor behind and failed to stem environmental degradation. The Millennium Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000 recognized that there are positive and negative aspects of globalization and called for making globalization fully inclusive and equitable. For the WSSD to reiterate the Millennium Declaration's call to make globalization more equitable would mean standing still. Calling for making it environmentally sustainable would constitute a step forward.

3. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Sustainability assessments are important tools to assess the impacts of trade liberalization on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Significant experience with these tools is being developed within the European Union and under NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement.) For the WSSD to call for the further development and broader application of sustainability assessments, particularly to the results of WTO outcomes, would be a step forward.

4. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

The section on finance is nearly complete, though it still contains bracketed text that calls for adequate funding for infrastructure development in developing countries. Infrastructure development can be an important element of poverty reduction, but only if it fully takes into account social and environmental concerns. At the moment the text does not call for the inclusion of social or environmental safeguards in order to ensure that infrastructure development contributes to poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.

5. SUBSIDIES

Subsidies have remained a controversial issue in these negotiations. From a social and environmental perspective, subsidies can be negative, neutral or positive. When 7.5% of the $360 billion dollars in global annual agricultural subsidies and the $300 billion in global annual energy subsidies were redirected, the world would generate the additional $50 billion per year that is needed to fulfill the Millennium Development Goals, according to estimates of the World Bank. Agenda 21, Chapter 8, adopted in 1992, calls for the removal or reduction of subsidies that do not conform to sustainable development objectives. The chapter also called for the integration of social and environmental costs into economic activities. Ten years later, negotiators are unable to agree on reform of subsidies and the draft text contains no mention of such integration.

THE WAY FORWARD

IUCN believes that the vast majority of the elements that make up the Johannesburg Summit - including the Ubuntu Village, NASREC, the Water Dome and the IUCN Environment Centre - are demonstrating the commitment, hard work, and ideals needed to make the Summit an overwhelming success. The events and venues led by civil society and the progressive elements of the private sector are demonstrably succeeding in moving forward to sustainable development. These examples may give the Ministers and Heads of State and Government in Johannesburg the courage to ensure the success of the official deliberations by building on existing international agreements and policies, setting clear targets for their implementation and providing the means to make it happen.

12. IUCN CALLS ON GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WORLD NEEDS A CONCRETE PLAN OF ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, NOT A NEW TRADE AGREEMENT

30 August 2002

Internet: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/3008/iucnpr3008.pdf

Johannesburg, 30 August (IUCN) - On behalf of IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Director General Achim Steiner today called for the negotiators and delegates to take their responsibility and deliver a clear plan of action for sustainable development.

"The responsibility of this Summit is to express the will of this world for justice and equity, for a world that does not squander its riches for the short-term benefit of the few, for a world that protects its natural resources, for ourselves and future generations", said Mr. Steiner.

Mr. Steiner delivered his speech in the plenary session at a time when the negotiations seem to be bogged down on issues of trade, whereas the goal of the Summit was to integrate various existing agreements in an action plan with clear timeframes and targets for sustainable development. "The importance of trade is clear, yet this Summit is not about trade alone. It needs to provide the platform to ensure harmonisation among different policy sectors. It must build the bridges between trade and environment, between investment and development, and between finance and sustainable development", urged Mr. Steiner. The main problem of the focus on trade liberalisation is the wrong assumption that the removal of trade barriers automatically leads to more wealth for all. "It is sad that in the past ten years, during which economic growth has been unprecedented, we have not been able to eradicate poverty, but we have continued, in the words of President Mbeki, to expand islands of wealth in a sea of poverty", noted Mr. Steiner. Mr. Steiner called on the delegates to take their responsibility and fulfil the mandate the Summit was given. If the Summit does not come up with a concrete plan of action that accepts the need for a healthy natural resource base for poverty eradication, the costs of unsustainable development will only increase.

"With poverty and environment there is no creative accounting. We cannot juggle our figures and cook the books, and somehow present our costs as profits. Poverty eradication is based on the equitable sharing of the benefits of a healthy natural resource base", said Mr. Steiner. Mr. Steiner encouraged the delegates to find inspiration in the thousands of people who have gathered in Johannesburg and the billions more who look to the Summit for inspired action. "If you take a look outside this room, you will find thousands of dedicated people, from governments, civil society and the private sector, who are taking their responsibility seriously. They are looking to this room to do the same", concluded Mr. Steiner. Full Speech: http://www.iucn.org/wssd/joburg_programme/media_events/3008/notesachim3008.pdf 

GREENING THE SUMMIT

WSSD Web Page: http://www.greeningthewssd.com/

Press Releases: http://www.greeningthewssd.com/pressrelease.htm

13. GREENING THE WSSD MEASURES IMPACT OF WORLD SUMMIT ON JOBURG RESOURCES

5 September 2002

Internet: http://www.greeningthewssd.com/5septemberMEDIAhtm.htm

Even though the World Summit produced 331 tons of solid waste and 290 000 tons of carbon dioxide, recycling of waste and carbon offset programmes reduced the potential harmful environmental impacts of the Summit on Johannesburg.  These statistics were released today by the Greening the World Summit Initiative, which measured the daily consumption of resources at the five major World Summit venues between August 17 and September 4. According to the Greening initiative, 24% percent of waste, or 76,4 tons of waste was recycled and some 40 000 tons of carbon was "offset" by the purchase by delegates of "Climate Legacy" certificates, as well as by the use of green energy at some Summit venues. Announcing results of the World Summit's Consumption Barometer, Nik Sekhran, regional co-ordinator for the UNDP - Global Environment Facility, said the consumption of water and energy, and generation of waste at the five Summit venues - Sandton Convention Centre, Wanderers Sports Grounds, Nasrec, The Hilton and Crowne Plaza Hotels - had peaked at 127% above baseline before averaging out at 58% for the final days of the Summit. Daily waste generation peaked at 26 tons whilst daily recycling peaked at 6,6 tons.  "We are pleased that some Summit venues, such as the Sandton Convention Centre, the Hilton Hotel and the Crowne Plaza showed waste recycling rates of over 50%."  Sekhran said that before the Summit started, an environmental evaluation of the five major venues was completed. "These figures provided us with our baseline information. Based on daily data we collected, a Consumption Barometer displayed the daily  consumption impact of delegates at the Summit venues." According to the Consumption Barometer, total water consumption during the Summit was 118,54 kilolitres. Electricity consumption totalled 2485 megawatt hours, 26,7% of which comprised green energy - energy produced from renewable sources such as the wind and sun. Total carbon dioxide generated, mainly by delegates travelling by air to and from the Summit, was calculated at 290 000 tons, and this was also factored into the Consumption Barometer index.  IUCN country manager, Saliem Fakir, said "Our partnership with the Joburg Climate Legacy addressed the issue of climate change by asking delegates to offset their carbon emissions associated with the World Summit. Through the sale of Climate Legacy certificates, some 350 000 dollars has so far been raised, which will help fund alternative energy projects in South Africa. "

Fakir said the Joburg Climate Legacy had short-listed 16 projects around South Africa and monies raised would be invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the long term - involving hospitals, schools and poor communities. The IUCN had also announced plans to make the World Parks Conference (8 - 17th September 2003) "carbon neutral". Fakir said that Greening the WSSD had had success in kick-starting other long term projects in the areas of green electricity, waste recycling, water management and responsible tourism. "Our project co-operated with Agama Energy which facilitated the supply of "green" electricity to Ubuntu Village and NASREC during the Summit, and this will lay the basis for a regulatory and trading regime for green electricity in South Africa. "Our partnership with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry resulted in the launch of a water saving and demand management programme for the hospitality industry, which will result in best practice guidelines being developed.  "Our partnership with the Federated Hospitality Association of South Africa (FEDHASA) helped develop Responsible Tourism Guidelines for the hospitality industry and launch the Imvelo Awards, which honour hospitality establishments who implement sustainable social, environmental and economic programmes."  Mary Metcalfe, MEC for the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land, said the 200 new busses purchased to provide transport for the Summit had emission control technology as a standard feature and were now a permanent addition to the Joburg fleet. Metcalfe said that the Gauteng Government was investigating the use of green fuel technology in the province's transport fleet and was aiming for conversion of the fleet by March 2003.  "Gauteng has six million passenger trips every day - and traffic is increasing at a rate of 7 percent an annum. We trust that the awareness created by the Summit will encourage Gauteng drivers to think of carbon dioxide emissions, and to alter their driving behaviours. For instance, if four people use one car, the number of vehicles on the highway can be reduced by a third." Metcalfe described the recycling rate of 24% achieved during the Summit as "commendable, when one compares it to the recycling norm in Gauteng of 5%."  "The hundreds of recycling bins at Summit venues will continue to be used in the Joburg central business district as part of an inner city clean-up campaign. In addition, a hundred previously unemployed people employed by Pikitup at the Summit were taught about waste recycling, so they are now able to launch their own recycling businesses." Said Metcalfe: "Joburg generates just under a quarter of a million tons of waste a month, or 40 percent of South Africa's domestic waste. The local authorities in the province spends roughly R1,6 billion on collecting and disposing of five million tons of waste every year. If we manage to increase the percentage of recyclable waste in Gauteng from 5% to 25%, our Summit initiatives will have left a really valuable legacy."

Note to editors:

Greening the WSSD is funded and supported by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs (DACEL), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

14. GREENING THE WSSD MEASURES IMPACT OF WORLD SUMMIT ON JOBURG RESOURCES

5 September 2002

Internet: http://www.greeningthewssd.com/5septemberMEDIAhtm.htm

Even though the World Summit produced 331 tons of solid waste and 290 000 tons of carbon dioxide, recycling of waste and carbon offset programmes reduced the potential harmful environmental impacts of the Summit on Johannesburg.  These statistics were released today by the Greening the World Summit Initiative, which measured the daily consumption of resources at the five major World Summit venues between August 17 and September 4. According to the Greening initiative, 24% percent of waste, or 76,4 tons of waste was recycled and some 40 000 tons of carbon was "offset" by the purchase by delegates of "Climate Legacy" certificates, as well as by the

use of green energy at some Summit venues. Announcing results of the World Summit's Consumption Barometer, Nik Sekhran, regional co-ordinator for the UNDP - Global Environment Facility, said the consumption of water and energy, and generation of waste at the five Summit venues - Sandton Convention Centre, Wanderers Sports Grounds, Nasrec, The Hilton and Crowne Plaza Hotels - had peaked at 127% above baseline before averaging out at 58% for the final days of the Summit. Daily waste generation peaked at 26 tons whilst daily recycling peaked at 6,6 tons.  "We are pleased that some Summit venues, such as the Sandton Convention Centre, the Hilton Hotel and the Crowne Plaza showed waste recycling rates of over 50%."  Sekhran said that before the Summit started, an environmental evaluation of the five major venues was completed. "These figures provided us with our baseline information. Based on daily data we collected, a Consumption Barometer displayed the daily  consumption impact of delegates at the Summit venues." According to the Consumption Barometer, total water consumption during the Summit was 118,54 kilolitres. Electricity consumption totalled 2485 megawatt hours, 26,7% of which comprised green energy - energy produced from renewable sources such as the wind and sun. Total carbon dioxide generated, mainly by delegates travelling by air to and from the Summit, was calculated at 290 000 tons, and this was also factored into the Consumption Barometer index.  IUCN country manager, Saliem Fakir, said "Our partnership with the Joburg Climate Legacy addressed the issue of climate change by asking delegates to offset their carbon emissions associated with the World Summit. Through the sale of Climate Legacy certificates, some 350 000 dollars has so far been raised, which will help fund alternative energy projects in South Africa. "

Fakir said the Joburg Climate Legacy had short-listed 16 projects around South Africa and monies raised would be invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in the long term - involving hospitals, schools and poor communities. The IUCN had also announced plans to make the World Parks Conference (8 - 17th September 2003) "carbon neutral". Fakir said that Greening the WSSD had had success in kick-starting other long term projects in the areas of green electricity, waste recycling, water management and responsible tourism. "Our project co-operated with Agama Energy which facilitated the supply of "green" electricity to Ubuntu Village and NASREC during the Summit, and this will lay the basis for a regulatory and trading regime for green electricity in South Africa. "Our partnership with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry resulted in the launch of a water saving and demand management programme for the hospitality industry, which will result in best practice guidelines being developed.   "Our partnership with the Federated Hospitality Association of South Africa (FEDHASA) helped develop Responsible Tourism Guidelines for the hospitality industry and launch the Imvelo Awards, which honour hospitality establishments who implement sustainable social, environmental and economic programmes."  Mary Metcalfe, MEC for the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land, said the 200 new busses purchased to provide transport for the Summit had emission control technology as a standard feature and were now a permanent addition to the Joburg fleet. Metcalfe said that the Gauteng Government was investigating the use of green fuel technology in the province's transport fleet and was aiming for conversion of the fleet by March 2003.  "Gauteng has six million passenger trips every day - and traffic is increasing at a rate of 7 percent an annum. We trust that the awareness created by the Summit will encourage Gauteng drivers to think of carbon dioxide emissions, and to alter their driving behaviours. For instance, if four people use one car, the number of vehicles on the highway can be reduced by a third."

Metcalfe described the recycling rate of 24% achieved during the Summit as "commendable, when one compares it to the recycling norm in Gauteng of 5%."  "The hundreds of recycling bins at Summit venues will continue to be used in the Joburg central business district as part of an inner city clean-up campaign. In addition, a hundred previously unemployed people employed by Pikitup at the Summit were taught about waste recycling, so they are now able to launch their own recycling businesses." Said Metcalfe: "Joburg generates just under a quarter of a million tons of waste a month, or 40 percent of South Africa's domestic waste. The local authorities in the province spends roughly R1,6 billion on collecting and disposing of five million tons of waste every year. If we manage to increase the percentage of recyclable waste in Gauteng from 5% to 25%, our Summit initiatives will have left a really valuable legacy."

15. CONSUMPTION BAROMETER SHOWS HOW SUMMIT DELEGATES IMPACT ON JOHANNESBURG

29 August 2002

Internet: http://www.greeningthewssd.com/impact%20on%20joburg.htm

For the first time an attempt is being made to monitor and reduce the environmental impact of a major UN gathering. The Consumption Barometer measures on a daily basis utilisation of resources such as air, water, waste and electricity by delegates at the Summit.

Waste to recycling is increasing as delegates become more aware of recycling initiatives

  • Average total waste generated per day: 17 tonnes*
     

  • Average waste to recycling per day: 3,4 tonnes* (20% of total waste)

Water consumption is increasing as more delegates arrive in Joburg

  • Average daily water consumption: 583 Kilolitres*

Electricity use is increasing as more delegates arrive, but environmental impact is partly offset by green electricity at Nasrec and Ubuntu Village

  • Average total electricity consumed per day: 118,5 Megawatt Hours*
     

  • Average green electricity consumed per day: 27,4 Megawatt Hours* (23% of total electricity)

* (averages calculated from 17 Aug 02 to 27 Aug 02)

Summit delegates are doing their bit to green the Joburg environment - with over three tonnes of waste per day from Summit venues being diverted from landfill to recycling. Recycling bins and a concerted awareness campaign have meant that 20% of waste generated at Summit venues is being diverted from landfill. Total waste generated by the Summit so far however, is a substantial 17 tonnes per day.

Says the United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative, John Ohiorhenuan: "We are making every effort to emphasise the importance of the three R's of good waste management to delegates: Reduce, Re-use and Recycle. While the Greening the WSSD initiative has provided separation bins for recycling purposes, we also advised that goods procured for the WSSD had minimal packaging, so reducing the amount of waste that would be produced." Data collected shows that by Monday - the official opening of the World Summit - total consumption of resources at Summit venues had increased by 48% from before the start of the Summit.

Waste figures show that on 22 August - when exhibitors were setting up their stands - 26 tonnes of waste was generated. By Monday 26 August, this had dropped to about 16 tonnes. Delegates are consuming an average of 583 kilolitres of water each day, while 118,5 Megawatt hours of electricity is being used daily. A quarter of the electricity used to power the WSSD is "green" - produced from renewable energy sources, such as the sun, the wind, waves and small hydro stations. In addition, it is not only derived from renewable energy sources, but is also generated in a sustainable and environmentally responsible way. Two of the Summit venues - Ubuntu Village and NASREC (the Expo Centre) - are running on Green Electricity. The amount of electricity being used at the Summit is steadily increasing as the attendance of delegates increases. While green electricity is partly offsetting the environmental impacts of coal-powered electricity, delegates are being asked to reduce their use of electricity as far as possible to save South Africa's natural resources, and to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions from burning coal. Mary Metcalfe, Gauteng MEC for the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs, said: "The consumption barometer allows us the opportunity to demonstrate to delegates the impacts that they are having in Johannesburg, and the choices they have in reducing these impacts. It is also a tool that helps us communicate to the people of South Africa how we can all be more environmentally responsible in our daily lives."  Specific environmental impacts and offsets measured by the Consumption Barometer include:

  • The volume of additional waste generated by the Summit;
     

  • The volume of waste collected for recycling;
     

  • The amount of coal-generated electricity used at WSSD venues;
     

  • The amount of 'green' power used by WSSD venues to off-set emissions from coal- generated electricity;
     

  • The volume of carbon emissions caused by air and road transport and energy use by delegates;
     

  • Water consumption at the WSSD; and
     

  • The volume of "carbon off-sets" purchased by delegates. Delegates can buy carbon neutral certificates at the Summit - an initiative launched by the Johannesburg Climate Legacy - which will generate funds for community-based alternative energy projects in South Africa.

Monitoring and evaluation takes place at: The Sandton Convention Centre (UN Conference); The Ubuntu Village; Nasrec (Civil Society Global Forum); the Hilton Hotel (Business for Sustainable Development); and The Crowne Plaza Hotel (Local Government Session).

TATA ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (TERI)

WSSD Web page: http://teriin.org/wssd/

16. CONSENSUS SANS COMMITMENT TERI'S REVIEW AND CRITIQUE ON WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Internet: http://www.teriin.org/wssd/consensus.pdf

Rio was the culmination of a process that started in 1972 at the Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. While Stockholm focused on the environment, subsequent years witnessed the evolution of the concept of sustainable development to embrace also the economic and social dimensions. The Earth Summit at Rio was the first global attempt to address sustainability in all its dimensions.

The outcomes of Rio took five forms: (1) the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; (2) the Agenda 21, a blueprint for action to achieve sustainable development; (3) the Framework Convention on Climate Change; (4) the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (5) the Statement of Principles on Forests. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development was also set up to monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. One of the major outcomes of the Rio process was the recognition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. '...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.' The richer nations promised financial and technological support to developing countries to enable the latter to follow a more sustainable path of development than theirs and to adopt the Agenda 21. The leaders of the world returned from Rio with optimistic goals for reversing some of earth's most threatening problems. But what started in Rio as an exuberant political sprint into a greener, post- Cold War future turned into a gruelling marathon with an elusive finish by the time the Johannesburg meet approached. What were the major successes and failures post-Rio? _ The best success story is the recovery of the ozone layer. There is hope of a full restoration possibility by 2050. Although ozone damage continues, the actual emissions of the main ozone depleting gases - chlorofluorocarbons, halons, methyl bromide, and so on - have fallen sharply.  A number of international treaties have been adopted in the years since Rio, including the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.  While the envisaged reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases has not happened, there is a far better understanding of the problem. The 1990s also saw the Kyoto Protocol, which may possibly come into force later in 2002.

In the last decade, there has also been a growing awareness of the importance of transparency and involvement of people in the development process through local communities and non-governmental organizations; similarly, business has also come to accept a greater responsibility for sustainable development. The failures, however, outweigh the successes and the world we live in continues to be inequitable and environmentally fragile The notable failures after Rio are listed below.

The most glaring was the failure of the rich nations to deliver on their promises, in particular the UN target of contributing 0.7% of their GNP (gross national product) as ODA (official development assistance) to developing countries. Most developed countries did not keep their promise of financial assistance; some did (Figure 1). The promise of concessional technology transfer also did not materialize. The gap between the rich and poor persists and may have in fact become wider in the years since Rio. Disparities in energy consumption levels have widened over the last decade (Figure 2).  There is lack of any serious effort to bring down unsustainable patterns of consumption. The poor are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of such consumption-the double inequity of this pattern has persisted. The 1990s saw a flurry of major international consultations on sustainable development leading to the Millennium Declaration adopted at the special session of the UN General Assembly in September 2000, and the Monterrey conference on financing for development in March 2002. At the start of the preparation for Johannesburg, it was expected that the Summit would find answers to the problems faced in implementing the Rio agreements and lay the action plan to effect the Millennium Development Goals. The Summit was envisaged to break the inertia of the existing system by actively engaging businesses and civil society along with governments. At one stage, it was hoped that the Kyoto Protocol would become effective before the WSSD (World Summit on Sustainable Development). The 'Monterrey Consensus' disappointed many with its ambiguous commitments. The preparatory process towards Johannesburg also seemed to resound with the complacency of the global community to act. By the time that the WSSD came around, the mood was clearly downcast.  The WSSD did wake up the international community by once again drawing their attention to disturbing trends in the environment and the appalling economic and social status of a large majority of people. Two distinct features of the Johannesburg Summit are the focus on WEHAB - an initiative that seeks to provide impetus to action in five key thematic areas of Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity - and the supplementary Type II agreements, which include voluntary cooperative initiatives agreed between non-state partners (NGOs, private companies, etc.) or between non-state entities and a government body. It is perceived that such agreements, though not negotiated at the Summit can enable stakeholders in making concrete contributions to its final outcome and ensure that there is real action towards sustainable development even after the Summit. Type II agreements come with some hope and some scepticism. The feature is a welcome one in that for the first time, there was a perceptible presence of the business community and NGOs, whose influence can only be expected to expand further with globalisation and the advances in information and communication technologies. Though the list of Type II accords seems an impressive step in the direction of implementation of sustainable development, there are concerns regarding their actual contribution. First, it needs to be ensured that these initiatives do not serve as substitutes for government commitments. Next, there is a lack of clarity on the Type II criteria; these partnerships are also feared to have a negative political effect by taking pressure off the governments to negotiate agreements and undermining intergovernmental resource transfers. According to the UN, more than 220 partnerships, representing 235 million dollars in resources, were identified during the Summit process to complement the government commitments, and many more were announced outside of the formal Summit proceedings. To ensure that these actually augment the pool of resources and expertise to tackle global problems on a global scale will be a post-Johannesburg challenge.  As the Plan of Implementation was attenuated into a rhetorical statement of good intentions that has the consensus of all but commitment of few, the fundamental questions that lurk between the lines were conveniently paged over. It is these questions that must be answered if an actionable course for sustainable development is to be charted. The major outcome of the Summit is the Plan of Implementation, which has evolved over four global and five regional preparatory meetings over the past 16 months and which underwent fine discussion over the last two weeks. Moving beyond the Millennium objectives, the Plan agreed on some additional goals, including halving the proportion of people who lack access to clean water or proper sanitation by 2015, restoring depleted fisheries by 2015, and phasing out toxic chemicals by 2005. There was also renewed hope about combating climate change, as countries like Canada and Russia sent positive signals regarding ratification, even though the largest polluter showed no such inclination. The developing world, however, has returned mostly dissatisfied, the general feeling being that the Summit has neither come up with a comprehensive and effective plan to tackle global poverty and environmental concerns nor secured fairer trade and aid deals for them. The final accord makes few firm commitments on funding or timetables - compromises to ensure consensus - as was the case of disagreement over a target for renewable energy. Eventually, the Plan merely exhorts nations to increase the use of renewable energy 'with a sense of urgency.' Sticky issues such as trade barriers in industrialized countries and recognition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility were mostly resolved by falling back on previously agreed positions without making any progress. In general, the negotiations were motivated less by the urgency of gaining ground in the global interest than not losing ground in short-term individual interest. Little can be achieved till such time, as there is a recognition and acceptance of responsibility. As expressed by the UN Secretary- General, if there is one idea that must animate the Plan, one concept that embodies everything the UN hopes to achieve, it is responsibility- responsibility for each other, for our planet, and most of all, for the future security and well-being of succeeding generations. As the concept of sustainability itself, the responsibility towards it is indivisible across boundaries of stakes, sectors, and geography. There is no denying that the prime responsibility for action lies with national governments. It is also true that there is growing domestic pressure to remind governments of this. A Summit of the reach of WSSD must seek to reinvigorate the spirit of responsibility at a higher level-the responsibility of the affluent nations to assist the poorer nations in their efforts towards sustainability. This responsibility stems not out of charity but out of interdependence. As is becoming increasingly obvious, the economic, social, and environmental fabric in one nation can have a significant impact on another's. The North also has a far greater responsibility in protecting the global commons owing not only to the disproportionately large resources it commands but also because it contributes disproportionately to global environmental problems. This principle of common but differentiated responsibility was endorsed at Rio. However, despite its increasing relevance in the years since 1992, some developed countries now seem to be turning their back to it, in terms of concrete actions. If the fundamental principle of global environmental pacts is going to be abrogated, there is little meaning in international summits and agreements.  Has 'sustainability' permeated our policies, markets, education systems, thinking, and indeed our lifestyles? Is sustainable development on the manifesto of politicians? Are we prepared to check our profligate lifestyles to ensure a more efficient and egalitarian society? Are businesses being judged as much by their social performance as market achievements? For sustainability to become a reality, it must assume such zeal. This can happen only when people realize the magnitude of the problems we face and that eventually we will all be affected in one way or the other, howsoever distant – geographically and in time - these issues may seem to some of us today. We need to understand that the cost of inaction will be far higher that what it would cost us to put our act together.

Developed countries must lead the way to change, a change which must find its way into the very lifestyles of people. It is not fair to not expect the poor to aspire to reach the seductive lifestyles of the North. On an average, the energy consumption of one person in high-income countries is equivalent to that of 10 persons in low-income countries. Eighty-five per cent of the earth's resources are consumed by 15% of  the world's people. There is a yawning consumption gap between the rich and the poor within developing countries as well. The only way to remain within the carrying capacity of this planet is to contract and converge the use of natural resources and the use and pollution of the global commons.

NGOs in the North can play a powerful role in appealing to the North's enlightened to act in the best interest of the planet and indeed in their own long-term interest. Providing developing countries free access to global markets is as important as development aid, if not more.  Agenda 21 presented an estimate of financial resources required to achieve sustainable growth and to ensure a reversal of the ecological degradation in the South. Developing countries would require about 561.5 billion dollars annually from 1993 to 2000. Of this, 419.6 billion dollars were to be generated domestically and the balance 141.9 billion dollars were to be provided by the wealthier countries.

These resources could be raised if the industrialized countries met their long-established ODA target of 0.7% of their GNP. As compared to this, current transfers from the rich countries to the rest of the world by way of ODA total 53.7 billion dollars-that is down from 60.8 billion dollars in 1992. Should leaders continue to focus on this option? While for large developing countries, ODA may be a drop in the ocean, for smaller ones, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, it could contribute significantly to humanitarian assistance. The relevance of ODA is sharpened by the skewed nature of FDI- 48 least-developed countries received only 1.8% of all developing country FDI (foreign direct investment) inflows and 0.5% of world FDI inflows in 1998. There does not seem to be much indication that the UN target of 0.7% is likely to be met in the near future. All that the Monterrey consensus did was to urge developed countries who had not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target. The Summit did stir the developed world into action. European Union members committed to increase their collective ODA to 0.39% of GNI by 2006 as a step towards reaching the 0.7% target. The US announced plans to raise its core development assistance from 0.1% of GDP to 0.15%-an annual increase of 5 billion dollars by 2006. While we are still chasing the elusive 0.7% target, there is no mention of the 'new and additional' financial resources promised at Rio. ODA, albeit important for some countries, fades in comparison with the financial gains lost to developing countries on account of trade barriers. Subsidies paid out by the OECD countries amount to between 560 billion dollars and 725 billion dollars annually-10 times the figure for ODA and three times the value of FDI flows to developing countries. Agriculture is the biggest offender-usurping some 362 billion dollars a year in subsidies from the OECD, 1.4% of their GNP. The World Bank estimates that removing obstacles to trade would boost the incomes in developing countries by anything from 200 billion dollars to 500 billion dollars a year. Even with the lower estimate, this is almost the same as current FDI and ODA flows combined. These are big numbers-providing developing countries free access to global markets is as important as development aid, if not more. The issue of subsidies remains equally relevant in developing countries. Environmentally perverse subsidies abound in developing countries in the sectors of water, energy, transport, etc. Correcting these would yield a double dividend. As consumers and producers face true costs, their consumption patterns are more rational and wasteful consumption is controlled. In addition, funds being used for subsidies are released for other social and economic programmes. This will require political courage and moral suasion. Thus, the availability of limited resources does not absolve developing countries of undertaking domestic action, which would include measures to rectify perverse subsidies and internalize environmental costs through the use of economic instruments. In addition, the issue of environmental governance has to be addressed for effective utilization of these resources and for channelling private resources in a socially responsible manner. Apart from financial resources, the issue of affordable access by developing countries to critical technologies for sustainable development also needs to be brought centre stage. This had been explicitly recognized in the principles adopted at Stockholm in 1972 and reiterated in Agenda 21 but little has been done. Specific commitments for such transfers should be insisted upon in the post-Doha negotiations. The agenda at WSSD was too broad-based to arrive at definite plans of action. These need to be followed up with a series of narrow and concrete multilateral initiatives post-Johannesburg. The real test would be for governments, businesses, and communities to take advantage of and move beyond what happened at Johannesburg such that the paperwork of Johannesburg can be translated into concrete actions that could make a difference to the lives of ordinary people and their environment.

Whether it is the Plan of Implementation or the Type II partnerships, the biggest concern remains that of review and monitoring progress.

The CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development) needs to be strengthened to review the progress in implementation of Agenda 21 as well as to facilitate partnerships involving governments, international organizations, businesses, and civil society. In its responsibility to keep the pursuit of sustainable development alive, it needs to become a stronger, more credible, and audible body.

THIRD WORLD NETWORK (TWN)

Internet: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/jb.htm

17. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PASSED, DRAMA ON CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

SUNS

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/5186a.htm

Johannesburg, 4 Sept (Martin Khor) - After two weeks of intense negotiations, marked by horse trading and trade offs on a wide range of issues, a draft Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) was adopted early this morning at 1.15 am. However, a sense of crisis surrounded the state of the Summit's anticipated second document, the Political Declaration. Almost in the Doha WTO style of 'green room' talks and non-transparency, a first draft of the declaration, prepared by the host country South Africa, had been circulated very late, on the evening of Sunday 1 September. Many delegations had been dissatisfied and have submitted proposals for changes and it is unclear whether another draft can be approved in the remaining hours of the Summit. The Plan of Implementation was approved after a last-minute attempt by some countries to water down a paragraph on corporate accountability was turned back by forceful interventions by Ethiopia and Norway. As a result, one of the few achievements of the Summit will be a commitment to promote corporate responsibility and accountability through the full development and effective implementation of inter-governmental agreements and measures. The Plan of Implementation was adopted by the Main Committee of the Summit and is scheduled to be formally adopted by the official plenary of the Summit, attended by heads of states and governments, later this afternoon. The 65-page draft Plan contains ten chapters: introduction, poverty eradication, changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, protecting and managing the natural resource base, sustainable development in a globalizing world, health, small island states, Africa and other regional initiatives, means of implementation, and institutional framework. The meeting of the main committee to adopt the draft Plan, chaired by Emil Salim of Indonesia, was delayed for three hours when delegates held last-minute negotiations to amend three paragraphs regarding women's rights; human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to health, and access to health care services. The draft Plan was adopted at almost 1.00 a.m. Immediately following this, a member of the UN secretariat sitting on the dais, read out a prepared statement, that it is the "collective understanding of the contact group on Means of implementation" that the paragraph regarding corporate responsibility and accountability refers to "existing" intergovernmental agreements and international initiatives, and that this understanding should be reflected in the final report of the Conference. The reading of this statement was, according to several delegates, was an untransparent action as there was no explanation at the session as to how the statement had come about, whether the contact group had met in full membership, and who had taken the decision to enable it to be termed a "collective understanding." It was also unusual that a UN official instead of a government representative, such as the chairman of the contact group, read out the statement and without an introductory explanation. According to a document issued by NGOs, the statement was the result of an attempt by the United States delegation to neutralise the text on corporate accountability that had already been agreed to last week by the contact group on globalization and the means of implementation. The contact group had been faced with three proposed versions (from the EU, G77 and the US) of the paragraph on corporate accountability. Part of the EU proposed text read: "Actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability.... including through full and effective implementation of existing inter-governmental agreements and measures...." On Saturday (31 August) evening, Ambassador John Ashe, the contact group chairman, produced a new text, in which the word "existing" had been removed and the words "full development" added.

The text, which was the one that was eventually adopted by the Main Committee today as para 45.ter of the draft Plan of Implementation, reads: "Actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on the Rio Principles, including through the full development and effective implementation of inter-governmental agreements and measures, international initiatives and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations, and support continuous improvement in corporate practices in all countries." After the intervention by the UN official reading out the "collective understanding of the contact group", the Ethiopian delegate, Dr. Tewolde Berhan Egziabher took the floor and asked for clarification on who in the contact group had made the decision to issue the statement, as his delegation for one had not been informed of such a consensus reached. Tewolde also said the statement about "existing" agreements was not logical when read in conjunction with the paragraph. He said that in the text, "full development" obviously refers to new agreements. "How then do we develop agreements in the future if the statement refers only to existing agreements and thus prevents us from what is to be done in the future? The whole thrust of the paragraph is what is to be done in the future. But what is read out in the statement implies there is no future agreement." Tewolde asked where then was the logic of the statement and asked for clarification. The contact group chairman John Ashe explained that although not all delegations were not present at the contact group meeting that decided on the statement, representatives of delegations were present and thus it was assumed that it was the intention of the group. Tewolde then reiterated that the term "full development" seems to refer to new agreements, and therefore the statement that only existing agreements were meant must be wrong. "Let us assume our representatives made a mistake. Do we as countries repeat that mistake? My proposal is that the contact group's statement is incompatible with our decision here (i.e the text in the draft Implementation Plan), and one or the other has to be discarded, and I propose that the statement has to be discarded." After a brief exchange for clarification between the Main Committee Chairman, Emil Salim and Tewolde, the chairman ruled that para 45ter of the text is agreed to and would be kept and that the statement of the contact group would be discarded.

The Norway Minister for International Development, Ms Hilde Johnson, then stated that she also had concerns on the contact group statement. She said that according to UN procedure, informal contact groups do not formally exist, and thus should not be referred to in an official UN document. "We question that statement on behalf of the contact group and we have the same understanding of the situation as Ethiopia," she said. Discussions at the meeting then focussed on the draft Political Declaration, which had been circulated only on 1 September evening. Asked about its status by Malta, the South African Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Dlamini-Zuma, said that there had been as many proposals for changes as there were people now in the room. When some delegations pressed as to when the draft could be discussed, Minister Zuma said a second draft would be available later in the morning, but neither she nor the WSSD secretary general Mr. Nitin Desai could give an answer as to when this draft would be discussed, or whether it would be in the Main Committee or straightaway in the official plenary of the heads of state and Ministers. There were many grumbles in the corridor as the delegates left the conference hall at 1.30 a.m. "This whole process of the Declaration is very untransparent," said a senior African diplomat. Usually, he added, a Summit political declaration is negotiated for months before hand at preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings; and negotiations, often intense, are carried on throughout the Summit. "In this case, the document's first draft is given to us only a few days before the end of the Summit ends. Are we meant to 'take it or leave it', like the way things are done at the WTO Ministerial conferences? But this is the United Nations. We are not supposed to do things like that." It remains to be seen whether the "WTO way of doing things" is attempted for passing the Political Declaration, or whether adequate debate and participation is enabled, and whether it can be done in time in the dying hours of the Summit.  (SUNS5186).

18. UN INFECTED BY WTO VIRUS

SUNS

6 September 2002

Internet: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/5187b.htm

Johannesburg, 6 Sept (Martin Khor) - The World Summit on Sustainable Development ended on 4 September night shortly after 9 pm, with the adoption of what many saw as a 'harmless text', after an extended six-hour final plenary which was held up half way as delegates haggled over a second draft on the political declaration that was released only after the plenary had started. The plenary, chaired by South African President Thabo Mbeki, finally adopted the political declaration, called The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, and a Plan of Implementation of WSSD, the two main documents of WSSD. It was the culmination of two weeks of negotiations during much of which there was a strong feeling of uncertainty whether an agreement could be reached because of deep divisions, mainly on North-South lines, over several issues.  Among the most contentious in the Plan of Implementation were finance and trade, governance, two of the Rio principles (common and differentiated responsibilities and the precautionary principle), and the acceptance or otherwise of time-bound targets, including for energy and sanitation. The negotiations on these issues in the draft Plan remained stuck at the level of senior officials, and were elevated to Ministerial level (at which a mix of Ministers and officials took part) in the final phase of the Summit. When the Plan was submitted at the plenary, many countries took the opportunity to make comments or put their interpretation on one or the other point. The United States, however, made major points of interpretation that appeared more like reservations against the consensus on the text, on four areas. The US speech was met with loud boos from the NGO section of the hall. The loudest applause was given to Venezuelan President Chavez, who called the Summit a "dialoge of the deaf" and complained that the heads of states and governments could not find a way to influence the Summit outcome. He said he had made a proposal during a roundtable where 40 heads of government were present, and his proposal had been supported by many heads present (including Brazil's President Cardoso), "but our opinions had no influence on this summit conclusion. Another round of applause was given to the representative of St Lucia who spoke for the small island states and criticised the WTO as not being a friend of the small island states. "It has a principle on special and differential treatment but no effect has been given to it. I regard the WTO as having no soul. Trade liberalisation has affected our banana industry adversely, that is what trade liberalisation and globalization has meant for us. Something is wrong." He said WSSD had failed to set a target for renewable energy. Yet St Lucia had set its own target that 20% of its energy would be from renewable sources. "But the World Bank is pressing us to privatise our water, electricity, telephone services. On one hand we have to privatise, but when we attempt to put our policy of renewable energy in action, the multinationals frustrate every effort we make as they are only interested in the rate of return."

Meanwhile, there was hardly any process at all on the political statement, and it was touch-and-go whether the Summit would end with one at all. At the Rio-plus-Five summit in 1997 in New York, there was an extended period of negotiations on successive drafts over many days, yet the meeting ended without a political declaration when the then UN General Assembly president, Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia, abandoned the exercise when it was clear no meaningful text was possible. The divisions along North-South lines, especially over financial resources, had been too deep (the developing countries having argued that the North had failed miserably to meet their commitments on finance and technology). Razali declared it was better to be honest and have no declaration, than to issue one full of generalities but without any meaningful points. That way, Razali had said, the Rio-plus-Five would not attempt to fool the world into falsely believing that progress had been made by governments. In the WSSD process, the opposite approach was taken. Attempts to draw up the declaration had taken a back seat all along, as almost all the attention of delegations were focussed on the Plan of Implementation. The last preparatory meeting at Bali ended without a draft declaration, and the Prep-com chairman, Emil Salim of Indonesia, issued a draft of elements paper under his own authority after the Bali meeting. Even that document was not discussed at all in Johannesburg. Indeed, there was no process or meetings held at Joburg on the declaration. The host country, South Africa, distributed a first draft only on the night of 1 September, just three days before the summit was to conclude. That draft was received with a lot of criticism from many countries. No meeting was held to discuss it. On the night of 3 September, when the Main Committee met to discuss the Implementation Plan, a few delegations led by Malta, asked what had happened to the declaration process and when would a meeting be held to discuss it? The South African Foreign Minister, Mrs. Dlamini-Zuma, replied that there were as many proposals for amendments to the first draft as there were people in the hall (which was packed with about 300 delegates). She said a second draft would be ready on 3 September morning and the WSSD secretary-general Nitin Desai indicated that a meeting of the Main Committee would be called the next morning to discuss it. However, when pressed by delegates, neither of them could answer when the meeting would be convened. On the Summit's last day, 4 September, delegations were eagerly awaiting the new declaration draft and the opportunity to discuss it, but neither the draft nor the meeting materialised. Thus, the final official plenary chaired by President Mbeki started, after 3.00 p.m. without delegates having had the chance to see the new draft for a declaration. It was finally circulated after the plenary started, with the heading, "Draft political declaration submitted by the President of the Summit." With several delegations, and NGOs, informally indicating their displeasure at the new draft, particularly over some text in the first draft that was now omitted, Mbeki announced the meeting would be suspended for ten minutes. But the break stretched to almost two hours as several delegations were seen in intense discussion among themselves and with senior South African and UN officials. After the plenary resumed, a document with four new points or amendments were circulated, and with these, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development was adopted. The manner in which the declaration was introduced, so late in the process and on almost a take-it-or-leave-it manner, was way out of line with normal procedure of UN conferences, in which many drafts of such an important document would have gone through months of negotiations at various stages of the preparatory committee and at the Summit. Instead, the Johannesburg Declaration and process of its introduction and adoption was reminiscent of the way the WTO Ministerial declaration was drawn up in its two final drafts at the WTO's Doha meeting of November 2001. Up to now, it is unclear who did the drafting of that final Doha text, which was circulated by the Secretariat on the extended final day on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Even then, the Doha text had gone through two drafts in Geneva and the final two more drafts at Doha. There were only two drafts of the Johannesburg Declaration, and no opportunity for the delegations to go through it as an informal group or in a committee. A great deal of disquiet was expressed by many delegations on the utter lack of transparency and procedure of the political declaration process, and some delegates, familiar with the WTO, remarked in frustration that the infamous WTO "Green Room" process had now crossed over to the usually open and participatory UN system.

In the end, the delegates all accepted the Johannesburg Declaration, despite the frustration of many, probably because there was nothing of significance in the text that anyone would be concerned or unhappy about. It was, as many delegates were heard to say, a "harmless text." By which was meant that the declaration contained general statements of goodwill and "motherhood", that did not contain any meaningful commitments for anyone, and thus did not have the potential to harm the interests of any country. That, perhaps, is an appropriate description of the WSSD as well. The political leaders and their senior officials came and met, fought over difficult text in the Implementation Plan, agreed to adopt some nice sounding words in an insignificant political declaration, and then left. With nothing much achieved, and probably no harm done to anyone as well, it left the official participants with the feeling that the meeting was somewhat worthwhile in having the opportunity for them to meet and in clarifying where everyone stood on the crucial issues facing humanity and nature, but that there was a deadlock, hardly any progress in new areas, and almost a setback in old areas of previous agreement (such as reluctance of continued acceptance of the two key Rio principles). With such small results for such a heavy expense in personnel, time and resources, it will be quite a long time before a convincing case is made for another world summit of this type.

19. EFFORTS FOR WTO SUPREMACY OVER ALL FUTURE ACCORDS FAIL

SUNS

6 September 2002

Internet: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/5187a.htm

Johannesburg, 6 Sept (Martin Khor) - The international community at the just concluded UN-organized World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) has turned back efforts to make the agreements under the World Trade Organization prevail over all future international agreements. The attempts to make the WTO the fundamental law, so to say casting it in stone, failed at the after one of the major as well as most dramatic battles fought in the negotiations of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, over the relationship in international law between the WTO and all existing and future international agreements and institutions. [In international law, and the accepted norms of treaty interpretation, all agreements between the same parties are interpreted as between the parties, in such a manner as to be consistent as far as possible; towards this end some well-known principles are applied, including that the 'specific' overrides the 'general', the 'subsequent' over-rides the previous, and that latter agreements and treaties (among parties) and, in some circumstances, Declarations that have the effect of universally accepted norms, could be used as signifying the intentions of the signatories, in so far as the meaning of earlier agreements, including that of the WTO are ambiguous or vague.] The issue at the WSSD was whether, when conflicts arise between WTO rules or principles and those of other organisations (especially those in the UN family), should these be resolved and sought to be settled by examining the merits of each of them on an equal basis, and in terms of well-known principles of international law, or should the WTO be given a superior status, not only in terms of past agreements, but all future ones too? This issue became the subject of heated debate inside and outside the negotiating halls on the last days of the Summit, due to the use of language in some paragraphs in negotiating texts on the trade part of the "means of implementation" chapter of the WSSD's Plan of Implementation. In a negotiating draft on trade dated 29 August (8pm), the chapeau to para 19 read:         "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 to:.."  Below this chapeau were sub-paras on four issues, including the need to reform subsidies that have negative environmental effects; cooperation on trade, environment and development between the secretariats of WTO, UNCTAD, UNDP and UNEP; and the use of environment impact assessments to identify trade, environment and development linkages. NGO experts on trade and environment actively lobbied various government delegations to delete the words used in the draft, "in a manner consistent with WTO rights and obligations," on the ground that this would give undue pre-eminence advantage to the WTO rules vis-...-vis the objectives and provisions of other agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However, another version of what was termed the "compromise text" on trade was produced dated 31 August (6pm) in which the words "while ensuring WTO consistency" replaced "in a manner consistent with WTO rights and obligations." This language, retained in a subsequent draft of 1 September, would have bound the hands of countries in all future multilateral negotiations in any area, in effect give the WTO a superior status for eternity. It was widely believed that the "compromise text" was drafted by South African Trade Minister Mr. Alec Erwin. Initially the negotiations were limited to a small group of countries, including the EU, the G77 and China (in which Brazil, India, Venezuela, Malaysia played important roles), Australia (which strongly favoured the WTO consistency text), the US and Norway (which opposed the term WTO consistency). The key delegations were asked to take the compromise text on trade as a package, and not change anything in it. In the afternoon and night of 1 September, a growing number of NGOs actively lobbied the G-77 countries and the European countries to delete the phrase "while ensuring WTO consistency." Among the NGOs were the Third World Network, Friends of the Earth, the Norwegian Network on Environment and Development, ANPED and Greenpeace. They argued that "ensuring WTO consistency" in any future discussions or negotiations involving the relationship between trade, environment and development would prejudice and bias the discussion towards acceptance of WTO rules. This would endanger the status of multilateral environment agreements as well as resolutions, declarations or agreements arising from other agencies such as the World Health Organisation, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and conferences of the UN General Assembly itself and its bodies. The fact that "trade, environment and development" were mentioned made it worse, as not only environment issues and proposed measures would be subjected to the WTO consistency test, but also trade and development issues and measures (including on health, other social issues, as well as economic issues and human rights). For instance, there is a well known conflict between the objectives and provisions of the CBD (especially those relating to national sovereignty over biological resources, access and benefit sharing, traditional knowledge and the rights of indigenous and local communities) and the WTO's agreement on TRIPS.  The latter mandates national treatment for patents which are compulsory for some kinds of biological resources, and whose criteria and procedures are biassed towards monopoly private, corporate and institutional patent applicants and against the inter-generational, cumulative and community-based nature of local community innovations. The contradictions between the two, and efforts to "harmonise" them are being discussed both at the WTO and at the CBD. Several developing countries have been trying to advocate that the contradiction be resolved by clarifying or amending the TRIPS agreement in order to make it conform to the objectives of the CBD, but this is being resisted by some of the major developed countries that prefer the status quo, or that prefer that the conflict be resolved in favour of TRIPS. The term "while ensuring WTO consistency" when applied to enhancing mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development, would be a clear indication from the Summit that the WTO should be given the superior status in relation to other agencies and other agreements or declarations. The NGOs also pointed out that the World Health Organisation and its World Health Assembly had been active in support of compulsory licensing and other measures to override patents on vitally needed medicines in order to make them affordable to patients. In recent years, the UN Commission on Human Rights had also been critical of several aspects of globalization, including the WTO agreements on intellectual property, agriculture and services. On trade and development issues, UNCTAD (especially in its Trade and Development Report) had been critical of several aspects of the WTO rules and principles which handicapped developing countries. If in the efforts to be "mutually supportive", the UN agencies and the multilateral environment agreements have to give way in order to ensure WTO consistency, then all the goals and measures in the environmental, trade, development, health, social and human rights arenas would have to be adjusted to fit into the WTO framework, and would become distorted in the process. For example, in the examples above of conflicts between different goals and agencies, the CBD, WHO and Human Rights Commission would find themselves under much greater pressure than before by developed countries to give way to the WTO, should their rules or proposed measures be seen to be "WTO inconsistent." This would also give much greater credence to the many critics of the WTO who claim that this organisation is already usurping the rights of countries and of other agencies to make their own policies. The NGOs argued that it was even more ironic and unacceptable for such a text to be adopted at a premier Summit of the United Nations itself. "It is bad enough if this were agreed to at a WTO ministerial meeting, but it would be really too much for the UN to commit suicide by adopting a declaration that depletes itself of its own powers and willingly hands it over to the WTO," was how one NGO expressed the irony. Whilst Australia was clearly advocating the "WTO consistency language" (and it was believed to be backed by the US), the EC told European NGOs that they did not mind deleting the phrase but that European countries were bound by the commitment not to change anything in the text. Norway was then about the only country that clearly opposed the phrase. The G77 position was complex. At first, the leading developing countries in the negotiations on the trade section supported "ensuring WTO consistency" as they thought this would protect them from unilateral trade measures against the export of their products on environmental grounds. However it was pointed out that the WTO already had adequate rules to take care of this, and that if this was the objective, then there could have been better drafting, such as "ensuring that trade measures would not be used as a pretext for protectionism". But a blanket use of "WTO consistency", would have a negative fall-out against developing countries' interests in other non-WTO fora. While appreciating these arguments, some of the countries felt they should stick to the text as any proposal for a change could unravel the text of the whole section, and open the road for issues such as labour standards (which had been rejected) to be re-introduced. About 50 NGO participants held a silent protest outside the negotiating room by holding up small posters calling for deletion of the "WTO consistency" phrase, and their strong concerns were felt. The negotiations took place in a small, crowded room, where only Ministers and two aides each were allowed. There were unseemly and undignified scenes at the door, as security guards prevented many government delegates from entering the room, and there was much shoving and pushing as the "non-eligible" delegates tried to push their way in, while the guards pushed them back. NGOs were not allowed in, unlike on the previous days when they were allowed to observe the negotiations. Why a bigger room could not be allocated (as on previous nights) for the negotiations was a mystery. Many government delegations and NGOs alike were angered by the apparent attempt to limit participation and compared this to the tactics and scenes at WTO ministerial meetings, most recently at Doha. Late in the night, a breakthrough came in the negotiations when some Caribbean and island developing countries announced they could not accept the language "ensuring WTO consistency." Then Dr E.G.Tewolde of Ethiopia gave an impassioned speech, in which he traced how at Rio ten years ago the discussions had really focussed on biodiversity, the environment and the rights of poor countries and local communities, whereas now the narrow commercial interests of developed countries were being championed through the WTO and sought to be approved in such a high level summit of the UN itself. Ethiopia, he said, was a very poor country and its development is based on biodiversity and its communities' rights over biodiversity, so he could not accept that the policies of poor countries and of the CBD and other agreements would have to be subject to "WTO consistency." Tewolde announced that with regret his delegation would have to break ranks with the G77 over this issue. His speech was met with loud applause, which could be heard from outside the room. Following this lengthy and eloquent presentation, the Venezuelan Minister for Environment spoke on behalf of G77 and said that in view of Ethiopia's explanation, the G77 would also now like to have the phrase deleted. The European Union then also agreed to dropping the phrase, and Norway again reiterated its opposition to the phrase. The meeting's chairman, the South African Environment Minister, then announced that the phrase "ensuring WTO consistency" would be dropped. The final text, as approved in the final plenary of WSSD on 5 September, appears as para 91 of the Plan of Implementation 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 to:" Below this are four sub-paras on (a) encouraging the WTO committees on trade and environment and trade and development to identify and debate the environment and development aspects of the WTO negotiations so as to benefit sustainable development; (b) support the Doha work programme on subsidies so as to promote sustainable development, and encourage reform of subsidies that have negative effects on environment and are incompatible with sustainable development; ( c ) encourage efforts to promote cooperation on trade, environment and development between the secretariats of WTO, UNCTAD, UNDP and UNEP and other organisations; and (d) encourage the use of environment impact assessments as a national tool to identify trade, environment and development linkages.
 

CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT (CSE)

Internet: http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/geg/index_geg.htm#wssd

20. NGOS BOO POWELL'S SPEECH

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/geg/press_20020904.htm

US Secretary of State Colin Powell had a difficult time delivering his speech to the plenary session of the WSSD this morning, as NGOs chanted "Shame on Bush!" and booed his claims that the US was serious about sustainable development, and about addressing climate change. When Powell started his speech, NGOs stood up in the back of the conference hall, holding banners proclaiming "People and Plant, not big business". As the banners were aggressively snatched away by UN security guards, more appeared in different corners of the room, giving the security guards a run around. Several individuals were arrested for shouting anti-Bush slogans. Powell's claims that the US was serious about sustainable development were greeted with shouts of "Bullshit" from his non-government audience, while his announcement that the US was serious about climate change, and was not just interested in rhetoric, solicited loud booing. Indian Minister for External Affairs Yashwant Sinha also addressed the conference today. The Indian minister emphasised that the problem lay with the unsustainable consumption of the rich, not the consumption of the poor. "Because we focus on sustainable development, we underplay the fact that the real problem is unsustainable consumption and the pressure it generates on the earth's finite resources," Sinha said. "The poor are not the biggest consumers of the world's resources; the rich are." Sinha said that the concept of sustainable development puts an unequal burden on developing countries as their developmental aspirations are considered potentially threatening to the prosperity of the developing countries and come under close scrutiny. On the other hand, the developed countries that by definition have transcended the challenges of development pursue growth and increased prosperity without having their sustainability credentials subject to similar scrutiny. Meanwhile outside the plenary, UN officials were busy fending off criticism that the Summit was a failure. "We came here to get commitments and create energy for sustainable development, and to go back home and take action," said Secretary General Kofi Annan. "It is on this ground that we should test the results of the Summit. But we have started off well with the Johannesburg Summit." The Summit is expected to conclude at 3 p.m. today, with the adoption of the plan of implementation and a political declaration.

See Also:
GREENS DECRY EARTH SUMMIT OUTCOME, JEER POWELL Reuters
4 September 2002-09-21
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020904/wl_nm/environment_summit_dc_141

21. MORE PAINS THAN GAINS

2 September 2002

Internet: http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/geg/press_20020902.htm

If the removal of brackets is an indication of the success of a UN conference, then the WSSD made considerable headway during late night negotiations on Sept. 1. Ministers quickened the pace of negotiations to prepare for the arrival of the heads of state, scheduled to join the WSSD negotiations on Sept. 2. As expected, the text on contentious issues was weakened considerably to reach consensus. Very disappointingly, no progress was made beyond Doha on the hard issue of eliminating trade-distorting subsidies by the Northern countries. If developing countries can claim any victories, that would be in the agreement to establish a World Solidarity Fund to deal with poverty, and in the agreement to negotiate a global instrument to ensure 'benefit sharing' - where local communities get a share of the benefits if their biodiversity or know-how is used to develop a commercial product. 

1. WORLD SOLIDARITY FUND: The G77 proposal to set up a World Solidarity Fund for poverty eradication was passed. The UN General Assembly will now decide the modalities of this fund. However, the text makes it very clear that contributions for this fund will be voluntary. In addition to governments, individuals and the private sector are invited to contribute.  Unfortunately, the Fund is a prime example of the lack of preparedness and foresight by the G77. The Centre for Science and Environment had proposed such a fund in the run up to the Rio Summit, but made it clear that the fund should not depend on voluntary donations, but on a global system of taxation. A democratic panel should govern it with equal representation from the North and South, and the funds should be used to promote sustainable livelihoods among local communities. The G77 however, proposed the Fund without a well-thought out plan on how exactly it will be used to combat poverty. As a result the fund will be nothing more than yet another forum for poor nations to go begging for money in years to come.

2. TRADE: Developing countries had hoped that at the WSSD, industrialised countries would commit to phase out trade-distorting subsides in their countries, and also grant exports from poor countries better market access. These two measures would go a long way in ensuring self-reliance and create a level playing field in international trade for poor countries. It has been constantly pointed out at the WSSD that if Northern countries simply stop subsidising their farmers, allowing fair competition for agricultural produce from developing countries in world markets, the total benefit to poor countries would be far more than the flow of official development assistance (ODA) from the North.  However, WSSD has turned out to be a huge disappointment in this respect, as the EU (mostly France) and the US resisted any commitment to reduce their agricultural subsidies and open their markets to goods from developing countries. The best the developed countries agreed to do was to reiterate the vague promise they made in Doha in November 2001. In the Ministerial Declaration from Doha, in the section on agriculture, it was agreed that countries, ...commit (themselves) to comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support. On the issue of providing market access to non-agricultural exports from developing countries, the Doha statement agreed, ...to negotiations which shall aim, by modalities to be agreed, to reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export interests to developing countries. The relationship between the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and multilateral environmental agreements was another controversial area at the WSSD. This has been a sticky issue ever since the Uruguay Round, with the trade and environment regimes often contradicting each other. Several attempts have been made to clarify this relationship in the past, but without success. WSSD was no exception in this regard. At one point in the negotiations, there was a genuine fear that all environment agreements would have to be made 'consistent with WTO rights and obligations', thus conferring even more power to the trade body. After protracted negotiations, however, it was only decided that governments 'enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development' -- leaving existing controversies unresolved.

3. FINANCE: No additional funds have been committed at WSSD. The only concession that developing countries got was that the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) would follow up on both the WSSD and the outcomes of the Monterrey conference on Finance for Sustainable Development.

4. RIO PRINCIPLES: Developing countries were able to keep the references to the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' of rich and poor countries in the text. It was agreed to refer to a 'precautionary approach' instead of a 'precautionary principle'.

5. INSTRUMENT FOR BENEFIT SHARING: It was agreed that an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources be negotiated within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

6. BIODIVERSITY LOSS: Earlier text called on countries to achieve a significant reduction n biodiversity loss by 2010. The final agreement does not include the 2010 deadline --countries agreed to 'achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biodiversity', provided new and additional financial and technical resources were made available.

7. FISHERIES: The fact that the US agreed to a deadline to 'maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on a urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015' was touted as a major success, since getting the US to agree to any deadline had been so difficult.

8. SANITATION: Japan, New Zealand and the US finally agreed to the target to halve the number of people with access to improved SANITATION BY 2015 -- ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL DEADLINE DESPITE US PRESSURE.

9. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION: The text on promoting sustainable production and consumption is weak, and puts very little pressure on developed countries to change their environmentally harmful lifestyles. The EU had proposed a 10-year work programme for all countries to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production. Opposition from G77 and Japan, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand diluted this proposal, and countries now merely have to 'Encourage and promote the development' of 10-year 'framework of programmes' towards sustainable consumption and production.

10. GOVERNANCE: The text on governance was accepted with minor changes after South African Environment Minister Valli Moosa presented it to the ministers on a 'take it or leave it' basis. Although there were some concerns with the text, it was agreed with two minor changes. The final text was not available at the time of writing.

11. RATIFICATION OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: the US was unwilling to allow any call to countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Convoluted language was finally agreed to, where 'States that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol strongly urge states that have not done so to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in a timely manner'.  The issue of concrete targets for renewable energy still remains controversial here at the WSSD, and is being discussed at the Ministerial level. The EU is pushing for:

  • renewable energy technologies to form at least 15 per cent of the total primary energy supply by 2010, through the implementation of ambitious national goals;
     

  • developed countries to commit to a goal to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the total energy supply by at least 2 per cent by 2010, relative to 2000; and
     

  • consider action to phase out energy subsidies that inhibit sustainable development.

But the G77 is only willing to commit to a general agreement to move to cleaner technologies, if the technologies are provided to them on concessional terms, and the phasing out of subsidies that have market-distorting and socially and environmentally damaging impacts. It remains to be seen where the compromise will be struck.

22. WSSD ENDS WITH A WHIMPER

Down to Earth

31August 2002

Internet: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/html/20020831_wssd_summit_headline.html

Johannesburg: The general skepticism shared by many non-government actors over the last year, that the WSSD will not save the world, was not misplaced. As the Johannesburg Earth Summit drew to a close, it had little to show for its success. The last straw came on the night of 2 September, when governments failed to agree on any specific targets for renewable energy. The EU, which had been pushing for firm targets for renewable energy, had to give in to pressure from the US and OPEC. The final agreement is vague, calling only for a "substantial increase" in renewables, with a "sense of urgency". The EU was told during negotiations that they could either agree to the general language with no targets, or shoulder the responsibility for the failure of the entire summit. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell had a difficult time delivering his speech to the plenary session of the WSSD on the morning of 4 September, the ultimate day of the Summit, as NGOs chanted "Shame on Bush!" and booed his claims that the US was serious about sustainable development, and about addressing climate change. Indian Minister for External Affairs Yashwant Sinha, in his address on the same day, emphasised that the problem lay with the unsustainable consumption of the rich, not the consumption of the poor. "Because we focus on sustainable development, we underplay the fact that the real problem is unsustainable consumption and the pressure it generates on the earth's finite resources," Sinha said. "The poor are not the biggest consumers of the world's resources; the rich are." Sinha said that the concept of sustainable development puts an unequal burden on developing countries as their developmental aspirations are considered potentially threatening to the prosperity of the developing countries and come under close scrutiny. On the other hand, the developed countries that by definition have transcended the challenges of development pursue growth and increased prosperity without having their sustainability credentials subject to similar scrutiny. Outside the plenary, UN officials were busy fending off criticism that the Summit was a failure. "We came here to get commitments and create energy for sustainable development, and to go back home and take action," said Secretary General Kofi Annan. "It is on this ground that we should test the results of the Summit. But we have started off well with the Johannesburg Summit." Earlier, during the plenary speeches by the heads of state, Russia announced that they were likely to ratify the Kyoto Protocol soon. Russia's ratification would ensure that the Protocol comes into effect. For a meeting that was in the making for over a year, WSSD has proved to be a terrible disappointment.

23. DIFFERENCES REMAIN, COMPROMISES IMMINENT FOR DEVELOPING WORLD

31 August 2002

Internet: http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/geg/press_20020831.htm

Halfway through the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), it is clear that this meeting will not resolve the major differences that have emerged between developed and developing countries over the last 10 years, and as usual, the developing world will have to settle on compromises which are unlikely to address their problems. In fact, they may actually lose ground that they gained in Rio. The key controversies here at the Summit are:

1. The removal of Northern subsidies on agriculture, and the elimination of Northern tariff and non-tariff barriers on imports from developing countries -- The elimination of agricultural subsidies (amounting to as much as US $1billion per day in the Northern countries) is strongly opposed by the EU.

2. Concrete deadlines for sanitation -- The US wants to "dramatically reduce the proportion of people lacking access to sanitation", while the G77 wants the proportion of people lacking sanitation to be halved by 2015.

3. Concrete targets for renewable energy -- The EU wants strong targets (several options exist in the text -- including a global target to increase the share of renewables by 15 per cent by 2010), while the US opposes such targets. The OPEC, a G77 member, is also opposed to any deadlines. India came under criticism from NGOs for also opposing renewable targets. A member of the Indian delegation told CSE that they oppose the targets because they could be miscontrued under the Kyoto Protocol as targets to reduce emissions.

4. Globalisation -- This continues to be a very controversial area, starting from the very definition of globalisation. The US is not willing to allow a definition that says globalisation is not working for all countries. The linkages between trade and environment are controversial, with the G77 wary of any such linkages, which may be used as protectionist measures against them. The US is also opposed to text on promoting corporate responsibility.

5. The Rio principles - particularly the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' and the precautionary principle -- are still controversial.

6. A suggestion by developing countries to negotiate a global treaty to ensure benefit sharing for local communities also remains controversial.

According to Mostafa Tolba, former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and an old hand at UN environmental negotiations, the final horse-trading between the North and South will take place on these issues, and the WSSD will end in meaningless compromises, like most such meetings in the past. A development that should cause concern here at the WSSD is the sudden popularity of the so-called Type II agreements (see press release: WSSD turned into partnership market). The US is making every effort to undermine the multilateral nature of the WSSD -- it is shirking its responsibility to give ODA to developing countries by trying to focus attention on the voluntary Type II agreements. This is in keeping with the view of many in the Bush administration who consider multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court or global arms treaties) as unnecessary restrictions on the US. The Type II agreements became an official part of the WSSD with minimal discussions, despite protests by non-government organisations. What remains to be resolved now is not whether such agreements should be part of a multilateral process like the WSSD at all, but rather who should monitor these partnerships -- either the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) or the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The fact that 95 per cent of the Plan of Implementation has been agreed to is no consolation to the developing world. Very little has been gained by them so far, and the text seems to merely echo the ambiguities of Rio. For instance, the text once again makes vague commitments to provide assistance to developing countries to access environmentally sound technologies "that are publicly owned or in the public domain".  Similarly, very little headway has been made on the issue of financial aid from the North to the South, with only fuzzy promises to keep the confusing promises made at the Monterrey International Conference on Finance and Development earlier this year. In Monterrey, the US had made it clear that it will tie any such promise of finance to "good governance" in developing countries, which it felt was important to fight international terrorism. Meanwhile, there are no significant promises on part of the Northern countries to seriously address their harmful patterns of production and consumption. The text on finance also reflects the attempt to move focus from aid to foreign direct investment (FDI), and contains promises to "facilitate greater flows" to developing countries. However, to get this FDI, developing countries will have to "create the necessary domestic and international conditions". Given this state of affairs, even government delegations are finding it difficult to remain optimistic. An Indian delegate was overheard saying that perhaps the developing countries should stage a walkout of the negotiations, since things were going so badly for them. While this would be a good idea, it is unlikely that developing countries will even succeed in doing this properly, since there is a complete lack of strong leadership in the G77 group at present. Not to say, however, that there is any visionary, or even strong, leadership among the Northern countries. The world will suffer as a result.

24. WSSD TURNED INTO PARTNERSHIP MARKET

31 August 2002

Internet: http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/geg/press_20020831_1.htm

Instead of discussing fair multilateral rules for global environmental governance, the US is undermining multilateralism by shifting the focus to voluntary partnerships "The US is trying to undermine the multilateral nature of the WSSD by shifting focus to voluntary partnerships," Sunita Narain, Director of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, said today. "Instead of agreeing to a rule-based system to govern the management of the global environment, where nations take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable for them, the US is trying to shift focus onto voluntary agreements that have nothing to do with rules or responsibility, and over which there will be very little control." Narain was reacting to a US press conference, where Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation, made it clear that voluntary bilateral partnerships, and not the ongoing multilateral negotiations, were of utmost importance to the US. "The WSSD is focusing more on text, more than 35,000 words. These words can't save the Earth," she said. "We need actions. That is the reason why we have come to Johannesburg with practical partnerships."  Dobriansky had declared that "with the current partnerships, USA (is) the world leader in sustainable development". The focus on voluntary action through partnerships instead of the WSSD process is, however, consistent with the views of many in the Bush administration, which see multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol as an unnecessary restraint on the US. Unwilling to make any firm commitments or deadlines to fund global sustainable development efforts at the WSSD, the US first proposed the idea of voluntary partnerships in the preparatory process of the WSSD. Despite widespread protests that the WSSD was meant to be a venue for multilateral commitments to strengthen global cooperation and not bilateral partnerships, the idea of Type II agreements -- partnerships between governments, regional groups, local authorities, non-governmental actors, international institutions or private sector actors -- were accepted by governments with minimal discussion. From outright rejection of Type II agreements, many non-government participants at WSSD have been forced to accept that they will form part of the Summit agreement. They have started lobbying for some sort of control over the free-for-all process, with over 500 partnerships already registered, and more added everyday. Several NGOs and UN agencies have also jumped onto the Type II gravy train, choosing to overlook the dangers of endorsing a voluntary bilateral process at a multilateral forum such as the WSSD. Such partnerships take the world a step further away from global implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle, where rich countries provide funds to developing countries not out of charity, but instead as payment for using more than their share of the common ecological resources.  Instead, Type II agreements will be riddled by the same problems as existing aid projects, where donors decide priorities. Very few of the registered partnerships so far have come from developing countries. There are already fears that particularly with the involvement of corporate partners, these priorities could range from promoting genetically modified products to privatisation of natural resources in developing countries. Besides their role in undermining the global process, many other problems plauge the partnerships. Other than three pages of general guidelines, there are no rules to ensure that the partnerships will actually work towards Agenda 21 or the Millennium Development Goals, instead of undermining them. There is currently no monitoring system in place. Although the US has suggested that the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) be appointed the monitoring agency, CSD is unlikely to have the capacity to oversee hundreds of projects among hundreds of partners. There is also no guarantee that the partnerships bring additional financial gain to developing countries. Instead, old projects are likely to be repackaged. The Economic Cooperation Bureau of Japan has already announced during a Summit press conference that they will be pulling out money pledged to the Global Fund for HIV, TB and malaria to fund water and sanitation projects in the South Pacific. "Governments do not need a multilateral forum like the WSSD to announce bilateral partnerships," Narain said. "Instead of reducing everything to a business proposition, they should focus this Summit on establishing fair rules for sharing the limited resources of the Earth."


STAKEHOLDER FORUM FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE

WSSD Web page: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/

25. AGRICULTURE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

27 August 2002

Internet: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/briefing.PDF

Agriculture presents some of the most thorny problems for sustainable development. To some people, the challenge of feeding the world's population points inexorably towards large-scale farming with massive chemical inputs and the embracing of genetic modification and other modern techniques. For others, the sustainable solution must lie at the opposite end of the spectrum in respecting traditional methods of managing land and natural resources, and protecting the rights of small scale enterprises and mixed cultivation in local communities. Beneath the storm and lightning of these major global debates, a whole range of more locally based initiatives to find the way forward on sustainable agriculture are emerging. Stakeholder Forum's Implementation Conference over the last three days has acted as midwife for the expansion of six new global partnerships for local sustainable agriculture action. These new partnerships have brought together professionals, international organisations and a variety of local groups to create new networks and action on the ground. Details of these partnerships are set out in the attached table and further analysis of agricultural issues is available in today's issue of Outreach.

OUTREACH DAILY WSSD NEWS

Monday 26th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20I.pdf

Tuesday 27th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20II.pdf

Wednesday 28th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20III.pdf

Thursday 29th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20IV.pdf

Friday 30th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20V.pdf

Monday 2nd September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VI.pdf

Tuesday 3rd September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VII.pdf

Wednesday 4th September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VIII.pdf


WWF

WSSD Web page: http://www.panda.org/wssd/

26. WSSD: WORLD SUMMIT OF SHAMEFUL DEALS

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.panda.org/news/press/news.cfm?id=3140

Johannesburg, South Africa - WSSD - The World Summit of Shameful Deals, (formerly known as the World Summit on Sustainable Development) has failed dramatically to take the action needed to reduce the patterns of unsustainable production and consumption that are impoverishing our planet and the people who live on it.  Although the Summit did have a few positive outcomes, overall it did not produce the types of commitments that WWF and others believe are necessary to achieve sustainable development. Over the last few days of the Summit, world leaders emphasized the importance of sustainable development in their speeches, making promises of unilateral action and funding. However, this only served to highlight the failure of the Action Plan to provide a clear road map for how to achieve sustainable development.  "Overall, this is a deal that in the long term will benefit neither the countries who stitched it up, nor those countries who stood by and allowed it to happen," said Dr. Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International. "Apart from some limited commitments to protect our oceans and fish stocks and provide sanitation, the summit will do almost nothing to help reduce our damaging global footprint. Although many individual countries want to do far more, the summit texts are mostly a race to the bottom."  The Action Plan is notably lacking in clear targets and timetables on a range of crucial issues. It has failed to ensure that the citizens of the world can have access to clean energy; has promised access to water and sanitation for the poor, but has failed to protect or manage the origins of that water; has failed to confirm the supremacy of the needs of poor people and the environment over the free trade agenda and is weaker than existing agreements on controlling chemicals that threaten nature and our health.  Among the few positive outcomes of the Summit has been the announcement by the Government of Brazil, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and WWF of the largest ever tropical forest protection plan. The Amazon Regional Protected Area (ARPA) ensures that 500,000 sq. km of the Amazon will be put under federal protection - triple the amount that is already protected, and an area almost twice the size of the UK.  "WWF believes that there are many groups who think that this Summit should have done much more. We hope to work with them to develop concrete field and policy based sustainable development programmes, and promote solutions and policy alliances which can mitigate current flaws in the multilateral system," Dr. Martin added.

27. FINAL UPDATE FROM THE WSSD

WWF

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/august/update.htm

POLITICAL OVERVIEW:

General overview:

WWF believes that this meeting has failed dramatically to take the action needed to reduce the patterns of unsustainable production and consumption that are impoverishing our planet and the people that live on it. Although the Summit did have a few positive outcomes, overall it did not produce the types of commitments that WWF and others believe are necessary to achieve sustainable development. Over the last few days of the Summit, world leaders emphasized the importance of sustainable development in their speeches, making promises of unilateral action and funding. However, this only served to highlight the failure of the Action Plan to provide a clear road map for how to achieve sustainable development. After the plan of implementation was adopted several countries expressed reservations about it. For instance, the US said that the agreement did not commit governments to implementation on all aspects, including on biodiversity conservation. At the same time, more optimistically, the EU said they would convene a group of like-minded countries to work together on progressive targets on renewable energy. How this would work is not yet clear. Given the broadly negative outcomes of the official process we are taking whatever opportunities present themselves to stress that organisations such as WWF will continue the battle to conserve biodiversity and promote sustainable development. We will also use whatever opportunities present themselves at the national level to follow up with recommendations to governments.

HEADS OF STATE SPEECHES:

Over Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, over 100 Heads of State each made a five-minute address to the Summit. In their speeches, many of them announced initiatives or funding for sustainable development. WWF believes that in the majority of cases, their words do not match with the actions taken by their negotiators over the previous week. We are looking to those Heads of State who made grand promises to turn their words into actions over the coming months. One issue that did stand out were the announcements by Canada and Russia that they intend to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Once Russia ratifies, the Protocol can enter into force. Canada's announcement is important as it signifies a split in the North American block.

POLITICAL DECLARATION:

At the time of writing (19.30 local time), the political declaration is embroiled in controversy. There is speculation that agreement on a declaration will prove impossible and that a watered down Chairman's text will be substituted. This is another sad reminder of the lack of political agreement here.

PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION (note this is an updated version of the updates on the Plan that you have received previously):

WWF believes that the Plan of Implementation will not provide significant movement forwards from commitments made in Rio and since. In some cases the text actually constitutes a step backward (precautionary principle). WWF believes that the inability of governments to forge an innovative path forward is partly the result of an overloaded agenda, a distinct lack of focus on critical overarching global challenges, and the pressures created by the current international financial difficulties. The meagre outcome of the meeting is also a consequence of some countries' conscious efforts to prevent the Summit from agreeing new targets and timetables. The US has been the most negative country in this regard, in many cases helped by countries like Australia and Canada. On the issues of energy and climate change, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Canada and Australia managed to protect their fossil fuel interests at the expense of the 2 billion people on the planet with no access to energy services. On water issues the main difficulties have concerned cross boundary issues where countries including Turkey and Australia have blocked progress. Countries like Norway and Switzerland have been actively promoting targets and timetables on a number of issues, often backed by the EU. At the same time, however, the EU has failed to deliver the necessary concessions on trade and subsidies to developing countries. The EU has allowed the immediate uncertainties related to the German election and the short-term interests of French farmers' rule over the needs of long-term sustainable development for the benefit of the World's poor and the environment. The developing countries in G77 have failed to produce a forward-looking agenda for sustainable development, but have instead focused only on their immediate interests in increased financial assistance and trade concessions. In the final hours of the negotiations on trade and globalization, a number of countries, including Hungary, Switzerland, Norway, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, Barbados, and Ethiopia managed to eliminate the very worst elements from the text. Generally, for each of the issues covered by the Summit, its results reflect a few countries' narrow interests, rather than the interests of the large majority of countries who would like to see action - not to speak of the civil society, which has engaged very constructively in the process.

SPECIFIC ISSUES:

Renewable energy: WWF believes that the energy section of the Plan of Implementation delivers nothing to provide energy services for the 2 billion people worldwide who have no access to modern energy services nor anything to curb global warming. It has no targets or timetables of any kind to increase the share of renewable energy, and delivers nothing on reducing the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which continue to prop up its dominance of the global energy mix. Finally, it merely reiterates agreements made over the past several years.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:

The Precautionary Principle was agreed in Rio as Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration and was developed at subsequent meetings such as the Biosafety Protocol and the POPs treaty. The agreed wording refers to 'science-based decision-making' and talks about the precautionary approach rather than the principle. On the other hand the text quotes the entire Principle 15 from Rio and therefore cannot be said to be a serious backsliding. In a number of other areas in the text, reference to the precautionary principle has been deleted, despite the existing references to this principle in numerous international agreements.

Water and Sanitation: WWF welcomes the sanitation target that aims to halve the proportion of people living without access to sanitation by 2015. This is an essential complement to the Millennium Summit's target to halve the number of people without access to clean water by 2015. However, the target has no mention of river basin management nor sustainable development, which are needed to secure the water resource and make sure that the provision of water to people and nature there will not be through large scale diversion and containment of natural systems.

TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION: WWF believes that this section of text falls far short of what is needed, and merely re-states the status quo. The summit's action plan on trade and globalization is pitiful. It fails to realize that the WTO driven agenda for globalization doesn't necessarily work in favour of the poor and the natural environment. It fails to restate the Precautionary Principle - a crucial tenet of the Rio Declaration, and it fails to ensure that international environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol are protected by WTO rules on free trade. There are no references to Sustainability Impact Assessments. It is remarkable that at a Summit on sustainable development, governments have failed even to meaningfully address the issue of environmentally harmful subsidies - payments that support environmentally destructive practices.

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION: An agreement was reached to establish a framework of programmes to support national and regional initiatives for sustainable production and consumption. This falls short of the proposal to have a global ten-year programme of action, but is nevertheless a point of departure for future action in this area.

BIODIVERSITY, PARA 42: The Summit has confirmed the decisions made at the last Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) on the target to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The Summit also encouraged action by the Convention on Access and Benefit Sharing which is a provision that could help poor people in biodiverse rich areas in the longer term. While the language on targets is weaker than that from a Ministerial Declaration issued in The Hague earlier this year, we recognise that they have opened a window for new and additional funding and technical support in the future. WWF is also pleased to see the US has agreed the target. Now they should join the CBD and implement it with the rest of the world.

TOXIC CHEMICALS: On chemical management, negotiators have agreed to compromise language on all of the outstanding issues, with the exception of text on the precautionary approach. As a result of the compromises made, the agreement reached in Johannesburg is weaker than existing commitments made in other international fora including the POPs Treaty and the UNEP Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Cartagena, Colombia in February 2002.

MARINE ENVIRONMENT: The text agreed on marine issues includes a target for replenishment of depleted fish stocks by 2015 and on elimination of harmful subsidies. While the text is short on action plans with new measures, and refers to the outdated concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield, it reinforces WWF's call for a reform of subsidies and the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, and thus offers the European Union the opportunity to be the first region to meet the target.

KYOTO PROTOCOL LANGUAGE: Negotiators have included language stating that countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol urge all other countries that have not yet ratified to do so as rapidly as possible. This is a positive signal, but does not add anything to what is already agreed in meetings under the Climate Change Convention.

NATURAL RESOURCES: There is no reference to targets, the precautionary principle and the ecosystem in the text. This has the effect of rendering the text largely irrelevant.

EVENTS

On the positive front on Tuesday, at a ceremony in Johannesburg, the GEF (Global Environment Facility), the World Bank, and WWF joined the Brazilian government in supporting a new program - ARPA - that will triple the amount of the Amazon rainforest under federal protection. This announcement ensures the conservation of an area twice as big as the United Kingdom or almost twice the size of the State of Texas, amounting to 12% of the total forest area. On Tuesday, WWF Netherlands launched its new IMAX movie SOS Planet. After this world premiere at WSSD, the movie will run in IMAX theatres around the world in a few months time.

On Wednesday, WWF took part in the launch of the Congo Basin Initiative, a follow-up to the Yaounde Summit, which will provide significant resources for forest protection and management in the Congo Basin.

COMMUNICATIONS

On Tuesday, WWF's International President gave a one-hour briefing to a number of journalists. Journalists who were present included Radio France International, BBC Africa Service, Reuters, and several South African newspapers. Also on Tuesday, Melanie Steiner spoke at the final ECO Coalition press briefing at the Nedcor building. Over 70 journalists were present, including a number of news and TV agencies. On Wednesday lunchtime, WWF held a photo opportunity outside the convention centre. A number of WWF staff held up mirrors, in front of a banner that read 'Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow? What have you done for the planet?" A large number of journalists were present, including AP TV and South African TV, and agency photographers. Following this, Jennifer Morgan spoke at the UN sponsored NGO press briefing in front of a large number of journalists. She spoke generally about WWF's opinion of the meeting, but also focused on the question of energy. On Wednesday, WWF International issued an OpEd piece by Claude Martin. The piece focuses on the future of multilateral agreements in light of the disappointing outcome of the Summit.

MEETINGS

On Tuesday evening, Claude Martin was invited to address Heads of State. Claude was the only representative of an environmental NGO to be given this opportunity. Both the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and South African President Thabo Mbeki voiced support for Claude's analysis and for the ideas that he presented on how to move forwards. On Wednesday, in a meeting with Kim Carstensen, Kofi Annan reiterated his support for WWF's ideas. Claude's speech was sent to you earlier today. Also on Tuesday, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, WWF's International President met with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. During the meeting, the Secretary General was presented with a globe displaying email messages from around the world received through the SOS Planet web site.

28. WSSD ON ENERGY -- NOTHING FOR THE POOR, NOTHING FOR THE CLIMATE

WWF

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.panda.org/news/press/news.cfm?id=3136

The Johannesburg World Summit will go down in history as a missed opportunity to deliver energy to the 2 billion people on this planet with no access to energy services, and as a failure to kickstart the renewable energy revolution that is required to protect the climate. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Canada, and Australia left the convention center today secure in the knowledge that they had protected their fossil fuel interests, while Brazil, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Iceland and some members of the EU spoke up about their disappointment about the failure to move forward on energy.  'There were some nice speeches in the plenary today from Heads of State and Government about the need to protect the climate and to fight poverty', said Jennifer Morgan of WWF. 'But the Ministers in the negotiating rooms downstairs obviously weren't listening. This Summit's Bush Energy plan isn't worth the carbon in the paper it's printed on."  "After over a year of debate, the WSSD energy section does not represent a single step forward. The Plan of 'Action' is not much of a plan and it contains almost no action. We've spent the last year and a half doing damage control," said Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace . "We now have to move forward with a 'coalition of the willing', those countries who want to deliver a sustainable energy future for their people."  "Whether its lost opportunities for cleaner, healthier household energy sources, or increased risk of vulnerability to global climate change, the poor come out losing on every count," said Antonio Hill of Oxfam International .  The energy section of the Plan of Implementation, as it is now agreed:

  • Delivers nothing on energy supply for the 2 billion people worldwide who have no access to modern energy services.
     

  • Has no targets or timetables of any kind for the uptake of renewable energy.
     

  • Delivers nothing on reducing the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry which continue to prop up its dominance of the global energy mix.
     

  • Merely reiterates agreements made over the past several years.


GREENPEACE

WSSD Web page: http://archive.greenpeace.org/earthsummit/documents.html

29. SUMMIT FAILS GREENPEACE'S REPORT CARD ON THE SUMMIT

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news%5fid=25487

SOUTH AFRICA/Johannesburg: At the start of the Earth Summit, Greenpeace produced a checklist for success. So how did the politicians do in Johannesburg? Many Heads of State spoke eloquently about the need to address the most pressing environmental and development issues of our day. They talked (and talked, and talked) about kick-starting an energy revolution that would put clean, reliable, renewable energy into the hands of the planet's poorest people and help stem the progress of Global Warming. Many said the Summit's success would be judged by how well it addressed the issue of Climate Change. Those same politicians failed to do a damn thing new about these issues. The best thing that can be said in the Summit's favour is that it could have been worse.  For example, a last minute scramble to remove text which would have required environmental protection agreements to be consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organisation was a major victory - had the previous text remained it could have undone the last 20 years of work to protect the international environment.  So how do the results measure up against our original Checklist for a Successful Summit?

The Summit's Report Card http://archive.greenpeace.org/earthsummit/report_card/

30. WHY ARE WE BEING IMITATED?

1 September 2002

Internet: http://www.greenpeace.org/features/details?features_id=24607&campaign_id=

They seemed innocent enough. Just little business-card sized pamphlets, small enough to be slipped into the wallet of any delegate, asking one simple question at the preparatory meetings for the Earth Summit in Bali: 'Why are you here?' We answered our own question with a four-point checklist of action needed to save our world. Here in Johannesburg, a 'copy-cat' pamphlet has appeared. What did the cover say? Why, it was titled 'Why is the European Union here?' It answered its own question with a ten-point checklist of fluffy green advertising slogans. If imitation is the sincerest form of imitation, why was the European Union imitating Greenpeace?  Another example. We have been pushing for the governments of the world to adopt new renewable energy like wind, solar, small-scale hydro and biomass. We demanded last year that clean, renewable energy be provided to the 2 billion of the world's poorest people who currently live off the energy grid. And sure enough, somebody else decided to copy our message. In their latest advertising, Shell Oil, a major producer of polluting fossil fuels, notes 2 billion of the planet's poorest people have no energy, and "we need to do more than just talk about it." You know, we don't mind being imitated. But we'd really prefer that Shell and the European Union imitate our actions, not our words.  We're proving the viability of small-scale renewable energy by investing in prototypes that work, using today's technology. We're demonstrating that a future based on renewable energy is environmentally practical and economically viable. We're sending signals to government that we can address poverty AND global warming with the same solutions.  We're challenging governments and industries to drive the investment necessary to make these technologies much cheaper and much more widely available, through the kind of binding targets that create an even playing field for market forces. What's the European Union doing? At the moment, it appears that under the retrograde leadership of Denmark, they are about to sell out on their commitment to firm renewable targets for the world's energy mix, bowing to pressure from the United States and corporate puppeteers like Exxon. What's Shell doing? Continuing to expand its capacity to produce and sell the very fossil fuels that are choking Asia under a brown haze and slowly cooking our planet.What are we doing? At the exhibition space formerly set aside to showcase business interests and government ventures here in Johannesburg, we secured a place to showcase initiatives such as the SolarChill project.  The SolarChill is a refrigerator that stores the sun's energy in ice, and can be used to keep vaccines and food cool in places where no electricity is now available. We're also showcasing the solar Greenfreeze refrigerator, which uses no climate-killing chemicals and can be powered by wind, hydropower, biogas or grid energy. The true significance of the SolarChill is related to vaccines. The availability of vaccine refrigerators in developing countries is vital for maintaining the shelf life of vaccines and some medicines, such as the liquid form of antibiotics. Many people live off the grid or with unstable energy, and keeping medicines cold can be all but impossible.  Vaccine refrigerators that can be powered by a number of energy sources can alleviate the problem of non-existing or insufficient electrical supply, and can also be of great benefit under emergency circumstances, such as natural disasters or war conditions. Janos Maté has been showing off a working SolarChill prototype to visitors to the Global Forum for the past week. In his view, the Summit should be announcing investment projects to make technology like this available to as many rural villages as possible.  "I've had many people ask where they could buy a SolarChill, and it's a shame that this is the only working model. One woman told me that she lives in a small village here in South Africa, and that her fridge is kerosene-powered. The kerosene costs a dollar a day, it needs to refilled each night, and it spits out black smoke."  What our corporate and government imitators forget is that our real messages are actions, not words. They say clearly that clean solutions to real everyday situations are possible. At Ubuntu village we have a portable container that acts as a shopfront. It showcases four small businesses, all run on renewable energy. Jan Pronk, the Special Envoy to the Earth Summit, opened the Energy Store by enjoying a freshly squeezed juice from an electric juicer, before logging onto the internet using a solar powered computer to sign an online petition, and then giving a colleague a solar-powered haircut. This petition calls for the massive uptake of renewable energy by the industrialised nations, and access to clean renewable energy for two billion of the world's poorest people. The working demonstration at Ubuntu village is a call to the world's governments to adopt a target of 10 percent of new renewable energy by 2010. We have said it on our pamphlets, hung it from banners, painted it on hot air balloons and developed prototypes that WORK. When will governments and multinationals stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk? Energy is the lifeblood of modern society. We are at a crossroads due to the global impact of current polluting energy supplies such as oil, coal, gas and nuclear power. A clean energy future is now urgently needed. Renewable energy is reliable, inexhaustible power generated by natural processes such as wind, solar, biomass and small-scale hydro.  The total cost of getting renewable energy to the world's poorest two billion people is estimated to be less than half of the US$500+ billion that is likely to be invested over the next decade in fossil fuel power stations and infrastructure in poorer countries. For just US$1.4 billion, clean renewable energy could be supplied to one million schools and health care centres, serving some 600 million people. In a meeting that has been criticised for its obsession with trade, subsidies and protecting the rights of businesses, the lack of talk about environmental protection, sustainability or poverty alleviation is disheartening. But the lack of action is far worse. We'd love to live in a world where governments and multinationals behaved more like Greenpeace. But they need to put their money where their mouth is.

31. TRADITIONAL ADVERSARIES CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

28 August 2002

Internet: http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news_id=24688&campaign_id=

Greenpeace and industry coalition World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) were 'fighting like cats and dogs' ten years ago in Rio, in the words of Greenpeace Political Director Remi Parmentier. Today, they agreed to put aside their differences to join in sending one historic signal: business and the environmental community are united in demanding governments adopt a global framework on climate change. Environmentalists want it for the planet. Business wants a level playing field that avoids the confusion of differing national implementations. And both want governments to do something so badly that oil giant BP and Greenpeace were able to share a platform to demand it. "Sharing platforms of course is something we do literally and figuratively" said Group Senior Advisor for BP Charles C. Nicholson, referring to Greenpeace's 1997 occupation of the Stenna Dee oil platform in the North Sea. Greenpeace Climate Policy Director Steve Sawyer responded that he was also pleased to share a different kind of platform, and he promised that unlike BP, "I won't call the police, or take out a civil suit, or try to freeze your bank accounts." Both Greenpeace and the WBCSD emphasized that they are not prepared to set aside all of their differences. "This is not a merger" said Bjorn Stigson, the President of the WBCSD. And Nicholson noted that "Of course there will continue to be differences about the end points and the means, but if we keep sprinting around those differences we're never going to make any progress."  Chris Boyd, the Senior Vice President for Environment and Public Affairs at LaFarge, said that his company and those who saw themselves as proactive on climate change were particularly concerned that governments take action. "We have to ask ourselves, if there is no progress on a global framework, who will suffer most? It will be the proactive companies."  Greenpeace is well known for its campaigns against some companies who are members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). In turn, the WBCSD is well known for advocating a free trade approach to solving environmental problems, including voluntary measures that often differ radically from Greenpeace.  The Bush administration in particular has claimed their refusal to adopt Kyoto rests on the concerns of industry, and claim that the standards demanded by activists will never be accepted by businesses. In their joint statement, the two adversaries said that "We both share the view that the mixed often contradictory signals sent by governments on the environment, especially on greenhouse gas emission reductions, is creating a political environment which is not good for business nor, indeed, for the future of humanity." The standing-room only crowd at the press conference broke into applause. "We are shelving our differences on other issues on this occasion and calling upon governments to be responsible and build the international framework to tackle climate change on the basis of the UN Framework Convention on Climate change and its Kyoto protocol. We both agree this is the essential first step," said Stigson and Parmentier.  Dr. Jose Goldemberg, Secretary of State for the Environment in the state of Sao Paolo, Brazil, commented on new resistance that had surfaced at the Earth Summit to clear timetables and targets for renewable energy. "If you don't adopt targets and timetables, you don't signal governments. And if you don't send a signal, governments won't act and business won't act." Goldemberg also noted the importance of the Summit in particular being clear about this: "Renewables make the link between poverty and the environment." Sawyer agreed, stating "this [the Summit] is a blunt instrument. We don't expect heads of state to unpick all the issues, but they do need to send a signal that they intend to fulfil the commitments they made ten years ago in Rio." Remi Parmentier noted that "We will continue to have disagreements with many of the companies who are members of the WBCSD. We will continue to have campaigns against them and put activists on their chimneys and pipes. They will continue to call the police when we get too close. But as an advocacy group, we can find common ground." 

32. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL FOR FOSSIL FUELS

30 August 2002

Internet: http://www.greenpeace.org/news/details?news_id=24029

Today here in Johannesburg, Greenpeace and The Body Shop presented 1,602,489 signatures to the Earth Summit in the form of an interactive mural calling upon delegates to agree to get clean, reliable, renewable energy into the hands of 2 billion of the world's poorest people by 2010. Greenpeace and The Body Shop teamed up about a year ago to create the Choose Positive Energy Campaign, launched in January of this year. The demand: that governments vastly expand renewable energy for people across the world - the industrialised governments should expand their renewable energy supplies and all governments should commit to providing small-scale renewable solutions like solar and wind power, small-scale hydro, and biomass, to the world's poorest. The total cost of getting renewable energy to the world's poorest 2 billion people is estimated to be less than half of the $500+ billion that is likely to be invested over the next decade in fossil fuel power stations and infrastructure in poorer countries. For just $1.4 billion, clean renewable energy could be supplied to 1 million schools and health care centres, serving some 600 million people.  Around the world, people added their voices and signatures to the call, either at the Choose Positive Energy website or on petitions at Body Shop stores in 27 countries. The mural will be a permanent fixture in a part of central Johannesburg identified with protests against Apartheid and now an emerging multi-cultural artistic hub of the city.  Painted by a team of local community artists, the mural incorporates a selection of the 1.5 million signatures and allows members of the public to add their own signatures - so it remains a living statement of intent. To the music of Baaba Maal and the words of UK Environment minister Michael Meecher, people gathered in front of three huge buildings enigmatically sheathed in hessian coverings. Baaba Maal led the entire gathering to the edges of the mural and once everyone was assembled, he loosened the cloth. The striking art work underneath represents the transition from 'negative' fossil fuel energy to cleaner 'positive' renewable/sustainable energy sources and the represents that hopes and aspirations of millions of people for a clean and sustainable future. "... It is not just the poorest who are suffering in their every day lives in order to survive. The poorest are the ones who will feel the major impacts of the unfolding climate crisis being brought on by global warming. This is not a catastrophe waiting to hit - it is already hitting - and it is going to get worse," said Baaba Maal.  Gordon Roddick, co-chair of The Body Shop said at the launch of the initiave in London last January: "The use of oil, coal and gas fuels are quite literally choking our world to death. It seems madness to keep using polluting fossil fuels when clean green alternatives are available. We have a moral obligation to achieve sustainable energy not just for ourselves, but particularly for those people in the developing world, who are currently off-grid. We have to take a stand. Renewable energy sources offer us the best chance we have to avoid a potential climate catastrophe."  Two billion people -- one-third of us on the planet -- have no access to electricity for basic needs such as lighting or cooking. Getting people the clean and reliable energy necessary for essential needs such as clean water, health care facilities, heating and lighting is one of the most pressing problems facing humanity today. "The statistics are numbers but each number is a human life," said Baaba Maal.  Global warming, caused by burning fossil fuels, threatens people's lives around the world. While the world's poorest people use only a fraction of the world's oil, coal and gas, they are likely to suffer most from extreme weather events such as floods and storms if no action is taken. Rising sea levels threaten to engulf entire countries in the Indian and Pacific oceans. If we are going to stop the earth's climate spinning out of control, most of the world's reserves of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas cannot be used for energy and must stay underground. We must make the switch to positive energy at home and globally.


FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL (FOEI)

WSSD Web page: http://www.foei.org/wssd/index.html

33. BETRAYAL.... BUT SEE YOU ALL IN MEXICO!

3 September.

Internet: http://www.foei.org/media/2002/0903final.html

Friends of the earth's art installation "hear our voice" (inside sandton security zone, corner of maude and 5th), with 6,000 mute witnesses and a 6 metre high corporate giant, has been specially adapted for the end of the earth summit.  After nine days of talks, the Earth Summit is finally winding to an end. We have analysed the final text of the Programme of Implementation and found precisely TWO new and specific targets in the whole thing:

1. To halve by 2015 the proportion of people who ... do not have access to basic sanitation (para 7), and

2. Establishment of marine protected networks ... including representative networks by 2012 (para 31c) - which is really half a target, but we prefer to be generous in our praise.

And that's it. In every other case, existing commitments are simply reaffirmed, watered down, or trashed altogether. Paragraph 5(a) promises to "urge the developed countries ... to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of GNP as official development assistance". Paragraph 19(e) contains the disgraceful promotion of "clean" fossil fuels, a betrayal of the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change (although the announcement of ratification by both Canada and Russia this week is a welcome step). Paragraph 22 talks about dangerous chemicals but is only "aiming to achieve by 2020 that chemicals are produced in ways that lead to the minimisation of significant adverse effects on human health" (!). Paragraph 42 talks of "a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity", a clear step backwards from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. We could go on, but the list of weasel words and lost promises is nearly endless. Do not believe Government spin doctors who claim success for this Summit. It is by any objective test a failure.

Friends of the Earth International has strongly supported the Earth Summit. We desperately need binding international agreements to fight environmental threats to our common home, and such agreements require negotiations, open to media and civil society. But the so-called Programme of Implementation agreed at this summit barely begins to deal with the scale of the problems the world faces. It is a betrayal of hundreds of millions of poor and vulnerable people and their communities around the world. Governments have failed to set the necessary social and ecological limits to economic globalisation. The chance to stem the tide of damage caused by the neoliberal economic ideology that dominates the developed world and institutions such as the World Trade Organisation has, for now, been missed. Instead many references to the WTO and its rules have been included in the Programme of Implementation. Even campaign victories such as preventing an unprecedented statement that would have made all commitments to environment and development subservient to WTO rules cannot change the bleak picture. The relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and world trade rules will still be left to the WTO to decide.  One important success was achieved by Friends of the Earth - the inclusion of clear language on the need to establish corporate accountability. However, the US is still attempting to undermine these words through squalid manoeuvres around a "Letter of Interpretation" from Ambassador Ashe. FoEI now calls for a UN conference on corporate accountability by the end of 2003. This conference should be included in the Political Declaration. The draft text produced by the South African Government would place the issue before the UN General Assembly. FoEI is disappointed with what was achieved here in Johannesburg. But we will continue its campaign for trade justice, rights for communities and rules for big business. We will also continue to call on developed countries to acknowledge their ecological debt to the developing world. FoEI will now be taking its campaign "Don't let big business rule the world" to the Cancun WTO Conference.  Ricardo Navarro, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, commented:  "The Earth Summit should have been about protecting the environment and fighting poverty and social destruction. Instead it has been hijacked by free market ideology, by a backward-looking, insular and ignorant US administration and its friends in Japan, Canada, Australia and OPEC, by a timid and confused European Union, and by the global corporations that help keep reactionary politicians in limousines. So, after nine days of waffle and posturing and horse-trading we have only two significant new targets to protect the environment and fight poverty and deprivation.  Daniel Mittler, Earth Summit Coordinator, commented:  This is a betrayal of the millions of people around the world who looked to this Summit for real action, and particularly of poor people and vulnerable communities in the South. It is an indictment of the world leaders who came to this Summit and posed for photographs but lacked the vision and commitment to face the scale of the world's problems. A world where the economy runs beyond the capacity of political institutions to regulate and control it is in a deep crisis, and can never be fully secure or at peace. Nothing could make us more determined to fight on for the radical environmental action the world needs. See you all in Mexico!"

34. SASOLBURG COMMUNITY RAISES CONCERNS AROUND SASOL'S POLLUTION WITH SCOTLAND'S FIRST MINISTER

Groundwork / FOEI

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.foei.org/media/2002/0904d.html

South Africa: Yesterday, residents of the Free State town of Sasolburg met with the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell to share their grievances and concerns around the impacts of the operations of chemical and oil giant Sasol on the environs and people of Sasolburg. Mr McConnell is in SA attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Sasol has recently invested in his homeland, and he agreed to make a courtesy call at the Sasol head quarters in Sasolburg. While Sasol, no doubt, pulled out the "red carpet" for the First Minister, laying on delicious food and beverages and painting a rosy picture of Sasol's chemical and industrial genius, those on the outside - the disgruntled community members - gave another side to the story. Before meeting with Sasol, Mr McConnell and five of his advisors met with members of the Sasolburg Environmental Committee, Mayor Ndaba, and representatives from NGOs groundWork and Friends of the Earth, Scotland. Nicholas Kasa, the Secretary of the Sasolburg Environmental Committee, eloquently conveyed to the First Minister the many negative impacts Sasol's operations have had on the surrounding environment and communities. He spoke of health problems in the area, of bad smells when the wind blows from the Sasol plants towards the community, and of regular industrial accidents, flaring, fires explosions.  McConnell was also taken to a nearby home to meet with a young child whose legs had to be amputated after being baldy burnt when a Sasol truck was involved in an accident and spilled hazardous chemicals on the side of the road in 1998. According to Mr Bobby Peek of groundWork, it was a very fruitful meeting. Mr McConnell promised that he would raise the community's concerns with Sasol when he met the company's management immediately after meeting with the community.  "We also asked Mr McConnell to request that Sasol supply natural gas (through underground gas pipeline networks) to homes in the greater Sasolburg area, so that the poor residents no longer have to burn cheap coal in their homes", said Peek.  Ardiel Soeker, of groundWork, said that his organisation and the community had taken several air samples in the area over the past two years. These showed that were high levels of many toxic pollutants in the air in Sasolburg. He said that Sasol has attempted to blame this pollution on the poor people who burn coal in their homes for heat and energy.  " We are working closely with the local community on an ongoing basis to assist them where ever possible with pollution problems, as well as to link them up with overseas communities in the globalised struggle against pollution", said Soeker.

35. GOVERNMENTS MISS HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.foei.org/media/2002/0904a.html

Johannesburg: Wednesday 4th September. After nine days of talks in Johannesburg, the Earth Summit is finally winding to an end. The EU's goal to reach an action oriented outcome with clear targets and timetables could not be reached due to resistance from the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and the OPEC countries.

An analysis of the final text of the Programme of Implementation includes precisely TWO new and specific targets:

1. To halve by 2015 the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation and

2. Elimination of destructive fishing practices and establishment of marine protected areas by 2012.

On energy, no target for increasing renewable energy use and a programme of action could be agreed supporting the provision of energy services to the 2 billion people currently without access to these services (1). Instead the promotion of "clean" fossil fuels, a betrayal of the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change was agreed (although the announcement of ratification by both Canada and Russia this week is a welcome step). FoEE welcomes that the EU now aims to achieve an initiative of like minded groups on renewable energy. Other targets on access to drinking water, biodiversity, chemicals and official development assistance are simply reaffirmed, watered down, or trashed altogether (2). FoEE assessed the role of the EU at the Earth Summit talks as mixed. While it has fought hard but unsuccessfully for key targets and a 10-year sustainable consumption and production programme (3), the EU has disappointed many civil society groups on the issues of globalisation, trade and corporate accountability. On the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its rule, many references have been included in the Programme of Implementation following pressure from the EU, US, Canada, Australia and Japan. Even victories such as preventing an unprecedented statement that would have made all commitments to environment and development subservient to WTO rules was not fully supported by the EU. The EU also is partly responsible that the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and world trade rules will still be left to the WTO to decide. One important success was achieved by Friends of the Earth - the inclusion of clear language on the need to establish corporate accountability. However, the US, the European Commission and EU Danish Presidency are still attempting to undermine these words through squalid manoeuvres around a "Letter of Interpretation" from Ambassador Ashe. FoE now calls for a UN conference on corporate accountability by the end of 2003. This conference should be included in the Political Declaration. FoEE expects the EU to take a lead. A draft text produced by the South African Government would place the issue before the UN General Assembly. Alexandra Wandel, Friends of the Earth Europe commented: "Friends of the Earth International has strongly supported the Earth Summit. We desperately need binding international agreements! However governments have missed a historic opportunity in Johannesburg by failing to set the necessary social and ecological limits to economic globalisation. The summit has been hijacked by free trade talks, by a backward-looking, insular and ignorant US administration and its friends in Japan, Canada, Australia and OPEC, by a confused European Union, and by the global corporations. This is a betrayal of the millions of people around the world who looked to this Summit for real action, and particularly of poor people and vulnerable communities in the South. We desperately need binding international agreements to fight environmental threats to our common home. We will continue our campaign for trade justice, rights for communities and rules for big business. FoE will now be taking our campaign "Don't let big business rule the world" to the Cancun WTO Ministerial Conference in September 2003''. Dr. Martin Rocholl, Director Friends of the Earth Europe, commented: "Our evaluation of the role of the EU in Johannesburg is mixed. Having been an important progressive force in several areas, we would have expected more pressure from the EU and are disappointed on issues of globalisation, trade and corporate accountability. With politicians returning home, we should remind ourselves that the EU's own policies are far from being sustainable: transport, agriculture, trade and energy policies in the EU are in urgent need of reform!"

36. KYOTO LIVES - BUSH FOILED AGAIN

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.foei.org/media/2002/0903a.html

The Kyoto Protocol lives. Commitments by the Prime Ministers of Russia and Canada at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg mean the only international treaty that cuts the emissions causing dangerous climate change will enter into force, possibly by the end of this year [1].  Kate Hampton, Friends of the Earth's International Climate Coordinator said: "This is marvellous news! Russia and Canada have resisted intense US pressure. The Russian promise alone means Kyoto will be a reality. The global villain, George 'W' Bush has been foiled again. This will put massive pressure on Australia and the US to reverse their previous positions and ratify Kyoto themselves. But soon all nations will need to go beyond Kyoto and agree fair and tough long term targets, if climate change is to be stopped."

Notes: [1] Speaking at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg yesterday, the Russian Prime Minister, Mr Mikhail Kasyanov said: "We consider that ratification will take place in the very nearest future" and Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien said: "We are finalising a plan of implementation that will permit us to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto Accord.....before the end of the year, the Canadian Parliament will be asked to vote on the ratification of the Kyoto Accord".


OXFAM

Internet: http://www.maketradefair.com

37. CRUMBS FOR THE POOR

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.maketradefair.com/stylesheet.asp?file=03092002150751&select=4&subcat=1&cat=6

Oxfam says that for poverty reduction, WSSD was an opportunity wasted.

Johannesburg: After nine days of bluster the world gets some gains on a few environmental issues, and on sanitation for the poor. But over all the deal as it appears today is feeble: a triumph for greed and self-interest, a tragedy for poor people and the environment.

Who's to blame? Oxfam International points the finger straight at the world's leaders. "Most of them lacked the guts and will to achieve a brave and far-reaching agreement that might have effectively tackled the problems of poverty and the decaying environment. It was within their grasp," said Andrew Hewett of Oxfam International. Some nations get pats on the back. Some of the gains are significant - protection of the environment and reduction of poverty are inextricably linked. But the majority of the rich countries - most of the EU nations, the US, Japan, Canada, Australia - have been guilty here of a grand deception. They talked the talk about the poor and sustainable development - but in most issues, when the time came for targets, timetables and money, they let the world down.  The summit outcome is well out of step with current world opinion. And it is a huge disappointment for those governments that did come here with real proposals; for the tens of thousands from civil society across the world who laboured in the belief they would be heard;  for those members of the business community who are genuinely waking up to their responsibilities to the environment and the poor. But most of all the WSSD turned its back on the poor. We were told last week that addressing poverty was at the heart of the summit agenda. What did we get?

  • No new commitment or timetable to end rich countries' agricultural export subsidies  and dumping that destroy developing world markets
     

  • No international plan to address the commodity price crisis
     

  • No commitment to raise aid levels - in fact the text encouraging rich countries to increase overseas aid is less strong than it was 10 years ago in Rio 
     

  • No commitment to further cancelling of debt in the developing world

These failures will reverberate for many years. Thirteen million people in southern Africa currently facing famine must now know that the world's leaders have let them down - there's no action to change the bad policies that have turned the drought into a crisis. The 2 billion living in absolute poverty must know that the visionary promise of the Millennium Development Goals was an empty thing. With no commitment to significantly raise aid levels, does anyone now believe that halving poverty by 2015 is possible? The failures here mean a crisis of credibility for our leaders and for international processes. What hope can there be now for getting real progress in the so-called WTO development round? "If the world couldn't deal with these most pressing problems here in Johannesburg - when will it?" said Andrew Hewett.

38. OXFAM DUMPS SUGAR ON THE WSSD

29 August 2002

Internet: http://www.maketradefair.com/stylesheet.asp?file=29082002130025&select=6&subcat=1&cat=6

EU sugar scam destroys African farmers' livelihoods Today, Oxfam dumped 9000 sachets of subsidised European sugar in cafes and restaurants around Sandton, Johannesburg, site of the World Summit on Sustainable Development - to mirror the dumping of thousands of tonnes of cheap sugar in Africa under Europe's agricultural subsidies systems.

Oxfam's specially-printed 2.5-gram sachets read:

100% pure EU sugar - Less sweet than it tastes!

Made in Europe, Dumped in Africa.

Warning: Devastating to African Farmers.

Contains: Hidden subsidies (70%), artificial prices (30%).

The sachets carry the Oxfam Make Trade Fair logo with a South African phone number for further information.

"We're showing how European consumers and taxpayers are paying to destroy livelihoods in some of the world's poorest countries," said Oxfam trade policy adviser Penny Fowler. It's especially relevant here at a summit which should be producing an action plan to defeat poverty. We're on the doorstep of Southern African countries facing famine. One of them, Mozambique, has seen its sugar farmers denied a route out of poverty because they are locked out of  European markets by these policies. The loss of income amounts to nearly three-quarters of annual EU aid. (see below) Some 48,000 small-scale South African farmers suffer as well. Imports of cheap, subsidised EU sugar, in the form of sweets, has cost the processing industry in South Africa $150m and several thousand jobs. In a new report - the Great EU Sugar Scam - on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) sugar regime, Oxfam documents the devastating impact of subsidised over-production on poor countries. The regime ensures big profits for Europe's sugar processors and large farmers while undermining opportunities for people in the developing world to work their way out of poverty. Quotas and tariffs set Europe's sugar prices at almost three times the world market price. High guaranteed prices result in huge surpluses each year that are dumped overseas with hefty subsidies depressing world prices and pushing other exporters out of third markets. Despite being one of the world's highest cost producers of sugar, the EU is the world's biggest exporter of white sugar, accounting for 40% of world exports in 2001.  More cost effective sugar producers from outside the EU - including those from some of the world's poorest countries - are prevented from joining the lucrative 'Sugar Club' as a hefty 140% tariff is imposed on imports into the EU. At the same time, the World Bank and IMF have been pressurizing developing countries to cut their own sugar import tariffs. EU consumers and taxpayers foot the bill for this Great EU Sugar Scam to the tune of 1.6 billion euros or $1.57 billion per year.

Mozambique - where almost three quarters of the rural population live in extreme poverty - is one of the lowest cost producers of sugar in the world. As a result of being almost totally blocked out of the EU's sugar market, Mozambique lost the chance to earn an estimated 108 million euros ($106 m) by 2004 in sales - almost three quarters of the EU's annual development aid to Mozambique of 150 million euros ($136 million). At the same time, Mozambique has come under considerable pressure from the World Bank and IMF to lift its sugar import tariffs.

No agricultural sector is in more need of radical reform than the sugar industry but it has not been included in the European Commission's latest reform proposals. While awaiting full reform of the sugar sector, Oxfam is calling for an immediate 25 per cent cut in EU sugar quota production. All EU sugar dumping must stop and there must be full and immediate access for imports from the least developed countries.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Oxfam is calling on world leaders to end unfair trade policies by: 

  • Stopping the dumping of highly subsided agricultural products on developing countries
     

  • Removing trade barriers for exports from the poorest countries
     

  • Allowing developing countries to liberalise markets at their own pace.

Note to editors

Oxfam Briefing Paper 27: The Great EU Sugar Scam - How Europe's sugar regime is devastating livelihoods in the developing world. (see 'debates around trade' in 'the issues' section of this site.)


MAJOR GROUPS
 

TRADE UNIONS

 

INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU)

WSSD Web page: http://www.icftu.org/focus.asp?Issue=wssd2002&Language=EN

39. UNIONS ASSESS THE WSSD  -MOVING BEYOND THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION  

TUAC

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

Internet: http://www.tuac.org/news/news.htm

Trade unionists were present at the World Summit on Sustainable Development with two objectives: - firstly, to push forward the broad agenda of sustainable development agreed at Rio ten years earlier, especially as it relates to workplace implementation, through the world of work and the role of workers and trade unions; and secondly, to achieve recognition of the need to strengthen the social pillar of sustainable development through employment creation and concrete integration measures.  With regard to the first objective, like others we are conscious of the limited achievements of the summit, especially with respect to environmental measures and targets. With the exception of the important new commitment on the sanitation target to halve the number of the world's poor without access to clear drinking water by 2015, the Summit Implementation Plan is an eclectic mix of past commitments, which have still to be acted on by governments. In the words of President M'Beki of South Africa "What was agreed upon at Johannesburg should not be accepted as a ceiling. People are expected to go beyond what was agreed here." In this respect the Summit did provide the basis for raising workplace issues as part of the tools for addressing sectoral isssues for WEHAB (Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture & Biodiversity).   With regard to the second objective, the trade unions sought to fill the huge gap that has been the social pillar of sustainable development since Rio in 1992. Here, despite some setbacks we did make progress and trade unions emerged from Johannesburg in a better position to work with other stakeholders for more effective integration  of all three pillars of sustainable development, through agreed implementation tools and a new mandate for the Commission on Sustainable Development.  Distilling some of the elements of the WSSD Plan of Implementation (PI) and the Johannesburg Declaration (JD) it is important to note that governments committed themselves to:

  • Integrate all three pillars of sustainable development in implementing WSSD outcomes. The interdependence of social and economic development and environmental protection and particularly poverty reduction is a recurring theme in both documents. The Implementation Plan also pledges urgent action to "Support the International Labour Organisation and encourage its ongoing work on the social dimension of globalization" (PI 45d);
     

  • Provide assistance "at all levels" to increase "income-generating employment taking into account the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" as part of the commitment to sustainable development (PI 9b, JD 25). This ILO Declaration provides for the respect of a body of core labour standards, which incorporate freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, non-discrimination in employment, and the prohibition of forced and child labour
     

  • Promote as part of the wider action to change unsustainable consumption and production patterns, "workplace-based partnerships and programmes, including training and education programmes" (PI 17d), "use a range of partnerships --- amongst Governments, intergovernmental organizations, mining companies and workers, and other stakeholders, to promote transparency and accountability for sustainable mining and minerals development" (PI 44a).The document also provides for the linking of production and consumption through information tools (eg  ecolabels) that reflect "human health and safety aspects" PII 14c-e);
     

  • Protect the health and safety of workers and in particular "Strengthen and promote ILO and WHO programmes to reduce occupational deaths, injuries and illnesses, and link occupational health with public health promotion" (PI 46 m), "enhance maritime safety" (PI 33) and "Protecting the health of workers and promoting occupational safety by inter alia taking into account as appropriate the voluntary ILO code of practice on HIV/AIDS and the world of work, to improve conditions of the workplace (PI 48c);
     

  • Take "immediate and effective measures to eliminate the worst forms of child labour" and "implement strategies for the elimination of child labour that is contrary to accepted international standards" (PI 11) and take action at all levels to eliminate " all forms of violence and discrimination against women" (PI 6d);
     

  • Recognize measures for corporate accountability and the strengthening of government roles by taking action "at all levels" to "Actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on the Rio Principles, including through the full development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures, international initiatives and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations, and support continuous improvement in corporate practices in all countries" (PI 45);

There was failure to make progress on recognition of the link between human rights, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.  Language on this and labour rights in particular was resisted by a few members of the Group of 77 - showing that much work still needs to be done to achieve full recognition of the rights based approach to development. 

Another major track in the WSSD was the registering of "type two partnerships". In the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "This Summit represents a major leap forward in the development of partnership" -- in the form of partnership initiatives by and between governments, civil groups and businesses. Officials said more than 220 partnerships, worth $235 million in resources, were identified during the Summit process to complement government commitments and many more were announced outside of the formal Summit proceedings. Some union organizations are active partners in such agreements - the International Transport Workers Federation partnership with Greenpeace against flags of convenience is just one example. There was also growing support for the "workplace assessments programmes" that trade unions proposed at the Summit and this provides potential for establishing new frameworks for action with the ILO, UNEP, WHO, OECD and other intergovernmental bodies, including the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Elsewhere we have to monitor the quality of initiatives and campaign to make sure that governments do not retreat from their legitimate responsibilities. 

In sum some 400 trade unionists from all parts of the world became involved in Johannesburg and this reflected a new awareness of the fact that trade union objectives for basic rights, decent work and development have to be an integral part of the agenda for sustainable development. It also represented recognition by the workers and their trade unions that we have to engage at all levels - but particularly with employers at the workplace level to bring about needed change.   At the international level a renewed mandate was given by the WSSD to the Commission on Sustainable Development in which the role of trade unions, as a major group, is also recognized. Our goal must now be to ensure that the multi-stakeholder process leads to concrete follow up .over the next decade. In the words of Kofi Annan "We have to go out and take action. This is not the end, it is the beginning."

40. WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT A LACK OF CONCRETE COMMITMENTS

ICFTU

6 September 2002

Internet: http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991216469&Language=EN

Brussels, September 06, 2002 (ICFTU News): For trade unions, the results of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which concluded on Wednesday in Johannesburg, were a mixed bag. The ICFTU welcomes the social nature of some WSSD conclusions, but is highly critical of the lack of strong commitments on vital questions including heath and safety, agriculture, energy, biodiversity and, to an extent, water. As ICFTU General Secretary Guy Ryder explained, "work, workplaces, and working people are the essence of the social pillar. It is through opportunities for decent work that millions of those who are today trapped in poverty can have access to sustainable livelihoods. It is by making workplaces safe and healthy that people can meet their needs in acceptable conditions. And it is only through the respect of the fundamental rights of workers that they can be fully engaged as architects of sustainable production processes." Throughout the summit, the trade unions fought for a firm commitment to defend fundamental workers' rights, at the centre of the concept of rights-based human-centred development. Nevertheless, the ICFTU is highly aware of the missed opportunities and lack of genuine political will. "The opportunity was before us in Johannesburg to redirect the path of today's unsustainable globalisation, to steer it clear of the spectre of entrenched global apartheid and towards social justice, equity and a better future for coming generations," added Ryder. "Despite the reality of our common future; despite the acknowledgement of common if differentiated responsibilities, the perspective of short-term, narrow gain weighs heavily. It is as if individual governments, each placed precariously on the rockface of economic development, are struggling to gain for themselves a higher foothold of advantage, blithely unaware that the rockface is crumbling and that all will be thrown to the bottom if we don't start working together now."  The ICFTU, which battled during the Summit for "the agenda for action to be an agenda for fundamental change. Change in development priorities, change in governance, change in attitude and behaviour." And yet, it is faced with the reality that "such change is not welcome to all. But for the countless millions, the poorest and the most vulnerable to whom the Summit owes most, only fundamental change can bring hope." In spite of the disappointments, trade unions are genuine partners in sustainable development and the ICFTU is committed to moving change forward. Trade unions are determined to fully play this role after Johannesburg in the negotaitions they have with governments and employers, in forming civil society partnerships and every time they make their voices heard within international organisations. As Guy Ryder concluded, "trade unions have real experience of change. And that experience shows that successful change comes through partnership, participation and negotiation."

41. WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: JOHANNESBURG 2002: UNIONS DEFEND WOMEN'S RIGHTS AT WSSD

ICFTU

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991216466&Language=EN

Johannesburg, September 03, 2002 (ICFTU News): This morning at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), trade unionists led by Trine Lise Sundnes, Confederal Secretary of LO - Norway, brought their support to the call by the Women' Caucus for a stonger recognition of women's rights to be included in the Implementation Action Plan. The group was joined by hundreds of supporters outside the Sandton Convention Center, where Heads of State and Government continue to address the Summitt, which is due to close on Wednesday. Demonstrators chanting slogans such as "WSSD Trades Away Women's Rights" or "Women's Rights Are Human Rights - Change Paragraph 47", caught the attention of delegates as they walked into the Center where Heads of State and Government were to attend the different sessions scheduled to take place. The Women's Caucus is calling on delegates to change Paragraph 47 on health-care systems by adding the words "in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms". The ICFTU believes that if left out, it would have the effect of subjecting human rights to local or national standards which may violate internationally recognised human rights standards. "Women's rights, just like trade union rights are part of the principle of freedom of association and the heads of state and government should recognise it!", said Trine Lise Sundnes. "Women' rights are under attack today. One of the main place of violations of women' rights occurs in workplaces, where peripheral, part-time and hazardous work is the new trend. This trend comes from the new globalised world where too often governments and companies infringe their rights", added Lucien Royer, spokesperson of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU).

42. GROUNDING SUSTAINABILITY IN REALITY

Union Network

28 August 2002

Internet: http://www.union-network.org/uniindep.nsf/69a447cc3dfb0232c1256c0500336c6e/eaa0c04bb76a2448c1256c24004fd6a1?OpenDocument

Johannesburg, August 28, 2002 (ICFTU News): At an ICFTU press conference at the WSSD in Johannesburg on 27 August, John Evans, General Secretary of TUAC (Trade Union Advisory Committee to  the OECD) underlined the vast and growing global body of trade union action for sustainable development, but also called for governments to do more to regulate the behaviour of multinational enterprises (MNEs). The seventeen framework agreements signed since 1992 between sectoral Global Union Federations (GUFs) and multinationals are just one indicator of the international action by trade unions in the decade following Rio. But as John Evans explained "Governments cannot back away from their responsibilities to regulate MNEs. We have to get them to effectively implement the instruments on MNEs to which they are already committed, such as the OECD Guidelines." At the press conference, Zwelimzima Vavi, General Secretary of the ICFTU-affiliated COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions), re-iterated the pivotal role trade unions, as effective, durable and representative organisations play not just in terms of their work concerning MNEs, but through the entirety of the sustainable development agenda. He also emphasized the trade union movement's strong opposition to the privatization of basic services.  "Trade union rights, collective bargaining and other fundamental workers' rights are key elements of the integrated pillars of sustainable development and an essential basis for, above all, wealth creation and poverty reduction. Trade unions have the experience, the capacity and the knowledge to apply these vital factors" explained Lucien Royer, ICFTU/TUAC Health, Safety and the Environment officer, adding "this summit has faced criticism for being a talking-shop when action is needed. Trade unions are here to show that action can only be effective when social issues are accepted as being inseparable from the economic and environmental. Workers are at the centre of sustainable development and this must be clearly recognized."

43. MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK: DECENT JOBS AT THE HEART OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Union Network

24 August 2002

Internet: http://www.union-network.org/uniindep.nsf/69a447cc3dfb0232c1256c0500336c6e/94e7ceec3bfea610c1256c2200262055?OpenDocument

Brussels 24 August, 2002 (ICFTU online): During the 10 days of the Johannesburg World Summit for Sustainable Development, over 50,000 workers across the globe will die from work-related accidents and disease, more than will be killed by war or even AIDS. This costs around 4% of the world's combined GDP, and millions of family members of dead or injured workers are thrown into poverty, with no insurance or social protection. Shocking as these figures are, they underline an even larger phenomenon - depriving working people of their rights to decent, safe jobs and union membership is a major barrier to sustainable development. Creating decent employment and recognising workers' rights are central to overcoming the environmental degradation, inequality and social exclusion which are so often identified with globalisation. These issues can no longer be left at the sidelines of global and national policy - they must be brought to center stage. The current rules governing global economic activity pay scant if any regard to the needs and the rights of the people who produce the world's wealth. Companies which seek to maximize their profits can move production to avoid environmental and labour standards, exporting exploitation to countries which often have no option but to accept investment at any cost, undermining the position of responsible employers and leaving workers defenceless and condemned to poverty wages. Increasing global investment flows and lowering trade barriers alone does little to create sustainable employment or sustainable communities. The Johannesburg Summit must focus on the human side of the equation, and the commitments which governments make on this must be put into practice. Throughout the summit at Johannesburg, trade unions will be emphasizing the role that they are playing in sustainable development, and striving to convince governments and the international community that decent jobs and clean and safe workplaces are fundamental. In Johannesburg, trade unions will bring an integrated approach stressing the inextricable links between social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainable development. And through their roles in the workplace and in society, trade unions play a pivotal role in this approach.

Experience from factories, offices, farms, transport, forestry, mining and all other sectors, has shown that trade unions are best placed to make the necessary and sustained positive difference, of benefit in the workplace and to the community as a whole. In just one of many examples of combined workplace and community actions, the ICFTU's Philippine affiliate, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), has created seven clinics where its members and their families can visit a doctor free of charge. The personnel in these clinics play another essential role: contributing to preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explained during a July 2000 meeting of the Global Compact initiative, "unions can mobilize the workforce - for after all, companies are not composed only of their executives."  These and other at the Summit will be tackled by several hundred participants at a day-long public meeting organized by the ICFTU, entitled "Fashioning a New Deal", on August 25, the eve of the summit opening. (for a full calendar of trade union events at the summit, see http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991215192&Language=EN).

"In the 10 years since Rio, as a designated 'Major Group' the ICFTU and the trade union movement have made steps to advance many aspects of agenda 21," explains ICFTU General Secretary Guy Ryder, adding "the union delegation, one of the largest single delegations at the Summit, will be putting its case clearly and forcefully in the formal sessions and in side activities throughout the ten days. This case is built on decades of experience in developing sustainable and effective solutions to problems, whether at the local or at the global level.
 

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY


BUSINESS ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

WSSD Web page:
http://www.basd-action.net/

WBCSD News:
http://www.wbcsd.org/newscenter/releases.htm

BASD News:
http://www.basd-action.net/news/index.shtml

WBCSD Publications:
http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/publications.htm#summit

Virtual Network:
http://www.virtualexhibit.net/new/home.php

44. WSSD: THE BUSINESS CONCLUSION

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.wbcsd.org/newscenter/releases/2002000904_wssd.htm

Business welcomes the agreement reached at this Summit, and particularly the Implementation Plan. Business is at its best when it has clear goals and practical targets. These give us a framework for entrepreneurial opportunities, long-term planning and partnership possibilities.  So we are rolling up our sleeves to help make it happen. We need to make sustainable development happen by generating economic growth with greater resource efficiency, minimizing environmental impacts and with maximum social well being for more people.

We also welcome the growing realization that business is an indispensable part of the solution to the problems of the world.

We have improved our relationships with governments, NGOs and others. Together we will turn the idea of sustainable development through practical partnerships into a growing reality on the ground.  As we move forward the view of business could be summarized in the words of Elvis Presley:  " A little less conversation a little more action".

45. KEY BUSINESS MESSAGES

4 September 2002

Internet: http://www.basd-action.net/docs/releases/20020904_keybus.shtml

GENERAL

  • If we are successful in the years ahead, the Johannesburg plan of implementation establishes the enabling framework to address global poverty and inequity, whilst at the same time making the world more robust to the adverse impacts of climate change, desertification and deforestation and setting the scene to mitigate these impacts in the long term. Historical paradigms must be overcome to achieve this - new initiatives such as the Community Development Carbon Fund and the mechanisms established under the Kyoto Protocol are good examples of how we can achieve this.
     

  • Business is disappointed that there is not a focus on creating the enabling environment for business, especially SME's to grow and thrive.
     

  • It is essential that we build the energy, transport and ICT infrastructure in developing countries in order to facilitate delivery of development goals. NEPAD provides an excellent framework for this to be achieved for Africa.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

  • The agreements on transparency and good governance are strongly supported as these are the norm in the business sector.
     

  • Business needs a well defined and consistently enforced regulatory environment in order to thrive.
     

  • With respect to corporate accountability we welcome the thrust to enhance mechanisms to reinforce corporate responsibility and social contributions - especially at a local level. In this regard we see a future of corporate social responsibility increasingly becoming core business, along with triple bottom line management and reporting. Eg GRI, the UNEP process and OECD guidelines.
     

  • At the same time we feel that not enough companies are reporting on a triple bottom line basis and we need to encourage more to be done in this regard.
     

  • Multinationals tend to be the most advanced in corporate reporting. In fact compliance plus is the norm for multinationals. We need to get this accepted as a standard practice for all businesses.

ENERGY

  • The agreement relating to energy is welcomed - in particular the recognition of the need to develop all energy sources aimed at addressing common challenges. This enables every nation to address their energy needs in alignment with their resource constraints whilst creating the framework to enhance access to clean, modern, cost effective and affordable energy for those who are currently starved of energy.
     

  • In particular the recognition of hydro as a renewable option creates the environment for the realisation of NEPAD's energy aspirations through the development of Southern Africa's massive hydro resources.
     

  • With respect to the absence of a specific renewable target, we welcome the emphasis this gives to energy access. At the same time the strong encouragement to increase the global share of renewable energy sources enables national targets as an integral component of national energy plans.

AGRICULTURE

  • Farmers need greater market access, but the transport and information infrastructure in developing countries needs to be enhanced in order to maximise this opportunity.
     

  • Farmers need access to a full range of technologies as well as the information that allows them to determine the best combination for local conditions.

SUBSIDIES

  • Subsidies - Subsidies should not distort open markets and where applied should enable access to energy depleted regions and promote sustainable development.
     

  • Subsidies are generally undesirable, but where applied must be transparent and be used with a view to catalyse a sustainable activity. As such they should be consistent over time and include definitive exit strategies, which will enable the long term commercial viability of the activity subsidised. Tax incentives, where appropriate, should promote energy that contributes to sustainable development.

PARTNERSHIPS

  • Business supports partnerships as one of the most practical means of delivering sustainable development outcomes.
     

  • Partnerships are supplementary to strong Type I agreements, and business is supportive of partnerships as implementation mechanisms where business can play a meaningful role.
     

  • Over 300 partnerships have come forward to BASD. These partnerships are illustrated on the BASD website and the Virtual Exhibit, or were awarded ICC/UNEP World Summit Business Awards for Sustainable Development.
     

  • These 300 + partnerships are illustrative of the thousands of diverse partnerships that business is involved in to deliver sustainable development solutions around the world.
     

  • Out of this wealth of partnerships, some have come forward and submitted their initiatives directly to the UN as Type II Summit Outcomes.
     

  • The business contribution is measured by partnerships that deliver solutions.

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

  • The interpretive statement will refer to promoting corporate responsibility and accountability through "development and implementation" of intergovernmental agreements.
     

  • This refers to existing agreements and is not a call for a new international regime.
     

  • Business is part of civil society, a major group designated by Rio Earth Summit, participating in WSSD process constructively.
     

  • Business is already accountable to national law (wherever it operates), customers, investors, employees, communities - this applies to companies of all sizes, sectors and nationalities, not just multinational companies.
     

  • Business is subject to many international codes and guidelines (U.N. Global Compact, OECD MNE Guidelines, others on corruption, social aspects, transparency).
     

  • Business maintains and abides by numerous voluntary policies, codes, agreements of its own (national, sectoral, international).
     

  • Despite successes, progress, more needs to be done. Business cannot do this alone, depends upon partnerships and an enabling framework at national, international levels in which business will work thru networks, supply chains, employees, investors and customers, w/technologies and financial resources at its disposal.
     

  • There are a range of indicators and vehicles for tracking and reporting business practices (beyond internet, publications, consumer information, etc.).
     

  • The Global Reporting Initiative,
     

  • Emerging ISO standards,
     

  • UNEP/business prepared 22 sectoral reports on industry sector sustainability practices, all of which were subject to stakeholder review.
     

  • All above are points of departure for further elaboration & to draw in other sectors.
     

  • Business requires a clear, equitable and predictable decision making framework in which to make long-term investments and dedications of capital. It is not attracted to invest in countries where regulation is lax, which would put such investments at risk.
     

  • Building, strengthening capacity in national, local governments to develop, implement, enforce the regulatory frameworks is the utmost priority. This is essential to local business entrepreneurship, good business practices and foreign investment: predictable, clear rules, consistent enforcement, absence of corruption, an independent judiciary system, private property systems, and strong institutions.

TRADE/FINANCE

The challenge of globalization and sustainable development:

  • through Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg follow up to make the markets work for everyone, improving quality of life worldwide.
     

  • Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg outcomes should be seen as a reinforcing ensemble, much greater than the sum of their parts. (Also regional partnerships, like NEPAD)
     

  • We support the WSSD reaffirmation of:
     

  • Millennium Declaration targets and goals
     

  • mutual supportiveness of trade disciplines, agreements and environmental agreements and institutions
     

  • We do not support trade distortive subsidies.

HEALTH

  • Business strongly supports the notion that health is a key enabling factor for sustainable development, and supports the WSSD outcomes which highlight the linkages between health and sustainable development.

     

  • The draft plan of implementation rightly re-emphasizes the need for greater access to health care systems and services. Industry strongly supports the three pillars of sustainable development: good governance, financing and public/private partnerships to achieve these outcomes.
     

  • Industry has a history of partnerships facilitating access to health care and remains committed to long term partnerships to address health care needs.
     

  • Industry strongly endorses the vital role of the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria and the need for continued funding of health care infrastructure in developing countries. Key to sustainable development in health care is the need for continued research and development into diseases requiring vaccines, enhanced treatments and cures. To this extent, an environment conducive to innovation is essential.
     

  • Industry strongly supports the need for good governance and political commitment to address health needs. These are essential to attract short-term aid and the long-term capital investments that are key to economic growth. Indeed, it is only sustainable economic growth that can forever change the status of developing countries to that of developed.

BIODIVERSITY

  • Business is working positively on biodiversity issues - eg the partnership launched between ICCM and IUCN on biodiversity and the mining sector
     

  • Business urges governments to resolve the issues of indigenous rights and traditional knowledge with respect to using the products of biodiversity sustainably whilst developing equitable benefit and access sharing regimes.
     

  • Clear, transparent, equitable and consistent decision making frameworks are needed
     

  • Poverty and excessive consumption are both detrimental to biodiversity
     

  • Business supports delinking production and negative environmental impacts in the context of the concept of responsible prosperity.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

  • Biotechnology is one critical tool in the quest for sustainable development, and countries need to be free to make their own choices regarding its responsible use.
     

  • While no negative health impacts have been reported, concerns about the safety of the technology continue to be raised. These concerns need to be addressed by scientists, government officials and others through the provision of accurate and understandable information and dialogue.
     

  • Recognizing the adoption and near-term implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, there is need to move forward to responsibly harness biotechnology to enable more sustainable development through applications in health, agriculture, industrial processes and environmental remediation.

WATER

  • Business supports the sanitation goal and has played a role in promoting this.
     

  • Water issues are at the very core of poverty. Industry has been pushing hard for sanitation goals and is delighted with the new goal to halve the number of people without access to sanitation by 2015
     

  • Industry does not support privatisation of water assets, we believe that Governments should maintain the ownership and control of water supply.
     

  • Industry does have a critical role to play in providing innovative and least impact collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water, as well as sanitation.
     

  • Human impact on water supply is evident through the different 'footprints' of economic activity and also of poverty
     

  • The provision and maintenance of water supply and sanitation can save communities money, while at the same time protecting health, improving quality of life and 'freeing up time' desperately needed for other activities. But water and sanitation provision do require cost recovery - research, technology, appropriate infrastructure require high levels of investment. The sustainability of this basic service to address poverty means it must be a user pays or Government funded service.

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION AND TECHNOLOGY

  • To paraphrase Nitin Desai - overcoming poverty by 2015 must be coupled with the long term objectives of achieving sustainable production and consumption by 2050.
     

  • Business applauds this approach as a long term framework of regulation, investment and procurement must be put in place to drive innovation and the decoupling of economic activity from negative environment and social impacts. It is important that governments help to establish baseline markets for sustainable production and consumption and that they also help to raise awareness of the need for action at all levels. Again this is an area of partnership at its most fundamental.
     

  • We do not have three planets and even with the combined financing and intellectual power of business we will never have the resources required - we therefore have an obligation and responsibility to reduce the impact of economic activity. We accept this obligation with enthusiasm and look forward to working with governments, NGOs and civil society to make sustainable production and consumption a reality.
     

  • By recognising the different 'footprints' of production/consumption and poverty, business is determined to help reduce the negative externalities that drain economies, the environment and health. We need to make markets work for all and a holistic, compassionate, multi-sectoral and long term approach will be fundamental to delivering practical solutions.
     

  • Markets and trading patterns are already changing to favour sustainable production and consumption and business encourages this transition. Investment into eco-efficiency, resource efficiency, renewable energy and energy efficiency is a dynamic driver. The partnership approach to sustainable prosperity at international, national and local levels must be underpinned by sustainable production and consumption.
     

  • Our challenge lies in demonstrating the benefits that will encourage SMEs across all sectors to embrace sustainability. We need clear signals to the marketplace and clear signals to the breadth and depth of industry to achieve this.

46. MINING INDUSTRY AND IUCN - THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION ANNOUNCE PARTNERSHIP ON MINING AND BIODIVERSITY

31 August 2002

Internet: http://www.basd-action.net/docs/releases/20020831_icmm.shtml

JOHANNESBURG, 31 August 2002 (ICMM/IUCN) - The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the global voice of the industry, and IUCN - The World Conservation Union today launch a partnership to work together on mining and biodiversity. "ICMM is committed to working with IUCN and others in developing best practice principles and reporting criteria on which to measure progress in implementation", said Sir Robert Wilson, incoming Chairman of ICMM and Chairman of Rio Tinto.  "The resolution of the long standing conflict between mining and conservation needs new approaches and efforts need to be made from both sides. Our work with ICMM offers a platform for communities, corporations, NGOs and governments to engage in a significant process of dialogue that seeks to find the best balance between invaluable ecosystems and biodiversity and the social and economic importance of mining", says Achim Steiner, Director General of IUCN - The World Conservation Union. ICMM members represent a substantial proportion of world mineral production and include 22 of the world's leading mining and metal producing companies and 25 industry associations world-wide.

IUCN is the world's largest environmental knowledge network. As a Union, it brings together members from 140 countries, including over 70 States, 107 government agencies and some 750 plus NGOs.  Preliminary agreed areas of work are the development of informed transparent, inclusive and equitable decision-making processes that integrate biodiversity conservation and mining into broader land use management strategies. The partnership also seeks to address specific issues such as "no-go" areas, existing systems of protected areas, industry performance and especially its contribution to biodiversity conservation.  ICMM believes that there is a sound business case for this partnership. It helps to identify and manage risks, maximises opportunities for growth, enhances relationships with the conservation community and other constituencies and creates long-term business value in a responsible manner. "We believe that best practice guidelines not only contribute to biodiversity conservation, but also improve the performance of the mining and metals industry", said Sir Robert.  The partnership initiative follows the commitment made by the ICMM Council after the Global Mining Initiative policy conference held last May in Toronto. The ICMM Toronto Declaration outlined several priority areas for follow-up including the need to work in partnership with IUCN and others, in order to resolve the questions associated with biodiversity, protected areas and mining. Issues related to mining and biodiversity were assessed in the independent stakeholder-based report of the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project, which was recently published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). IUCN and ICMM have agreed to use the recommendations of the MMSD report as a basis for moving forward. IUCN and ICMM are committed to extending the partnership to other organizations that can make a contribution and to work with them to further defining the work programme.

47. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN ON SAFE CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

30 August 2002

Internet: http://www.basd-action.net/docs/releases/20020830_icca.shtml

Director Dr Udo Oels, Member of the Management Board of Bayer AG, will announce the commitment of the international chemical industry to develop and implement an action plan to improve safety in the handling and use of chemicals with focus on developing countries.

This will take place at a side event of the WSSD organised by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) on the afternoon of Friday 30th August in the Hilton Hotel Sandton, in the presence of the Honourable Rejoyce Mabudafhasi, Deputy Minister Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa, Mr Henrique Cavalcanti President, IFCS and Mr Marcel Boisard, Executive Director of UNITAR and Assistant Director General of the United Nations.  This global capacity building action plan for safe chemical management is being developed by the chemical industry at international and national level.  In developing its international approach, the ICCA is consulting with international organisations, such as UNITAR, UNEP and IFCS as potential partners. As part of its preparation for the Summit and as a basis of the action plan, the ICCA has undertaken national case studies in South Africa and Brazil in partnership with government and other groups. The findings of these pilot projects will assist in the development of a more detailed international plan. (For more detail see attached Summary Section) Dr Oels says, "The global chemical industry is fully committed to improve chemical safety globally. The industry's Responsible Care(r) initiative, which now has programmes in 47 countries, has been the foundation of the industry's success in improving its environmental, health and safety performance." "Implementation of Responsible Care(r) has also resulted in upgrades in national EH&S standards particularly in developing countries. However, there are still many challenges ahead which we believe can only be achieved through close partnership between all committed stakeholders."

SUMMARY OF PILOT STUDIES

SOUTH AFRICAN PILOT STUDY

In South Africa, the Chemical and Allied Industries' Association (CAIA) developed a questionnaire to guide interviews with key groups, including government representatives, labour organisations, NGOs and customers on their concerns about chemical hazards and their suggestions for improvement. The outcome of the study revealed that information sharing, the accessibility of product information, the safe use of chemicals along the product chain, risk management and emergency response were important to them. These subjects have been consolidated into a set of projects to be implemented over the next two years by the CAIA in partnership with stakeholders, with support coming from the ICCA.

BRAZILIAN PILOT STUDY

In Brazil, ABIQUIM, the Brazilian chemical industry association and the University of Brazilia, developed a web site-based questionnaire including subjects covering availability of information about chemicals, education and training courses on how to handle them, the resourcing of work related to chemicals safety, and how technology can be successfully applied. This was sent to over 600 chemical companies, 200 government agencies at national and state levels and to departments of the 12 major universities in Brazil that have chemical related interests. The results show that chemical companies are now taking the lead in chemicals safety management in an integrated way working closely together with government. The results will be used to develop an action plan under the auspices of the National Commission on Chemicals Safety (COPASQ).


LOCAL GOVERNMENT

THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES (ICLEI)

WSSD Web page: http://www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002/ and http://www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002/pr_intro.html

48. FIRST COMMENTS: THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Written by Gino Van Begin, Regional Director, ICLEI European Secretariat

5 September 2002

Internet: http://www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002/comments_gvb.htm

The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, came to an end yesterday, September 4, 2002 at around 19.30 (CET) with the adoption of two official papers: the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The latter is supplemented by numerous "Type 2 Implementation Partnerships".   The overall outcomes of this Summit leave one with a certain feeling of ambiguity. On the one hand, the national governments made numerous commitments here in Johannesburg. On the other, many of these constitute a repetition of those made in Rio de Janeiro, which -as we all know- have been only partially met over the last decade. Therefore, the commitments expressed here in Johannesburg shall only prove to be of real value if they will be honoured rapidly and substantially.  With regard to the particular interests of Local Government, the outcomes of the Summit should inspire us to challenge our national governments even more to support local efforts to achieve sustainable development. The two years of local government preparations towards the Summit, the widely attended Local Government Session and the adoption of the Local Government Declaration and the Johannesburg Call have made a difference.

The ICLEI European Secretariat welcomes the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation where it foresees the "further promotion of sustainable development councils and/or coordination structures at the national level, including at the local level, and multi-stakeholder participation" (para 147).  We welcome the agreement of national governments to "support efforts by all countries, particularly developing countries, as well as countries with economies in transition, to enhance national institutional arrangements for sustainable development, including at the local level" (para 148).  We are content that national governments recognize and agree "to enhance the role and capacity of local authorities as well as stakeholders in implementing Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the Summit and in strengthening the continuing support for local Agenda 21 programmes and associated initiatives and partnerships, and [to] encourage, in particular, partnerships among and between local authorities and other levels of government and stakeholders to advance sustainable development as called for in, inter alia, the Habitat Agenda." (para 149)  We are satisfied that national governments encourage "relevant authorities at all levels to promote public procurement policies that encourage development and diffusion of environmentally sound goods and services" (para 18 c) but would have been in favour of a commitment specifically "to establish" public procurement policies instead.  The Plan of Implementation also rightly differentiates the role of local governments from that of other Major Groups such as NGO's or Business.  In the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, national governments clearly recognize the role of local governments when they state "we assume collective responsibility to advance and strengthen sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global levels" (para 5).  National governments equally recognize the value of Local Agenda 21 when stating "sustainable development requires a long term perspective and broad based participation in policy formulation, decision-making and implementation at all levels" (para 23).  Furthermore, it is relevant to note that national governments have pointed out the duty of the private sector "to contribute to the evolution of equitable and sustainable communities and societies" (para 24) as well as on the need for the private sector "to enforce corporate accountability" (para 26).

Finally, national governments agreed "to strengthen and improve governance at all levels for the effective implementation of Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation" (para 27). Although we would have welcomed a more explicit paragraph 27 that included a direct reference to local governments (as appeared in a previous draft), we believe that we have achieved our main goal, namely, that local governments are recognized and supported by national governments worldwide as equal partners to other spheres of government in our commitment to achieve sustainable development.

At the World Summit, in an unprecedented step, local governments and other Major Groups enjoyed space and a permanent place in the plenary alongside national delegates and delegates from international agencies throughout the Summit meetings.

We were particularly pleased with the interaction with national delegations in which local government leaders were able to engage at the Local Government Session, during plenaries or behind the scenes of the Summit, and at the many side events. Several dozen local government representatives were members of their national delegations as well. All of these efforts have clearly resulted in a newly recognized and confirmed place for local governments in United Nations politics with regard to sustainable development.

Please note:

  • Numerous other paragraphs in the Plan of Implementation refer to "all levels" of government.
     

  • A full assessment of the Local Government Activities at the World Summit will be made available by ICLEI by October 2002.

49. LOCAL LEADERS URGE DELEGATES TO TAKE STRATEGIC APPROACH

2 September 2002

Internet: http://www3.iclei.org/rioplus10/summit_pressreleases_view_full.htm?id=24

After Launch of Local Action 21: Future development challenges must be met by integrating local, national and global response

"Local authorities will not and can not sit around and wait, but Local Action 21 will be seriously weakened if national governments do not recognize our pivotal role in fostering sustainable development", says Kaarin Taipale, Chair of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). She will continue to express the concerns of local leaders at a high level side event with Heads of State at the UN Convention Centre tomorrow.  With the endorsement of both the Local Government Declaration and the Johannesburg Call local leaders passed two strong statements on to the Summit on Friday, August 30. Both papers show the strong commitment of local leaders to sustainable development and call for a strategic approach to future development integrating local, national and global governing structures. With more than 600 mayors and representatives from local authorities worldwide the four-day Local Government Session had been the largest parallel event to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  Pioneering local authorities from all continents presented examples of concrete steps they had taken to implement sustainable development. Panel discussions, often in cooperation with UN programmes, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation, and national governments, demonstrated how strongly international players have relied on local governments as key implementing agents of sustainable development during the past decade. Last Friday, ICLEI, an association of local governments implementing sustainable development, together with three UN agencies, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN settlement programme (UN Habitat) launched Local Action 21. Local Action 21 will further develop Local Agenda 21 by instituting solid management tools and mechanisms for sustainable development at the local level. This will ensure progress from agenda to action. "Cities cannot wait to deal with the impacts of world markets, growing population and people's everyday needs," ICLEI chair Kaarin Taipale states.  The prerequisite for further accomplishments, however, is acknowledgement of local authorities by the international community. "National governments and international agencies need to support local governments by providing them with institutional legitimacy, legal and fiscal tools", Kaarin Taipale says. Tomorrow, Tuesday, 03 September, the ICLEI chair will have the opportunity to represent local governments at a high level side event for Heads of State at the Sandton Convention Centre: "The Future of Mulitlateralism" will be discussed from 18:00 to 20:00 h followed by a press briefing from 20:10 to 20:30 in the media centre below.  ICLEI Secretary General Konrad Otto-Zimmermann states very clearly what the member cities of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives expect from to Summit: "The Summit must recognize the crucial role for local governments for sustainable development. We are faced with multistakeholder demands on a daily basis, we are closest to people's needs, we can contribute so much to both the processes and the goals of sustainable development. Strong local governments and strong local economies ensure stable and secure social development and diminish possible negative effects of globalisation."

The Local Government Session was facilitated by ICLEI in cooperation with the World Association of Cities and Local Authorities Coordination (WACLAC), the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the World Federation of United Cities (UTO), the World Association of the Major Metropolises (Metropolis), the Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (CITYNET), the Organisation of Islamic Capitals and Cities (OICC), the Arab Towns Organisation (ATO), Eurocities, and the Assembly of European Regions (AER). The event was hosted by the City of Johannesburg, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), and the United Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities (UNACLA).


YOUTH

WSSD Web page:
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/opps/orgdir.html?vieworg=2469

WSSD position papers:
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/summit/positionpapers.html

YOUTH POSITION PAPERS

YOUTH MAJOR GROUP STATEMENT ON YOUTH PARTICIPATION, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/documents/youthparticipation.doc

YOUTH MAJOR GROUP STATEMENT ON GOVERNANCE, GLOBALIZATION, FINANCE AND TRADE
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/documents/governance.doc

YOUTH CAUCUS INPUT TO POLITICAL DECLARATION
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/documents/politicaldeclaration.doc

YOUTH STATEMENT FOR ENERGY THEMATIC PLENARY
http://earthyouth.takingitglobal.org/documents/energy%20plenary%20statement.doc

50. YOUTH CAUCUS INPUT TO POLITICAL DECLARATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DELEGATES OF JOHANNESBURG +10.

Internet: http://www.earthcharter.org/youth/youth.doc

The Youth Caucus represents the future. We are leading the way now in making sustainable development a reality. We, the delegates of Johannesburg +10, have a concrete vision for the sustainability of the planet, and the future of humanity. We are exasperated at the inability of today's governments to address the problems that face us. We call on the Heads of States to take inspiration from our vision and lead the world toward a sustainable future. To this end, we call for the inclusion of the following key priorities as vital components for the further implementation of sustainable development.

1. POVERTY ERADICATION

  • Extreme poverty, a product of historical injustice, is one of the biggest problems affecting sustainable development in the developing countries.
     

  • The basic human right to an adequate standard of life, including provisions for food security, must be ensured.
     

  • Employment and sustainable livelihoods, especially for youth, must be created, and over-consumption patterns must be reduced.
     

  • The Millennium Declaration goals for poverty eradication must be achieved.
     

  • The Youth Employment Summit goal to launch a decade campaign of action must be met, so that an additional 500 million young adults can have a productive and sustainable livelihood.
     

  • The ecological debt of the developed countries must be redressed.
     

  • With the aim of establishing global equality, the national debts of developing countries must be cancelled.

2. EDUCATION

  • Action must be taken to ensure equal access to education for all.
     

  • Sustainable development education, including health, environment, and consumption patterns, must be integrated into curricula at all levels, especially higher education.
     

  • Education must be restructured as a fundamental agent for change and capacity building in society.
     

  • Financing for education should be a policy tool for correcting the regional imbalances of the past.
     

  • Local and cultural diversities, and indigenous peoples' educational practices, must be taken into account when addressing sustainability issues.

3. HUMAN SECURITY

  • People displaced by conflicts, such as refugees, must have the right to protection and life free from fear.
     

  • Peace and sustainable development are inherently linked; one necessitates the other.
     

  • Access to safe drinking water, clean air, and a healthy environment must be guaranteed.
     

  • Consistency must be ensured when responding to issues of human security.
     

  • The UN Security Council must be restructured to ensure democracy - weaker countries must not be excluded.
     

  • Sustainable development must be adopted into the priorities of the UN Security Council.
     

  • Access to basic healthcare for all must be achieved, with a specific focus on combating communicable diseases.

4. ENVIRONMENT

  • Biological and cultural diversity must be preserved and protected.
     

  • The ecological footprint of humanity must be reduced to the carrying capacity of the earth.
     

  • Environmental justice must be assured to all people and at all levels.

5. PARTICIPATION

  • Equality of participation must be fundamental in all governance processes.
     

  • Full recognition and a voice must be given to marginalised groups such as youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, the poor, unemployed, and disabled people.
     

  • Access to justice, information, and tools of information dissemination held by public and private authorities must be provided to all people.

6. GOVERNANCE

  • Political systems must be rebuilt for the purposes of sustainable development.
     

  • The UN body must become an exemplary model of sustainable development practices.
     

  • All people, particularly women, young people, and indigenous peoples, must be ensured the rights to self-determination, land territories, and resources.
     

  • Multilateral Environmental Agreements must take precedence over the WTO, and the profit of big business.
     

  • The international community, working with the WTO, must institutionalise economic recovery mechanisms to redress past imbalances, with specific reference to countries of the south.

7. TRADE

  • Equality - an even playing field between developing and developed countries - must be ensured in all trade endeavours.
     

  • Financial systems must be restructured in order to prevent the damaging economic effect of short term speculation.
     

  • Global markets must be fundamentally changed in order to redress the imbalances between the North and the South.

8. CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

  • There must be a UN binding convention agreement on corporate accountability.
     

  • There must be transparency, accountability, and participation of all stakeholders in international finance institutions and trans-national corporations.
     

  • To ensure accountability, trans-national corporations must be monitored internationally.

9. ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

  • Shared responsibility and interdependence, and the prerequisite of prior and informed consent must be recognised.

  • An integrated ethical framework of shared values, such as the Earth Charter, must be established to guide us toward the common good and effective implementation of the sustainable development agenda at all levels.

Commitment to existing global governance agreements is essential.
 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

WSSD Web page:
http://www.tebtebba.org/tebtebba_files/wssd/indexa.html

WSSD Web page:
http://www.treatycouncil.org/new_page_5241222.htm

51. HISTORICAL USE OF LEGAL TERM "INDIGENOUS PEOPLES" IN UN DECLARATION

Internet: http://www.treatycouncil.org/new_page_5242122.htm

The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August - 4 September 2002), for the first time in UN history, has just adopted the unqualified term "indigenous peoples" in its official political declaration: "We reaffirm the vital role of indigenous peoples in sustainable development." (paragraph 22bis) In stark contrast to last year's UN World Conference against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, where the term peoples was qualified as still being "under negotiations" (paragraph 24 of the Durban Declaration), the term "indigenous peoples" was unconditionally adopted for the first time in an official UN document. "We think the UN has made an vital step towards respecting Indigenous Peoples equal to other peoples of the world," stated Vicky Tauli-Corpus, "This is a significant step in defining the rights of Indigenous Peoples."  We hope that with this historical advancement, this respect will be reflected in the implementation of the Plan of Action of the WSSD.  We expect governments, UN Agencies and corporations to give the respect that indigenous peoples deserve in all future consultations, relationships, partnerships and negotiations. Indigenous Peoples now look forward to the upcoming discussions on the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2002, where we hope that this will open the way to a smooth approval of the Declaration.

FARMERS

52. WSSD PRESS STATEMENT BY SMALL-HOLDER FARMERS AND FISH HARVESTERS
Internet: http://www.wtowatch.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/WSSD_Press_Statement_by_Small-Holder_Farmers_a.htm

We the small-scale farmers meeting as a Small Scale Farmers Convergence at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) from 22 August to 1 September 2002

Affirm: that farming and fishing is our life. It is our culture.

Believe: that small holder [family] farming has provided food, employment, healing, spiritual inspirations and has been a central basis for social education and skills development over generations.

Know: that the earth was created with all that is needed for people, animals and all its sustenance and continuity.

Recognize: that the small holder farmers are a majority, constituting 70 percent of the total world's population but have largely been unheard and unnoticed.

We therefore come here to speak as a united voice and alongside other civil society actors to governments, the United nations and the rest of the world so that our issues and recommendations will be an integral part of the deliberations and outcomes of WSSD.

Under the Small Farmer Convergence 300 small-scale farmers from Africa, Latin America, Canada, Europe and Asia are here to:

  • Celebrate farming and fishing as a culture - our way of life;
     

  • Share our knowledge, experiences and strategies on enhancing biodiversity, seed multiplication, storage and exchange among ourselves;
     

  • Communicate to you so that we can be part of the answer to sustainable development; and,
     

  • Build a solidarity that will shape our common destiny in partnership with the earth and her people.

We, therefore, state:

1. That land, water, plant and animal genetic resources and minerals have been communally owned throughout generations and, therefore, should never be transferred to private ownership for selfish and profit driven gains. We have a stewardship responsibility handed over from past generations to tend the earth and leave it for future generations;

2. That the rich knowledge, best practices and technologies developed by us farmers in providing farming, healing, worship and marketing of our farm produce should never be alienated from us because they form the core of the our existence and livelihood. Research should focus and build on this knowledge and practice and must respond to farmers needs;

3. That avoidable conflicts and wars have dodged the small-scale farmers and poor communities in Africa for far too long. Those in authority have ignored the soft voices of women and children crying and others dying. The western countries have gladly traded arms and propaganda to fuel these conflicts. We demand a stop to the merciless killing of innocent people. Farmers cannot produce food under these conditions;

4. Small-scale farmers have evolved systems of seed exchange and multiplication for future seasons and generations. This is key to food sovereignty at family and national levels.

We say NO to genetically modified foods. We do not need genetically modified seeds. Our indigenous seeds are superior for our taste and style of farming. We small scale farmers farm for people and not for industry!;

5. That our first priority is to feed our communities before growing for the external market. We, therefore, call for internal market access in preference to external competitors. Capacity building, extension services and improvement of infrastructure in terms of roads, communication and markets must enhance this.

Full access to the international market must be accompanied with consideration on equity, justice and the production environment;

6. That deliberate and urgent steps must be taken to develop and promote alternative renewable energy options, sustainable land-use systems and water management as a commitment to achieving sustainable development for all;

7. That poor communities, consisting mainly of labourers, landless people and small scale farmers and their families, have suffered most from HIV/AIDS. We are also concerned that common childhood diseases and other preventable diseases, such as malaria and TB, have continued to decimate our populations at an alarming rate. Health for all must be made a reality;

8. Our communal resources (land, forests, wildlife, minerals, water etc) have been plundered by a few powerful people and private companies to the detriment of all. Further the pollution and degradation of the earth has been blamed on the poor communities, paying a blind eye to the big industries that are responsible for industrial waste and gas emissions. Everybody must be responsible for ensuring a safe, clean and sustainable world.

9. That foreign debt has continued to cripple poor countries economies with serious consequences on food security, health and education impacting most heavily on women and children. We therefore call for further debt cancellation and a re-dedication of these funds to services provision for poverty eradication.  As small-scale farmers we have some answers - we will show the way.

See Also:

FIAN AND VIA CAMPESINA STATEMENT TO THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Johannesburg, August 2002
http://www.focusweb.org/publications/2002/wssd-2002/2002-08-26%20FIAN%20and%20Via%20Campesina%20on%20WSSD-EN.htm
 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY

Scidev.Net: WSSD Web page:
 http://www.scidev.net/sustain/sustainnews.html

Third World Academy of Sciences: WSSD Web page:
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/%7Etwas/WSSD.html

ICSU WSSD Web page:
http://www.icsu.org/WSSD/

53. RICH NATIONS 'MUST BOOST SCIENCE IN POOR AREAS'

Scidev.Net

13 September 2002

Internet: http://www.scidev.net/frame3.asp?id=1309200214533130&t=N&authors=Katie%20Mantell&posted=13%20Sep%202002&c=1&r=1

The developed world should make greater efforts to increase science and technological capacity in poor nations, particularly through bilateral aid projects, the chief scientific adviser to the British government, David King, said yesterday (12 September).  Speaking at the British Association's annual Festival of Science at the University of Leicester, King said that developed regions such as Europe "need to look at mechanisms for transferring knowledge from north to south".  Science education -"from the cradle onwards" - was also needed, he said, to enable developing countries to build a strong scientific base and develop and adapt sustainable technologies for themselves. "I do not believe that it is possible for a country to eradicate poverty if it does not have a strong scientific and technological base," he said.  King, who was born and educated in South Africa, pointed out that developing nations lag well behind the rest of the world in scientific capacity. Developing countries invest only 0.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in scientific research and development, compared to 2.3 per cent invested by OECD countries. Furthermore, the poorest countries invest "almost nothing at all".  And scientific output - for example, in terms of publications - is similarly poor. "Very little high level science activities are going on in many countries in the developing world," he said.  King described the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences (see Top maths institute to stem Africa's brain drain) - which is being backed by the University of Cambridge - as a good example of how local scientific capacity could be improved.  But financial support is also necessary. "The bottom line is that funds are required to pump-prime these activities," he said. "We need to look to our own government and other governments [for resources]."  Stemming the flow of top-level scientists from developing countries was also a priority for King. "What we would like to achieve is a blockage of the current brain drain," he said. "If you keep draining off from the top you won't sustain the stream".  Key to slowing the brain drain, he said, was recognition by governments of the importance of science in policy-making. Developing nations must "exploit science, engineering and technology for local benefit," he said.  Adigun Ade Abiodun, senior special assistant to the Nigerian President on space science and technology, who was also speaking at the event, agreed that science was central to the development of poor nations. But he warned that technology transfer alone - without scientific education and local technology development - was not the solution.  "Training only allows individuals to use a concept that someone else has developed," he said. "If you have education, you have the capability to develop other ideas."  The event, 'Science and Sustainability: Where next after Johannesburg' was organised by SciDev.Net as part of its activities on science and the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

54. SUMMIT BOOSTS FUNDS FOR SCIENCE IN POOR NATIONS

SciDev.Net

5 September 2002

Internet: http://www.scidev.net/frame3.asp?id=0509200215253523&t=N&authors=Michael%20Cherry&posted=5%20Sep%202002&c=1&r=1

[JOHANNESBURG] The agreement reached at the World Summit on Sustainable Development is to lead to increased funding for collaborative scientific programmes between developing countries and the European Union (EU).  The action plan agreed at the Summit will promote new sources of funding specifically for environmentally clean technologies, and 'centres of excellence' within the developing world.  According to Adi Paterson, acting deputy director-general of the South African department of Science and Technology, these two provisions of the agreement will allow developing countries to access funds from overseas development budgets, rather than being restricted to their own smaller budgets set aside for science and technology.  In particular, he said, developing nations would be able to seek funding from the European Development Fund, which has nearly €10 billion in its coffers that it has been unable to spend.  Paterson was speaking on Monday (2 September) at a meeting in Johannesburg organised jointly by the European Commission (EC) and the South African department of Science and Technology.  Christian Patermann, director of the EC research programme on environment and sustainable development, said at the meeting that the Sixth Research Framework Programme - which covers the EU's research and development spending for four years starting in 2003 - would provide significantly more opportunities for collaboration between Europe and developing countries.  About €600 million would be earmarked for co-operative programmes with developing countries, Newly Independent States and countries on the Mediterranean Rim, he said. Half of this would be for targeted programmes in specific research areas, and half for more basic science. In addition, scientists from these three categories of countries would also be eligible as partners for mainstream EC funding, for which €13 billion is available.  Patermann stressed that EC funding would continue to be directed at joint research proposals by partners from the EU and the three other categories, but that 'centres of excellence' within developing countries would also be eligible to apply for funds.  Ed Quilty, director of science in government in the UK Office of Science and Technology, said that creating a climate of academic excellence in developing countries was important to prevent the brain drain from such regions. South Africa is keen to identify and support such centres of excellence, according to Paterson.

55. POPULATION IS KEY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Scidev.Net

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.scidev.net/frame3.asp?id=0309200217383826&authors=Nicky%20Lewis&posted=3%20Sep%202002&c=1&r=1&t=NB

Scientists, policy-makers and the media must learn to better understand the interactions between population, environment and development, according to a report by an international panel of 30 scientists released this week at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  The report by the Global Science Panel on Population and Environment - which was set up jointly by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population - warns that the world is going through a period of unprecedented demographic change.  "If we do not put the human population at the core of the sustainable development agenda, our efforts to improve human well-being and preserve the quality of the environment will fail," the panel concludes in its science policy statement.  To address environmental issues such as freshwater depletion, climate change, and biodiversity loss, the panel says that more interdisciplinary research is required at all levels.  "The systemic integration of population into sustainable development is essential if we are to meet the needs of present generations without sacrificing the livelihoods of future generations," says Wolfgang Lutz from IIASA, one of the panel's coordinators.  The report also presents a survey of major international decisions and goals over the past few decades, together with graphical representations of progress in the areas of education, health, poverty, and hunger.

56. HIGH-LEVEL PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA

Ubuntu Village (Johannesburg, South Africa),

Third World Academy of Sciences

1 September 2002

Internet: http://www.ictp.trieste.it/%7Etwas/WSSD_Panel.html

During the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September 2002, the South African Department of Arts, Culture, Science, and Technology, in association with the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), and the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) organized a High-Level Panel Discussion on the Role of Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in Africa. This took place at the Water Berry Room, Ubuntu Village, on Sunday, 1 September 2002 (14:00-18:00 hrs).  The Panel Discussion was chaired by Professor Thomas R. Odhiambo, Honorary President of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS), based in Nairobi, Kenya. It was attended by the following:

  • Thomas Odhiambo: Honorary President, African Academy of Sciences (AAS), who set the agenda, in the Chair;
     

  • Mohamed H. A. Hassan: President, African Academy of Sciences (AAS) and Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), who opened the Panel Discussion on behalf of the co-organizers;
     

  • B. Ngubane: Honourable Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, South Africa;
     

  • Turner T. Isoun: Honourable Minister of Science and Technology, Federal Republic of Nigeria;
     

  • D. King: Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, Head of the Office of Science and Technology, U.K.;
     

  • C. Magarinos: Director General, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO);
     

  • C. Patermann: Research Director, European Commission;
     

  • Hans van Ginkel: Rector, the United Nations University (UNU);
     

  • J. Mugabe: Expert on Science and Technology Policy Development, NEPAD Secretariat, Pretoria, South Africa;
     

  • K. E. Mshigeni: UNU/UNESCO ZERI Africa Chair and Director, UNDP/UNOPS Regional Project on Sustainable Development from Africa's Biodiversity, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia, who acted as Rapporteur for the Discussion.

The session focused its deliberations on the priorities of Science and Technology for Africa's sustainable development. The individual presentations were aimed at a general audience, which included representatives of national delegations, WSSD's major groups, international organizations, and other participants with interest in Africa's development. It started with introductory remarks from the President of the African Academy of Sciences and Executive Director of the Third World Academy of Sciences, Prof. M. H. A. Hassan, who, amongst other things, expressed:

  • The need for strengthening Africa's Scientific human capital;
     

  • The need for provision of adequate financial resources to cater for the needs of Africa's Governments to support new initiatives such as NEPAD, and to develop regional centres of excellence;
     

  • The urgency to address the continent's challenge on brain drain.

In his agenda-setting address, Professor T. R. Odhiambo, amongst other contributions, expressed the need for Africa to embark on a new beginning, a new vision, and a new thrust, built upon the power of forgiving: forgiving and forgetting the injustices of the past (especially the slave trade, the apartheid, etc.); a new beginning built upon hope, and characterized by enhanced creativity; a paradigm shift which will stimulate highest quality education, training and research; and which will stimulate wealth creation, and give Africa a more competitive edge in global trade.

In the panel contribution by the Hon. Minister Dr. B. Ngubane, the need for vigorously fighting Africa's poverty was emphasized; the need for intensifying our efforts towards securing an endowment fund for promoting science and technology development in Africa was highlighted, and the necessity for enhanced partnerships amongst our African scientists, and also with their peers in the industrialized countries, was expressed. The following elements were also emphasized:

  • Establishing regional centres of excellence;
     

  • Building demonstration centres for enhancing science and technology diffusion;
     

  • Reducing brain drain, and establishing strategic networks between African scientists and their peers in the Diaspora;
     

  • Setting appropriate targets and priorities, which should include the promotion of biotechnology skills, energy technologies, low-cost housing development, and information technology.

In the contribution by the Hon. Minister T. T. Isoun, the urgency for creating the necessary enabling science and technology environment in Africa, for allocating more funds for research in African universities and related research institutes, and forging partnerships with industry, were highlighted. He appreciated the philosophical background provided by the Panel Chairman, Prof. T. R. Odhiambo, and re-emphasized the need for Africa to move forward with more confidence and hope, capitalizing on some of Africa's success stories.

The contribution by Professor D. King indicated the advantages of establishing appropriate functional advisory bodies on science and technology, which can play a significant role in advising Government on science-based development, on how to deal with crises, on the importance of openness and transparency, and on the need for investing more towards capacity building at various levels. The need for promoting strategies that involve North-South partnerships was also emphasized. Scientists and engineers have important roles to play towards assisting governments to make the right decisions.

The Director General of UNIDO, C. Magarinos, in his panel contribution, highlighted the fact that the development and application of science and technology has a critical role to play in promoting industrial performance. The need for mobilizing technologies and developing skills that will assist developing nations towards catalyzing industrial development was therefore highlighted. The world needs to promote industrial expertise in the South, especially in Africa, capitalising on niches where Africa has a comparative advantage. Examples were cited on the success of Kenya's leather industry (based in Thika), with a significant value-addition component.

In the contribution by C. Patermann, the role of science and technology as an engine for sustainable development was emphasized. This role needs to be marketed to governments of the developing nations, so they can step up financial allocations to science and technology. We are now living in a knowledge-based economy; we are a knowledge-based society; we must use this knowledge base to eradicate poverty, to combat major diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis), to advance research, to promote the exchange of scholars (north-south and south-south exchanges), to forge linkages with industry, and to stimulate innovation. Developing nations must be assisted in order to bring them into the main stream of modern development.

The contribution by Prof. Hans van Ginkel emphasized the need for according due attention to the improvement of education. Science, technology, and education must be brought together; teachers in the classrooms must be mobilized; networks that help to build endogenous capacity must be established, Prof. Van Ginkel stressed. Other suggestions and recommendations highlighted by the UNU Rector included:

  • Training more people in science and technology, to help attain the critical mass, and also to cater for current losses;
     

  • Catalyzing the development of special research and development projects directed towards addressing common regional problems;
     

  • Developing new products, based on Africa's geographical uniqueness, and marketing them to the world; and
     

  • Interpreting science and technology in its broad sense, and establishing centres of specialization based in various countries, each addressing a specific problem, but all inter-linked to a hub, as in the UNU/INRA scenario.

The contribution by Dr. John Mugabe presented key highlights on NEPAD, and how the new body views science and technology in the context of Africa's future development. The following are amongst the issues covered in the panel presentation:

  • NEPAD has ambitious goals, covering areas of science and technology development, stimulating food security, promoting poverty reduction and good governance;
     

  • Africa must develop, and make meaningful contributions to global science, to global knowledge, and to global markets;
     

  • Africa must apply science and technology to solve her critical problems, focusing on the enhanced use of information technology, biotechnology, and GIS tools, and promoting the scientific application of indigenous knowledge;
     

  • Africa needs new platforms for developing concrete activities which are broad-based, which are built upon earlier initiatives such as RANDFORUM, which focus on value-addition, and which are anchored on high-level political support;
     

  • Africa must take action now, but using strategies that call for transparency, for consultations with all stakeholders, for enhanced capacity building, and which are in line with global trends.

In the contribution by Prof. Keto Mshigeni, it was emphasized that Africa should not lose hope: there are great opportunities in Africa towards poverty reduction, towards promoting sustainable livelihoods, towards addressing some of the burning environmental issues of the time (e.g. the water hyacinth crisis in Africa's rivers and lakes), and towards generating new products for the global markets, if adequate provisions are made for science and technology capacity building, for research and development, and for catalyzing linkages with Africa's poor rural village communities. In his presentation, the panelist cited a success story in Tanzania, where he had used science and technology as a basis for promoting the innovative development of seaweed farming in Tanzania's marine waters: an initiative which had generated employment to over 40,000 coastal rural villagers in Zanzibar, and which was also making significant contributions to foreign exchange earnings in the country. New initiatives funded by UNDP, UNU, UNESCO, and the Government of the Republic of Namibia, coordinated by the panelist, which are directed towards promoting mushroom farming in Africa (for food, for cash income, and for medicinal applications), and towards promoting science-based uses of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Africa, were also highlighted. An appeal was made to African Governments, and also to the donor community, to support initiatives such as these, which, amongst other things, help to demonstrate that NEPAD's dreams are doable.  After each of the various presentations, a lively discussion followed, which called for the need to build new confidence amongst Africa's scientists, and to move forward. In this process, emphasis was placed on moving forward with all stakeholders aboard, and with Endowment Funding becoming a new mechanism for undergirding the entire science and technology enterprise and its application linkages to sustainable development - at the community implementation level, as well as at the industrial commercialization level. For this endeavour to be successful and sustained, it was emphasized that this knowledge-based endeavour will need to be embedded in the African cultural heritage, major elements of which include community connectedness, spiritual connectedness, and the spirit of sharing and exchange with neighbours. Then, a new Millennium will certainly dawn upon Africa.

57. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY

World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg, South Africa, Professor Mohamed H.A. Hassan - xecutive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)

29 August 2002

Internet: http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~twas/WSSD_Statement.html

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen Building and maintaining adequate scientific and technological capacities in all countries and harnessing these capacities to address critical economic, social and environmental issues are essential prerequisites for the transition to sustainable development. Such capacities in S&T can help nations better understand their current situation as well as devise effective responses to meet future challenges. Scientific research may be global in scope but its applications work best when tailored to national and regional settings.  A worldwide shortage in scientific and technical skills and leadership, particularly in developing countries, calls for designing more effective regional, national and international research and training programmes in S&T at all levels. The necessary capacity building calls for fully utilizing the powerful tools of information and communication technologies.  Increased priority, moreover, should be given to promoting S&T education and training for women. Women remain an under utilized intellectual resource worldwide, particularly in science and technology.  Professional education programmes that include the goals of sustainable development are also needed for scientists and engineers throughout their professional careers. We must also develop a science-literate civil service capable of technology management and a civil society that understands these challenges and their importance to human welfare and sustainable development. All of this means that national and international organizations must invest in life-long learning programmes for their citizens and that such programmes must weave together a broad understanding of science with knowledge of the social sciences and economics.

Because of the wide gap among countries and regions in their S&T capacities, different priorities and strategies should be designed to address the needs for capacity by different regions.  In the North, where 85 percent of the current S&T knowledge is produced, capacity building is part of a larger effort to modify existing scientific agendas and institutions to address long-term sustainability issues.

In the South, meanwhile, capacity building must focus on nurturing home-grown research skills and building research and training institutions, including universities, to a level of excellence that would enable them to attract talent, curb the brain drain and participate effectively in global efforts to harness S&T for sustainable development.  One of the prime lessons we have learned is that capacity building efforts in the South have been too fragmented and uncoordinated to build the critical mass of scientific expertise that is necessary for many developing countries to take advantage of S&T to accelerate their own sustainable development goals.  Coordinated efforts Ð through the strengthening of South-South and North-South institutional partnerships - would help foster the mobility of scientists and technologists as part of a larger strategy for promoting the exchange of knowledge and experiences to advance the transition towards sustainable development.  Responsibility for building and maintaining S&T capacities for sustainable development resides first and foremost on the shoulders of national governments and must be guided by strategies and policies that are fully integrated into national development goas. It is critical, therefore, for governments worldwide to adopt sustainable development strategies that recognize the tradeoffs between short- and long-term economic development strategies. Indeed this challenge is particularly critical for the North where consumption patterns place global efforts to promote a sustainable future at risk.  The S&T community calls on national governments and international funding agencies to recognize the central importance of capacity building for S&T in the transition toward sustainable development. Increasing the role of S&T in sustainability initiatives should focus on: 

  • Expanded efforts to build and maintain institutional centres of scientific excellence, especially in the South, through additional investments in university departments and research institutes that have displayed research and training capabilities on a national and regional scale.
     

  • Additional investments in programmes designed to assist women, especially in the developing world, to acquire the scientific and technical training that they need to participate in the global scientific community.
     

  • Greater sensitivity and acknowledgement in the S&T community of the potential value of indigenous knowledge in addressing critical sustainability issues, especially in the developing world.
     

  • Strengthening of South-North cooperative programmes that recognize the growing capabilities of S&T in the South to forge partnerships that are truly equitable and global in scope.
     

  • Better integration of scientific knowledge and skills with other sources of knowledge, including the social sciences and economics, as a prerequisite for devising multidisciplinary strategies to address sustainability issues.

The strategy boils down to this: the S&T community has called upon governments and funding agencies to provide sustained and reliable funding for S&T initiatives, especially in the South. The S&T community, in turn, has pledged to focus a greater portion of its research agenda on issues of direct concern to the societies in which its scientists live and work. By agreeing to such shared responsibilities and commitments, we believe that both the S&T community and the larger society will be better able to advance their shared goals for a sustainable future.
 

WOMEN'S CAUCUS

WSSD Web page:
http://www.antenna.nl/wecf/WSSDresults.html

58. WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN DANGER

Women's Caucus
1 September 2002
Internet: http://www.antenna.nl/wecf/WSSDpress47.html

Johannesburg, SA: At the tail end of the negotiations at the World Summit for Sustainable Development governments are attempting to undermine women's human rights and roll back on commitments made at previous world conferences. In paragraph 47 dealing with access to healthcare, governments are proposing to add the phrase 'consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values' which would allow them to ignore agreed upon human rights and fundamental freedoms. This amendment, proposed in Bali at the fourth preparatory committee meeting for this Summit, poses a serious threat to women's rights in every region of the world and would take the international community back ten years in the field of human rights. The Women's Caucus therefore insists on replacing this phrase with 'in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms' as proposed by the Canadian delegation. The amendment (in bold text) would be as follows:  "Strengthen the capacity of health care systems to deliver basic health services to all in an efficient, accessible and affordable manner, aimed at preventing, controlling and treating diseases and to reduce environmental health threats and, taking into account the report of recent UN conferences, summits, and special sessions of the UN general Assembly (delete: consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values) and in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms. This would include action at all levels to:" This language has been agreed in previous agreements including the ICPD+5 (para 5), Vienna Declaration (para 5); World Summit on Social Development (para 3), Beijing Platform for Action (para 9), Beijing+5 (para 3), and Special Session on Children (para 37).  As Irene Dankelman of the Women's Caucus said "Governments at the WSSD must reaffirm these agreements to uphold women's human rights, including reproductive rights. Without this amendment women will be more vulnerable to harmful cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, forced and child marriage, honor killings, death by stoning and gang rape. If governments do not protect and promote our human rights, women and children will be at increased risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS." 

59. STATEMENT TO THE PLENARY OF THE WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DELIVERED BY MUBORAK SHARIPOVA
 

Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF)
29 August 2002

Internet: http://www.antenna.nl/wecf/WSSDplenary.html

Mr. Chairman, delegates and fellow NGO sisters and brothers. I am Muborak Sharipova from Tadjikistan representing Women in Europe for a Common Future and I am a member of both the Women's and Peace Caucus. We would like to present a peace petition from women worldwide to the United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the World Summit for Sustainable Development, Mr. Nitin Desai, and to all governments present at the Summit in Johannesburg. The petition states that peace is a prerequisite for sustainable development. It was drafted by women living in areas stricken by war and has been signed by over 1,000 women's and peace organizations from every region of the world. I quote from the petition:
We women know the real cost of war.
We have seen the suffering and the destruction.
Women give birth to children and have no choice but to see them fight and die.
We have suffered abuse, so bad that we do not wish to talk about it.
We are united with all women throughout the world who are suffering from armed conflict and war.
These cruelties could not happen without the arms produced and traded by profit-seeking industrialists supported by governments across the world. Wars are fueled by the quest for natural resources and power, and result in tremendous environmental destruction. Millions of families are suffering, women are being raped and children lose their parents. Victims of wars also include those affected by land mines, radiation from depleted uranium, all nuclear weapons production and use, chemical and biological weapons, and indigenous peoples on whose traditional lands these weapons are tested and wars are fought. Women know that there are alternative ways to resolve conflicts and that there is never a cause to justify armed conflict or war. We appeal to the United Nations and all governments to:
1) Include within the framework of sustainable development the goal of peace and an action plan to achieve it including disarmament; demilitarization; ending the production, development and trade of arms; ending current and preventing future wars and armed conflict; peace building and conflict resolution programmes, peace culture and non-violent education.
2) Establish a UN peace fund for conflict resolution, the victims of war, the empowerment of women as policy makers for peace and the eradication of the root causes of war, including poverty and unsustainable development. Redirect current military expenditures to this peace fund.
3) Create a people's peace diplomacy programme involving peace and women's groups to resolve and prevent conflicts within and between nations as well as in peace building efforts.
4) Hold accountable those who make profit from wars by using current international human rights instruments including the International Criminal Court.
5) Ensure women's equal participation in decision-making on conflict resolution and peace negotiations and the implementation of the UN Resolution no. 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.
6) Ratify and implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In short, we call for your commitment to including peace as a fundamental component of sustainable development. We call on all UN, government and NGO representatives to sign our peace petition and demand to end all wars and to end militarization.
Thank you.
 

FAITH BASED ORGANISATIONS

World Council of Churches WSSD Web Page:
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/wssd.html

60. WSSD: "KYOTO IS NOT ENOUGH" ECUMENICAL STATEMENT WARNS

World Council of Churches (WCC)

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www2.wcc-coe.org/PressReleases_en.nsf/index/pu-02-27.html

A statement calling on governments and people to take action in solidarity with those most affected by climate change was released 2 September by the World Council of Churches (WCC) together with other ecumenical partners attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).  The action was intended to emphasise the importance of climate change. "Climate change is not being given the priority attention that it deserves at the World Summit," says the programme director for policy and advocacy of the Church of Sweden Karin Lexén, who is attending the summit as a member of the WCC's Ecumenical Team. "The government delegations are having great difficulty in agreeing on energy measures that could help address climate change, such as setting strict targets and timetables for increased use of renewable energies."  The ecumenical statement cites growing evidence that weather extremes have become more frequent, that floods and droughts are intensifying, that the mean global sea level is rising. "In coming decades, according to the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even a medium scenario predicts that changing climate conditions may turn 150 million people into refugees."  As development and relief agencies from Europe, the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the signatories' deep concern stems from their conviction that climate change will irreparably affect the people with whom they work and the programmes they support. "Over the years," they say, "we have been engaged in numerous development projects. But now we are faced with a new situation. Firstly, the increasing need for emergency aid may considerably exceed the moral and economic capacities available in society to respond. Secondly, we will see increasingly situations where many years of careful and engaged development are put at risk or even wiped out."  The Kyoto Protocol is a first step in the right direction, says David Hallman, coordinator of the WCC's Climate Change Programme. "The WCC and the agencies call on all parties which have not yet ratified Kyoto to do so, in particular the USA. But to really make an impact, governments must proceed without delay with a new round of negotiations, because Kyoto needs to be followed up by much stronger efforts."  The targets of new negotiations must be determined in the light of the long-term perspective. The statement says: "They should meet two basic requirements: the stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level in accordance with the overall objective of the Climate Change Convention, and a fair distribution of rights and obligations, by establishing the concept of per capita emission rights for all countries."

See Also:

REPORT ON THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WSSD) JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
AUGUST 26 TO SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
Prepared by David G. Hallman, Climate Change programme coordinator, World Council of Churches and programme officer, Energy & Environment, United Church of Canada
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/wssd-report.html

61. ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT AT WORLD SUMMIT

CAFOD

3 September 2002

Internet: http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=129&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecafod%2Eorg%2Euk%2Fnews%2Fearthsummit20020903%2Eshtml

The Catholic aid agency CAFOD fears the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg has concluded with a lame agreement that contains only modest gains for the poor and our planet. CAFOD's Head of Policy George Gelber says, "The Johannesburg Summit is a major disappointment. Key texts on renewable energy were eviscerated by a combination of oil consumers and producers with the US taking a leading role. Commitments without tangible goals or deadlines are virtually meaningless. How are we to judge whether, as the new text says, a sense of urgency has been brought to bear in increasing the share of renewable energy resources?  "Agreements on fisheries and sanitation saved the Summit from being a complete tragedy but it remains deeply unconvincing. Only those who feared the worst can now describe it as a step in the right direction." CAFOD says that the Johannesburg meeting adds little to the two key global meetings of the last 12 months - the World Trade Organisation Summit in Doha, which set the world trade agenda for the next three years and the Financing for Development meeting in Monterrey which squeezed promises of an additional $12 billion a year in aid from the EU and the US. Gelber says, "It is far from clear that vague and conditional commitments of Doha to "phase out" agricultural subsidies - crucial for developing countries - will be acted upon or that the additional aid will materialise. Depressing as it may seem, the task of activists and developing country governments will be to ensure that the modest commitments of Doha and Monterrey are met.  "The achievements of Johannesburg are a dim reflection of all the high-flown rhetoric of world leaders and the Summit's own ambitions. The United States, with its two cars per family, has principally blocked agreement on the difficult steps that are needed to achieve the 2015 Millennium Target of halving the world's poor - and of doing this in a world that relies less on fossil fuels."  CAFOD is also disappointed that there was neither a reflection in Summit texts that adjustment to globalisation has enormous costs for the very poor, nor was there agreement on the part of the richest nations, which benefit most from globalisation, that they should make more resources available, in aid and debt relief, to reduce poverty.


PARLIAMENTARIANS

Internet:
http://www.ipu.org/


INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

62. MPs PLEDGE ACTION BEYOND WSSD

30 August 2002

Internet: http://www.ipu.org/press-e/gen140.htm

The 300 MPs from more than 50 countries and several regional assemblies, gathered by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the South African Parliament for two days in Johannesburg, pledged today to "review in [their] respective parliaments the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and to speedily implement, through legislation, including budgetary measures, the provisions of the Plan that come under [their] purview". As members of parliament, they consider it their duty to work to strengthen governance by reforming government and its decision-making processes to better reflect the imperative of sustainable development. The MPs will work "to put in place new regulatory and administrative foundations to make the integrated approach of sustainable development permeate every act of government". They insist on "national strategies for sustainable development to provide a coherent policy framework and measurable targets, as well as additional requirements for environmental impact assessment".  "Ensure that governments live up to the commitments that have been made", said Speaker Ginwala "The onus is and will be on us, parliamentarians and our parliaments, to  ensure that governments live up to the commitments that have been made and  will be made next week", declared the Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa, Dr. Frene Ginwala. She went on to say that MPs must hold governments to account, monitor commitments, promote and facilitate implementation, develop policies that meet the agreed objectives and release and direct financial resources to ensure that those policies can be implemented. "Only then will we be able to ensure that agreements reached here are more than reams of paper", stressed Dr Ginwala. The Speaker of the South African National Assembly also underlined the importance of NEPAD, "the united view of this continent, of itself and for  itself" which "sets an agenda for change and development based on principles of democracy, peace and security, inclusiveness and human rights. It offers a partnership for the developed and developing countries to work together for common goals and for our common benefit".  "We must voice the aspirations of our people at the negotiations", reminded President of IPU Council For the President of the IPU Council, Dr. Najma Heptulla,  "parliamentarians, in their law-making capacity, their budget-making authority, and their role as monitors of the Executive, are central to the implementation of what will be agreed in Johannesburg. We must voice the aspirations of our people at the negotiations so that the final document  is comprehensive and is reflective of popular aspirations". She recalled that MPs and the people "aspire for a world in which individual interests would be subordinated to the common good".  The President of the IPU Council stated that the success of the World Summit will be measured in terms of actual implementation of the      negotiated outcome. "A strong parliamentary follow-up mechanism to the Declaration and Plan of implementation is crucial for its success", she emphasised. "Sustainable development is not simply a matter of the policy of the executive branch of government", insisted Mr. Nitin Desai The Secretary General of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Mr. Nitin Desai also took the floor at the parliamentary meeting. "We have always said that sustainable development is not simply a matter of the policy of the executive branch of government. It is something that will only work if we mobilise all parts of the governance system and also all parts of the civil society. In Johannesburg we really have the representation of all these people", declared Mr. Desai. For the Secretary General of the WSSD "there is an enormous amount that parliaments can do in order to further sustainable development at the national level, but there is also an enormous amount they can do to further sustainable development at the global level. Every bit of environmental legislation that they will prepare at the global level is ultimately subject to ratification. In most countries it is parliaments which are involved in this ratification process". He also evidenced "the role of donor countries in deciding how the resources will be used and through that mechanism, parliaments can certainly influence the way in which resources can be used for sustainable development".  "How are we going to ensure that this Summit will be more than a talk shop?", asked South Africa's Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism The Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Valli Moosa,  addressed the parliamentary meeting. He described the current situation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and its realistic expectations, four days after a two-week summit. "We have to ask ourselves how are we going to ensure that this summit will be more than a talk shop? That is what led us to argue that the two overall themes of the Summit should be firstly poverty eradication, which is the biggest challenge that the world faces today with the growing gap between the rich and the poor and the hopelessness of those who live in abject poverty with no program and no ideas of how the poor will ever get out of this situation. And the second theme should be implementation and delivery, that this should be an action oriented summit", he underscored. President of IPU Council addresses the WSSD Speaking this morning at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the President of the IPU Council, Dr. Najma Heptulla, informed the governmental delegations of the commitments of the 300 MPs gathered in Johannesburg. In her concluding remarks, she said that "far too many governments and institutions in the position of power take decisions with only narrow interests in mind. More often than not, they do not represent fairly the will of the people and certainly do not pursue the common good. Only too often, decision-makers do not listen to the people, and especially to the poor, and are instead pursuing parochial interests, and, in the worst cases, are entirely corrupt".


WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING'S

WSSD Web page:
http://www.earthisland.org/wosh/

63. WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING'S PRESENTATION OF DRAFT FINDINGS INDEPENDENT CIVIL SOCIETY ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT STATE OF THE WORLD RELEASES FINDINGS FROM JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA SUBMITTED BY WORLD SUSTAINABILITY HEARING PROJECT 

Presented by Vandana Shiva at the Sandton Convention Center.

1 September 2002

Internet: http://www.earthisland.org/news/new_news.cfm?newsID=228

Johannesburg, South Africa, 1 September 2002 -- The Hearing has been an independent investigation by global civil society into the current state of the world, and the crisis we're seeing in world governance on WSSD issues. It was held here in Johannesburg for six days from August 26th through August 31st. The Hearing took testimony from over 100 grassroots witnesses and panelists from over 40 countries, including 12 Goldman Environmental Prize recipients, Dr. Jane Goodall, Dr. Robert Watson, the well-known expert on Climate Change, the Presidents of Worldwatch and World Resources Institute, myself and many many others. An independent assessment like this is extremely important simply because we've found we can't rely on governments to tell the truth, or to take action on the critical global issues of this Summit on behalf of their citizens. Here are a few of the key Findings of the Hearing:

1. Climate change is here now. It's already begun. Agreement on an international framework to forcefully address it is needed immediately.

2. Industrial plantations are a threat to forest biodiversity, to the livelihoods of indigenous and other peoples who depend on forests. They are no substitute for the ecosystem services of real forests.

3. We are in the midst of a global marine fisheries crisis. Last week's agreement on fisheries is meaningless as long as incentives for corporate fishing fleets and unsustainable aquaculture practices persist.

4. There is a false dichotomy between poverty and environmental degradation. The world's poor are also the most affected by environmental pollution and injustices. We need to address them together.

5. Food security means local control over seeds, agricultural markets and development, not turning over local markets to transnationals who drive local farmers out of business and often raise prices in developing countries for their own agricultural products.

6. The UN process on sustainable development since Rio 1992 has been overwhelmed by the influence of large corporations, and the free trade agenda of the WTO, IMF and World Bank. These institutions have implemented detailed, enforceable means of expanding free trade and large investment projects that favor transnationals rather than local people. The UN urgently needs to implement enforceable agreements assuring human rights, environmental and resource protection, and corporate accountability.

The panelists, witnesses and organizers of the Hearing call on the United Nations and governments to put people first, and step up to their responsibility to people and the planet as they enter the crucial ministerial phase of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

64. KEEPING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE EARTH'S PEOPLE

Civil Society Assessment of Globalization & Sustainable Development to Boost Grassroots Voices at the World Summit

World Sustainability Hearing's

25 August 2002

Internet: http://www.earthisland.org/wosh/PressRelease_8_25.html

When it comes to addressing the real threats facing the majority of the world's peoples and their environments, the international community seems to be at an impasse. If you've read the reports from the U.N. preparatory conference in Bali, you'll know that world governance on crucial social justice and environmental issues is truly faltering - commitments made at the Rio Earth Summit have not been kept. The prospect of failure now hangs over the coming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.

It is now more urgent than ever to let the public know how terribly world governments have failed them during the past ten years, how beholden to corporate power they have become, and how we must boldly challenge today's decision-makers for their continuing failure to address issues of global sustainability (i.e., persisting conditions that deprive people of reliable access to drinking water, healthy sources of nutrition, basic healthcare and shelter, education and physical security, and sustainable livelihoods that protect the earth's natural systems, for starters). These are basic issues of survival for millions of people, along with many of our planet's magnificent diversity of species, ecosystems, and sacred places.

DEFINING THE DEBATE IN JOHANNESBURG

As the United Nation's Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) approaches - widely recognized as an pivotal milestone for assessing progress 10 years after the Earth Summit of 1992 - the question remains: who gets to define the problems and suggest solutions? And whose interests will those arrangements ultimately serve? Many have their doubts that any real progress will be made in terms of relieving the plight of the poor while preserving the earth's vital life-supporting ecosystems. Without an independent assessment from those most directly impacted by global and national development policies, the official proceedings may become little more than a meaningless congratulatory photo-op for government delegates.  The World Sustainability Hearing www.worldhearing.org, a broadly co-sponsored parallel event to the U.N. Summit, aims to provide this critical assessment by extending the right to participate in these important global governance discussions to everyday people. Instead of letting the usual suspects define the problems and propose solutions, we're letting the people speak for themselves.  Intended as an environmental truth commission, the World Sustainability Hearing (Aug. 26 - Sep. 2, 2002) will put a human face on the impacts of top-down globalization and environmental governance by showcasing the testimony of ordinary people from around the world. Aimed at reclaiming the public sphere from the dominant development process, the Hearing will seek to hold the U.N., member states, and corporations accountable by highlighting the on-the-ground experiences of those working toward positive solutions in their own countries. The Hearing will also address the need to reconcile governance conflicts between global trade institutions and agreements on environmental protection and poverty alleviation - particularly those related to World Trade Organization imperatives and key U.N. conventions.  Like so many others concerned about the disproportionate influence of big business, the Hearing will seek to hold the U.N. process accountable via independent grassroots testimony from a multitude of people with contributions to make in policy developments who are normally excluded. With the very future of multilateral environmental cooperation in doubt, we think it's more critical than ever to create an alternate, well-publicized forum for ordinary people from around the world - those most greatly impacted, yet least represented at the Summit.

COMING TOGETHER: NOTABLE PARTNERS, WITNESSES AND PANELISTS TO ASSEMBLE IN JOHANNESBURG

The World Sustainability Hearing 2002, to be held at St. Stithians College www.stithian.com - just 5 km from the official U.N. Summit site - has received an enormous response from a growing list of over 40 public interest organizations - Ashoka, the Goldman Environmental Prize, Friends of the Earth International (and their member organizations worldwide), Sierra Club International, to name a few. We are also working with the WSSD's Civil Society Secretariat and other South African partners to finalize event logistics.  The majority of the 22 Goldman Prize recipients who will be in Johannesburg will testify at the Hearings. Friends of the Earth Int'l and the International Alliance of Tribal-Indigenous Peoples of the Tropical Forests are gathering panelists and witnesses to testify for the Day of Forests, Indigenous and Forest-Dependent Communities. Members of the international trade unions and the World Forum of Fisher People will testify. And so on with grassroots groups and individuals across the board.  We also are getting acceptances from virtually all the eminent people we've invited so far who'll be in Johannesburg - including FoEI chair Ricardo Navarro, Robert Watson, former IPCC chair, Christopher Flavin and Hilary French from WorldWatch Institute, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Frances Moore Lappé, Robin Round of the Halifax Initiative, Jocelyn Dow from the Women's Environment and Development Organization, Vandana Shiva, and many others. Based on the current response and interest expressed though collaborators, we're expecting to feature some of the best known civil society names attending the World Summit.

VOICES FROM THE GRASSROOTS: HEARING WITNESSES TO OFFER COMPELLING VIEWS

Without an alternate venue designed to coherently elevate the voices of community-based environmental and social advocates from around the globe, important voices simply won't be heard at the official Summit. And yet, there is a wealth of inspiring and innovative approaches and success stories that deserve an airing on this momentous occasion. At the Hearing, attendees will hear from a wide range of under-recognized grassroots activists worldwide with important contributions and recommendations to make toward the creation of a more sustainable world.  Whether empowering women and youth in ecological stewardship, implementing renewable energy and conservation strategies, initiating sustainable and socially just forestry practices, protecting fragile waterways and watersheds, alleviating poverty and securing human rights, boosting the promise of low-impact agriculture, or holding corporations and governments accountable, these under-recognized activists are the very individuals leading and implementing sustainable principles at the local level around the world. Although their testimony may not be given priority in the official U.N. arena, their voices will certainly be heard via the World Sustainability Hearing's high-level engagement with delegates from the official process.

Here's a glimpse into the stories and struggles of some of the participants prepared to give testimony during the World Hearing on Sustainability (for the full Hearing schedule please see below):

  • Lydia Popova (Russia, Day of Energy and Climate Justice) - Popova was a researcher at Russia's Ministry of Atomic Power before, at great personal risk, she became a whistle-blower. Today, Lydia Popova is the director of the Center for Nuclear Ecology and Energy Policy of the Socio-Ecological Union, a federation of some 250 grassroots environmental organizations from across Russia that's helped build a solid and important bridge to the American anti-nuclear movement. Popova offers a critical perspective on important aspects of energy policies being discussed at the World Summit in Johannesburg.
     

  • Nat Quansah (Ivory Coast, Day of Forests & Forest-Dependent Communities) - Faced with deforestation and the loss of many cultural traditions, Nat Quansah began to link issues of health and the environment through the founding of a health clinic in the village of Ambodisakoana, Madagascar in 1994. Quansah's approach - the Integrated Health Care and Conservation Program - makes use of local medicinal plants in the treatment of certain diseases, which has helped local people to understand the importance of saving local botanical resources. Many medicinal plants are even cultivated in the clinic's garden to ensure they won't disappear if destroyed in the wild. Quansah's commitment to finding ways of meeting human health needs while preserving local biodiversity embodies the type of sustainable, equitable development that needs to be reinforced and expanded upon.
     

  • Jorge Varela (Honduras, Day of Oceans, Lakes, Waterways, and Fisher People) - In Honduras, the proliferation of industrial shrimp aquaculture has led to extensive clearing of coastal mangroves, irresponsible fisheries management, and the destruction of estuaries resulting in tremendous pressure on the once-rich fisheries of the Gulf of Fonseca. Since the mid-1980s, Varela has helped spearhead an emerging grassroots movement challenging this appropriation of natural resources and representing over ten thousand subsistence fishermen, farmers, salt extractors, grade school children and local men and women. Today, Varela's organization is one of the most effective and respected NGOs in all Central America.
     

  • Vladimir Korotenko (Kyrgyzstan, Day of Poverty, Human Rights, Women, & Youth) - Currently the Chair of the Youth Ecological Movement (BIOM) (a Bishkek-based non-governmental and non-commercial organization uniting youth, teachers and students from universities), Korotenko brings valuable attention to environmental conservation and the need for developing more ecological practices among the people of Kyrgyzstan. As a civil society organization, BIOM achieves outcomes independent of the central government's efforts and has shown that positive change is possible through engaged citizen action.
     

  • Percy Schmeiser (Canada, Day of Hunger, Agriculture, Water, and Food Security) - As Canadian farmer for over 40 years, Schmeiser's canola fields were unexpectedly contaminated with Monsanto's genetically modified product, Round-Up Ready Canola. Life science industry giant Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola fields were contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene; he must pay their Technology Fee regardless. Schmeiser undoubtedly has a different take on which policies ought to govern agriculture in the public interest than do Monsanto's lobbyists. Schmeiser has joined the World Sustainability Hearing to make his voice and those of independent farmers heard in Johannesburg.
     

  • Laila Iskandar Kamel (Egypt, Day of Democratic Governance and Corporate Accountability) - Knowing how the working poor provide vital recycling services without formal compensation in the South Sinai, Kamel launched a new project in 1997 to harness the practical know-how of young recycling guildsmen in popular tourist towns. The project involved separating the garbage in the whole town into two components, food and non-food, refining the waste into high grade compost which is then sold to agriculturalists, delivering organic matter to the Bedouins who raise their goats and camels on it, and delivering the non-organic to a sorting and processing transfer station. Through her work with the organization Community and Institutional Development, Kamel is bringing together a broad range of stakeholders in each town to create sustainable tourism and livelihoods in the region.


REVIVING GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY

The Hearing will draw vital attention to the people and projects currently contributing to a socially just and sustainable world - and will highlight whose efforts need to be redoubled, adapted elsewhere, and funded to the fullest extent possible. The need for multilateral cooperation in addressing these critical issues must be recognized as the only real way of assessing and improving our entrenched and unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.  Without an independent assessment of the state of global governance, we may not get a second opinion on the state of the world and its peoples. It's time we demand that people-centered values be implemented in effective, participatory programs aimed at true human and environmental security for all.


ON THE WEB

POSITION STATEMENTS BY MAJOR GROUPS, ISSUE CAUCUSES & OTHERS


Ford Foundation Rio+10 Project

Internet: http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php

 

GLOBAL PEOPLE'S FORUM: CIVIL SOCIETY DECLARATION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.nasrec.declaration.php

 

GLOBAL PEOPLE'S FORUM: PROGRAMME OF ACTION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.nasrec.poa.php

 

DECLARATION OF ARAB NGOS
http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.arab.ngos.php

 

WATER COMMISSION STATEMENT

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.water.php

 

BIOTECHNOLOGY & GMO COMMISSION

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.biotech.gmos.php

 

TRADE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.trade.susdev.php

 

COMMISSION: CONFLICT AND PEACE

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.conflict.peace.php

 

SOCIAL PROTECTION AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.social.protection.php

 

COMMISSION ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.global.governance.corruption.php

 

AGRICULTURE COMMISSION SESSION FIRST DRAFT REPORT http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.agriculture.php

 

BIODIVERSITY COMMISSION REPORT

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.biodiversity.php

 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY COMMISSION REPORT http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.climate.change.php

 

OUTCOMES OF THE COMMISSION OF FORESTS

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.forests.php

 

JOBS, LIVABLE WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.employment.php

 

REPORT ON COMMISSION ON DEBT ERADICATION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.debt.eradication.php

 

FINANCING DEVELOPMENT

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.financing.development.php

 

MINING, HUMAN SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.mining.php

 

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.alternative.dev.strategies.php

 

POVERTY AS A PRIORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.poverty.php

 

PARTICIPATION AND ENFORCEMENT

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.participation.php

 

CIVIL SOCIETY MARINE, INLAND FISHERIES AND COASTS COMMISSION

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.fisheries.php

 

POVERTY, RACISM, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.poverty.racism.susdev.php

 

SAFS CAUCUS RESPONSE TO "A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION ON AGRICULTURE" http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.agriculture.caucus.response.php

 

COMMISSION ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DEVELOPMENT http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.technology.transfer.php

 

DECLARATION OF THE "AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES ON LAND AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT" FORUM http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.african.perspectives.php

 

DRAFT APPEAL TO HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENTS http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.draft.appeal.php

 

SUSTAINABILITY AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.sus.organic.ag.php

 

KIMBERLEY DECLARATION (ENGLISH) http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.kimberley.declaration.english.php

 

KIMBERLEY DECLARATION (SPANISH) http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.kimberley.declaration.spanish.php

 

AFRICA TRADE POLICY WORKING GROUP http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.africa.trade.policy.working.group.php

 

CONVERGENCE STATEMENT FROM SMALL FARMERS http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.small.farmers.convergence.php

 

AFRICA CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS: THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.african.cs.orgs.v2.php

 

COMMISSION: LAND AND LANDLESSNESS

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.landless.php

 

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.consumption.production.php

 

POVERTY AS A PRIORITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.millenium.goals.php

 

WOMEN'S ACTION TENT DEMAND

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.womens.action.tent.demand.php

 

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.traditional.knowledge.systems.php

 

LIBERTY THEATER STRATEGY MEETING - 1 AUGUST 2002 http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.liberty.strategy.php

 

LIBERTY THEATRE MEETING - 31-8-02

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.liberty.meeting.php

 

LIBERTY THEATER STRATEGY MEETING SUMMARY - 2 SEPTEMBER 2002

http://www.joburgplus10.org/reports.php?report=reports.liberty.strategy.2002-09-02.php

 

THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION ON BIOPIRACY, BIODIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY RIGHTS

http://www.wtowatch.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Johannesburg_Declaration_on_Biopiracy_Biodiver.htm



MAJOR GROUPS DAILY NEWSLETTERS


ECO-EQUITY

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#8, 4 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/24985/0/issue_eight_with_insert.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#7 3 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/24857/0/issue_seven_with_insert.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#6, 2 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/24639/0/issue_six_with_insertb.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#5, 30 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23906/0/issue_five_with_insert.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#4, 29 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23773/0/issue_four_with_insert.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#3, 28 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23544/0/issue_three_with_insert.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#2, 27 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23359/0/eco2.pdf

 

Johannesburg Summit ECO#1, 26 September 2002

http://a520.g.akamai.net/7/520/1534/release1.0/www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/23235/0/eco_aug_26.pdf


WBCSD DAILY BUSINESS BRIEFS

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development daily updates:

28 August 2002:
 http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/28_August_businessbrief.doc

29 August 2002:
 http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/29_August_businessbrief.doc

30 August 2002:
 http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/30_August_businessbrief.doc

31 August 2002:
http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/31_August_businessbrief.doc

2 September 2002
http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/2_September_businessbrief.doc

3 September 2002:
http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/3_September_businessbrief.doc

4September 2002:
http://www.wbcsd.org/summit/4_September_businessbrief.doc


OUTREACH DAILY WSSD NEWS

Monday 26th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20I.pdf

Tuesday 27th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20II.pdf

Wednesday 28th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20III.pdf

Thursday 29th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20IV.pdf

Friday 30th August
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20V.pdf

Monday 2nd September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VI.pdf

Tuesday 3rd September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VII.pdf

Wednesday 4th September
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/preparations/global/Issue%20VIII.pdf 
 

Return to Johannesburg Summit portal