WSSD.INFO NEWS
|
ISSUE 6 20 June – 4 July 2002
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 sixth issue of WSSD.Info News, compiled by Richard Sherman. We hope to provide this service on at least a fortnightly basis from now through the Summit. If you should come across a news article or have a submission for the next issue, please send it directly to Richard. 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.
Contents GENERAL NEWS
ON THE WEB
EDITORIAL/OPINIONS
SPEECHES
GENERAL NEWS
1. THE GREAT RACE The Economist 4 July 2002 Internet: http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1199867 Growth need not be the enemy of greenery. But much more effort is required to make the two compatible, says Vijay Vaitheeswaran SUSTAINABLE development is a dangerously slippery concept. Who could possibly be against something that invokes such alluring images of untouched wildernesses and happy creatures? The difficulty comes in trying to reconcile the "development" with the "sustainable" bit: look more closely, and you will notice that there are no people in the picture. That seems unlikely to stop a contingent of some 60,000 world leaders, businessmen, activists, bureaucrats and journalists from travelling to South Africa next month for the UN-sponsored World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Whether the summit achieves anything remains to be seen, but at least it is asking the right questions. This survey will argue that sustainable development cuts to the heart of mankind's relationship with nature-or, as Paul Portney of Resources for the Future, an American think-tank, puts it, "the great race between development and degradation". It will also explain why there is reason for hope about the planet's future. The best way known to help the poor today-economic growth-has to be handled with care, or it can leave a degraded or even devastated natural environment for the future. That explains why ecologists and economists have long held diametrically opposed views on development. The difficult part is to work out what we owe future generations, and how to reconcile that moral obligation with what we owe the poorest among us today. It is worth recalling some of the arguments fielded in the run-up to the big Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro a decade ago. A publication from UNESCO, a United Nations agency, offered the following vision of the future: "Every generation should leave water, air and soil resources as pure and unpolluted as when it came on earth. Each generation should leave undiminished all the species of animals it found existing on earth." Man, that suggests, is but a strand in the web of life, and the natural order is fixed and supreme. Put earth first, it seems to say. Robert Solow, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, replied at the time that this was "fundamentally the wrong way to go", arguing that the obligation to the future is "not to leave the world as we found it in detail, but rather to leave the option or the capacity to be as well off as we are." Implicit in that argument is the seemingly hard-hearted notion of "fungibility": that natural resources, whether petroleum or giant pandas, are substitutable.
Rio's fatal flaw Champions of development and defenders of the environment have been locked in battle ever since a UN summit in Stockholm launched the sustainable-development debate three decades ago. Over the years, this debate often pitted indignant politicians and social activists from the poor world against equally indignant politicians and greens from the rich world. But by the time the Rio summit came along, it seemed they had reached a truce. With the help of a committee of grandees led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former Norwegian prime minister, the interested parties struck a deal in 1987: development and the environment, they declared, were inextricably linked. That compromise generated a good deal of euphoria. Green groups grew concerned over poverty, and development charities waxed lyrical about greenery. Even the World Bank joined in. Its World Development Report in 1992 gushed about "win-win" strategies, such as ending environmentally harmful subsidies, that would help both the economy and the environment. By nearly universal agreement, those grand aspirations have fallen flat in the decade since that summit. Little headway has been made with environmental problems such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Such progress as has been achieved has been largely due to three factors that this survey will explore in later sections: more decision-making at local level, technological innovation, and the rise of market forces in environmental matters. The main explanation for the disappointment-and the chief lesson for those about to gather in South Africa-is that Rio overreached itself. Its participants were so anxious to reach a political consensus that they agreed to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, which Daniel Esty of Yale University thinks has turned into "a buzz-word largely devoid of content". The biggest mistake, he reckons, is that it slides over the difficult trade-offs between environment and development in the real world. He is careful to note that there are plenty of cases where those goals are linked-but also many where they are not: "Environmental and economic policy goals are distinct, and the actions needed to achieve them are not the same."
No such thing as win-win To insist that the two are "impossible to separate", as the Brundtland commission claimed, is nonsense. Even the World Bank now accepts that its much-trumpeted 1992 report was much too optimistic. Kristalina Georgieva, the Bank's director for the environment, echoes comments from various colleagues when she says: "I've never seen a real win-win in my life. There's always somebody, usually an elite group grabbing rents, that loses. And we've learned in the past decade that those losers fight hard to make sure that technically elegant win-win policies do not get very far." So would it be better to ditch the concept of sustainable development altogether? Probably not. Even people with their feet firmly planted on the ground think one aspect of it is worth salvaging: the emphasis on the future. Nobody would accuse John Graham of jumping on green bandwagons. As an official in President George Bush's Office of Management and Budget, and previously as head of Harvard University's Centre for Risk Analysis, he has built a reputation for evidence-based policymaking. Yet he insists sustainable development is a worthwhile concept: "It's good therapy for the tunnel vision common in government ministries, as it forces integrated policymaking. In practical terms, it means that you have to take economic cost-benefit trade-offs into account in environmental laws, and keep environmental trade-offs in mind with economic development." Jose Maria Figueres, a former president of Costa Rica, takes a similar view. "As a politician, I saw at first hand how often policies were dictated by short-term considerations such as elections or partisan pressure. Sustainability is a useful template to align short-term policies with medium- to long-term goals."
It is not only politicians who see value in saving the sensible aspects of sustainable development. Achim Steiner, head of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world's biggest conservation group, puts it this way: "Let's be honest: greens and businesses do not have the same objective, but they can find common ground. We look for pragmatic ways to save species. From our own work on the ground on poverty, our members-be they bird watchers or passionate ecologists-have learned that 'sustainable use' is a better way to conserve." Sir Robert Wilson, boss of Rio Tinto, a mining giant, agrees. He and other business leaders say it forces hard choices about the future out into the open: "I like this concept because it frames the trade-offs inherent in a business like ours. It means that single-issue activism is simply not as viable." Kenneth Arrow and Larry Goulder, two economists at Stanford University, suggest that the old ideological enemies are converging: "Many economists now accept the idea that natural capital has to be valued, and that we need to account for ecosystem services. Many ecologists now accept that prohibiting everything in the name of protecting nature is not useful, and so are being selective." They think the debate is narrowing to the more empirical question of how far it is possible to substitute natural capital with the man-made sort, and specific forms of natural capital for one another.
The job for Johannesburg So what can the Johannesburg summit contribute? The prospects are limited. There are no big, set-piece political treaties to be signed as there were at Rio. America's acrimonious departure from the Kyoto Protocol, a UN treaty on climate change, has left a bitter taste in many mouths. And the final pre-summit gathering, held in early June in Indonesia, broke up in disarray. Still, the gathered worthies could usefully concentrate on a handful of areas where international co-operation can help deal with environmental problems. Those include improving access for the poor to cleaner energy and to safe drinking water, two areas where concerns about human health and the environment overlap. If rich countries want to make progress, they must agree on firm targets and offer the money needed to meet them. Only if they do so will poor countries be willing to co-operate on problems such as global warming that rich countries care about. That seems like a modest goal, but it just might get the world thinking seriously about sustainability once again. If the Johannesburg summit helps rebuild a bit of faith in international environmental co-operation, then it will have been worthwhile. Minimising the harm that future economic growth does to the environment will require the rich world to work hand in glove with the poor world-which seems nearly unimaginable in today's atmosphere poisoned by the shortcomings of Rio and Kyoto. To understand why this matters, recall that great race between development and degradation. Mankind has stayed comfortably ahead in that race so far, but can it go on doing so? The sheer magnitude of the economic growth that is hoped for in the coming decades (see chart) makes it seem inevitable that the clashes between mankind and nature will grow worse. Some are now asking whether all this economic growth is really necessary or useful in the first place, citing past advocates of the simple life. "God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West... It took Britain half the resources of the planet to achieve this prosperity. How many planets will a country like India require?", Mahatma Gandhi asked half a century ago. That question encapsulated the bundle of worries that haunts the sustainable-development debate to this day. Today, the vast majority of Gandhi's countrymen are still living the simple life-full of simple misery, malnourishment and material want. Grinding poverty, it turns out, is pretty sustainable. If Gandhi were alive today, he might look at China next door and find that the country, once as poor as India, has been transformed beyond recognition by two decades of roaring economic growth. Vast numbers of people have been lifted out of poverty and into middle-class comfort. That could prompt him to reframe his question: how many planets will it take to satisfy China's needs if it ever achieves profligate America's affluence? One green group reckons the answer is three. The next section looks at the environmental data that might underpin such claims. It makes for alarming reading-though not for the reason that first springs to mind.
2. MAJOR NATIONS MULL SUMMIT PLAN Yomiuri Shimbun 4 July 2002 Internet: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20020704wo42.htm In an effort to ensure the success of the World Summit on Sustainable Development that will open in Johannesburg in late August, government representatives of the most powerful nations and South African President Thabo Mbeki, who will chair the meeting, are likely to set up an unofficial coordination meeting, Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said Wednesday. After the final preparatory meeting ended in Bali, Indonesia, in late June without setting an agenda or completing other essential tasks for organizing the conference, the United Nations and several participating governments expressed concerns over the upcoming conference, which will be held to mark the 10th anniversary of the landmark Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
3. DUTCH GOVERNMENT DONATES R25M TO SUMMIT COFFERS Business Day via All Africa 3 July 2002 Internet: http://allafrica.com/stories/200207030057.html THE Dutch government has donated R25m to the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in SA from late August to early September. This has given the project a huge boost, bringing the amount raised to almost three-quarters of the budgeted R550m needed for the summit. Most of the money will be spent on "logistical preparations" such as venues, accommodation and transport. "We are doing our best to ensure all stakeholders are satisfied with the preparations for SA's biggest international event," said Johannesburg World Summit Company (Jowsco) CEO Moss Mashishi. "This is the most important global event for the Netherlands. We are in this together with SA, and we want to be involved," said Dutch ambassador Laetitia van den Assum. She said the summit would tackle "global issues that shape the 21st century", and urged that "every individual should a be part of it". The Dutch government will be heavily involved in some of the parallel events hosted at the summit, especially those targeting water supply and conservation. Mashishi said the summit was not just about discussing problems of sustainable development, but to find solutions on "how to do it". The Dutch donation is among several that have been made by different countries in recent weeks. Jowsco still needs about R150m, and hopes to raise the money in the next couple of weeks. Most of the money needed for the summit has been donated by foreign governments and local and multinational corporations. Hewlett-Packard has been the biggest sponsor so far, with a R40m grant. Jowsco is expecting about 40000 delegates and world leaders. About 15000 people will be needed to run the summit, most of whom will be volunteers.
4. DENMARK SETS OUT AMBITIOUS EU GREEN AGENDA Environment News Service 2 July 2002 Internet: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20020702/wl_oneworld/1032_1025645485 BRUSSELS, July 1, 2002 (ENS) - Denmark took over the European Union 's rotating six month presidency Monday carrying a long and ambitious environment policy agenda for its term directing the bloc's business. Key aims are to secure ministerial agreements on carbon dioxide emission trading and rules for tracking and labeling genetically modified foods. Other points of focus will be a draft environmental liability directive and a new European Union chemicals policy. Denmark takes over from a Spanish Presidency that has pursued a relatively restrained environmental agenda, with national priorities lying elsewhere. The Danes' own overriding political priority will be to complete accession negotiations with European Union candidate countries with a view to enlarging the EU in 2004. Sustainable development is one of the four other headline priorities set out in a presidency program unveiled in Brussels today by Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller, and green issues feature strongly. Danish officials pick out an accord on emissions trading as a crucial target for their first European Council meeting in October. "It's very important to get an effective climate trading system to work for external and internal reasons," one official told reporters today. An enthusiastic supporter of the European Commission 's emissions trading proposal, Denmark will need to work hard to overcome objections from Germany, the UK and Finland. The Commission was disappointed with progress made by the Spaniards and will be pleased to see the file move north to Denmark, which introduced Europe's first, albeit modest, emissions trading system. Another goal for that first meeting is a deal on traceability of genetically modified organisms and labeling rules, to coincide with the entry into force of the newly revised deliberate release directive. "Whether we like it or not, this will bring into focus the moratorium [on new GM crop and food approvals] again," the official said. Denmark's position on this - that new products cannot be commercialized before traceability and labeling are in place - has survived its recent change of government. Copenhagen is also eager to finalize talks on an EU liability regime for environmental damage but has admitted that this is unlikely - member states are still far from agreement on some basic points, while the European parliament has only just begun its deliberations. An ongoing dispute over which committee is leading the process could mean the parliament's opinion is not delivered before the end of the Danish presidency on December 31.
As befits a member of the "Nordic hardline" club on substance policy, Denmark will also make action on chemicals a priority. The presidency has scheduled a public ministerial debate on the issue for its December council to pressure the Commission into proposing draft legislation following a white paper last year. This looks unlikely, however, and Denmark may have to content itself with brokering an agreement on rules for implementing the Rotterdam convention on trade in hazardous substances.
One last major issue that under EU timetabling rules must be settled during Denmark's watch is the conciliation to thrash out new rules on waste electronics recycling and hazardous substance restrictions. Governments have yet to reach a consensus in response to the parliament's second reading on this law, and little movement is expected before September. Other issues that should be advanced during the presidency include access to environmental information under the Arhus convention, emissions from pleasure craft and non-road mobile machinery, and sulfur free fuels. An informal meeting of EU environment ministers on July 19 through 21 will discuss sustainable development in the run-up to the Johannesburg summit which opens August 26.
The largest European federation of environmental organizations, the Brussels based European Environmental Bureau (EEB), submitted its wish list including the EEB's Ten Green Tests, to the new Danish Presidency Monday. Among the EEB's most important criteria for a successful Danish Presidency are: the achievement of a "global deal" at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development; respect for the environment in the enlargement process; initiating major reform of the Common Agriculture Policy; progress on chemicals legislation; adoption of minimum standards for taxation of energy products; an effective system for environmental liability. On sustainable development, to fully include the environmental dimension in the Lisbon process and to further environmental policy integration; to ensure traceability, labeling and liability rules for the use of genetically modified organisms; improved public access to environmental information; improvement of the environmental performance of packaging.
EEB Secretary General John Hontelez said, "Knowing that the Danish government is eager to play a decisive role in developing a progressive chemicals policy for the EU, we very much regret the delays announced by the Commission in presenting its proposals for a new chemicals policy, to protect European citizens and their environment from hazardous substances. "However," said Hontelez, "the EEB does appreciate the Danish environment minister's support and promised participation in an EEB initiated conference to discuss this policy to be held in Copenhagen this autumn." The Ten Tests will serve at the end of the Danish Presidency to assess its achievements. The EEB expressed disappointment in the outgoing Spanish Presidency saying, "For sustainable development, Barcelona was a failure." "The Spanish Presidency also drew the attention of environmental organizations all over Europe for its stubbornness in insisting on EU support for Spain's own National Hydrological Plan, despite unprecedented protests in Spain and demonstrations around Europe over the scheme - a gigantic water transfer plan that will have a major, negative impact on biodiversity and the environment, and which is likely to contravene EU water legislation."
It was "clearly astonishing," said the EEB, that within Spain itself, no dialogue at all took place between environmental organizations and the government on issues related to the Presidency.
5. GLOBAL FORUM WILL GO AHEAD DESPITE BUDGET CUTS SABC News 2 July 2002 Internet: http://www.sabcnews.com/world/summit/0,1009,37674,00.html The budget for the Global Forum -- the meeting of civil society organisations at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) - has been slashed in half, but the gathering will go ahead. The Global Forum is an opportunity for non-governmental and civil society organisations of the world to meet and sketch their vision of how global poverty can be erased while still protecting the environment and natural resources of the world. With about 40 000 delegates expected to attend the gathering, it will be the largest of the WSSD meetings. We have had a few jitters around funding, says the spokesperson for the Global Forum secretariat, Muzi Khumalo, "We received a lot of pledges from potential donors, but very few have honoured their word. But, now we have some commitments in writing, and we are more confident." The South African government has committed itself to ensuring that the Global Forum happens, but it has not yet publicly put any money on the table. The Johannesburg World Summit Company (Jowsco) - set up by the government to deal with the logistical preparations for the Summit - is also trying to help the Global Forum secretariat with its fundraising efforts. Khumalo says the Forum has slashed its budget from R400 million to R200 million - and that it plans to reduce the amount of space it has secured for the gathering and will be cutting back on the amount of facilities it will offer delegates. Jowsco has also taken over some logistical preparations for the Global Forum - like the registration of delegates and provision of transport and accommodation for them. Political problems have been resolved Preparations for the Global Forum were initially delayed by political and ideological differences among the South African non-governmental and civil society organisations charged with organising the gathering. While the political problems seem to have been dealt with, local and international funding agencies are apparently still reluctant to commit money to the Forum. Until now, there has been real concern among organisers of the WSSD that the Global Forum may not happen. "We have no idea what is happening there," comments one official. Khumalo emphatically dismisses concerns that the forum may not happen. "It is happening," says Khumalo, "We are a bit behind on logistical preparations but our technical advisers assure us we will be ready." The big logistical challenge facing the Global Forum is getting the venue ready in time for the gathering. Presently, the venue Nasrec, is an exhibition centre and it must be upgraded to be able to host a conference. Khumalo is also confident that enough preparatory work has been done to ensure the Forum will be able to come-up with a policy document on sustainable development and that it will be able to contribute to the final declaration of the WSSD
6. SCIENTISTS IN DEBATE ON SAVING WORLD EDP24 2 July 2002 Scores of Europe's most eminent scientists gathered in Norwich today. And the main topic on the agenda was the little matter of saving the world. Less than a week after a report said the human race was using the earth's resources at 20pc beyond its renewable capacity, they got together to see what could be done. The Science for Sustainable Development conference at the University of East Anglia, which ends tomorrow, Wednesday, is a forum for scientists to add to the debate about our planet's future.
Its conclusions will go forward to the Government, which is strongly represented at the gathering by the likes of chief scientific adviser Prof David King - a UEA lecturer in chemical physics from 1966 to 1974. They will then form part of the Government's approach at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September - a follow-up to summits at Kyoto and Rio. Prof Trevor Davies, dean of the School of Environmental Sciences at the UEA, said: "It is very important. If all countries adopted the West's way of life we would need three or four planets to sustain us. We only have one.
"We want to make sure that the big questions which are challenging us are on the agenda in Johannesburg."
7. MICROCREDITS' HELP ERADICATE POVERTY Yomiuri Shimbun 2 July 2002 Internet: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20020702wo72.htm Increasing poverty and expanding populations in developing countries are believed to be one of the primary causes of environmental damage from practices such as excessive logging. Thus, eliminating poverty is a top priority for preserving the environment. In fact, the eradication of poverty is the main item on the agenda of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in August. Large-scale bilateral financial aid for developing countries is one possible solution to the problem. However, small loans have also benefited many who suffer from poverty. In a village called Ramsing, about 40 kilometers south of Dhaka, a 40-year-old housewife, named Sairun, lives with her three children. Twelve years ago, she bought a dairy cow with a grant of 50 dollars. Every morning, the cow produced milk, which her husband then sold at market. The couple has since expanded the business, and currently has eight cows and a field in which to cultivate feed. "I had never lived in a 'regular' house. But now, our house has three rooms and it is even resistant to storms. Also, our children are studying at school. I really enjoy working," Sairun said. The initial capital for Sairun's business came from Grameen Bank, which has offered "microcredits" of 200 dollars or less a year to poverty-stricken people in the area in an attempt to help them support themselves. Muhammad Yunus, 62, a former professor in the economics department at Chittagong University, started Grameen Bank in 1976 with 27 dollars of his own funds. The business was later authorized by the government of Bangladesh. Another villager runs a successful sewing business after buying a sewing machine with microcredit. In another case, a villager bought cellular phones and made a profit by renting them to other villagers. Microcredits have revitalized the entire village. Microcredits are advantageous because they support those who suffer from poverty directly, without the intervention of central or regional governments. The U.N. Development Program has adopted the Grameen model and it has spread to 73 countries. On the level of global politics, however, U.S. President George W. Bush has argued that providing financial resources to undemocratic governments does not benefit impoverished people in the country in question. Developing countries, in response, have insisted that average life expectancy in sub-Saharan countries is 30 years shorter than it is in developed countries, and that this continuing disparity represents a mass slaughter by developed countries. The International Conference on Financing for Development was held this March in Monterrey, Mexico. At the conference, the issue of providing financial aid to developing countries provoked heated discussion. Globally, 1.2 billion people live on less than 1 dollars a day. At least 1.1 billion people have no access to safe water. In the least developed countries, one in every five infants dies before celebrating his or her first birthday. Since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, there have been repeated worldwide discussions of the need to eradicate poverty. Poverty and the anger it provokes toward rich, developed countries are sometimes linked with terrorist acts, such as last autumn's attacks on the United States. But developed countries are concerned about the unclear distribution of financial aid in developing countries. They worry that resources might not be used appropriately, even if developed countries increase the amount of aid they provide. The last preparatory committee for the Johannesburg summit met in Bali in June, but the meeting failed to breach the gap between developed and developing countries. Developed countries have asked developing countries to take action to ensure the effective use of financial aid. The action plan adopted at the Earth Summit in 1992 addressed the issue of poverty; however, the plan did not include an actual framework for the assignment of financial aid. Although, the issue of poverty appears in the text of every U.N.-sponsored conference, the two sides of this debate are so divided that the issue has not yet been settled. What is the most effective method of supporting developing countries? This question will be asked once more at the Johannesburg summit. Meanwhile, it seems that the model developed in Bangladesh offers one possible solution.
8. WORLD CONSERVATION UNION PREPARES SA FOR SUMMIT Zimbabwe Standard (Harare) via All Africa 2 July 2002 Internet: http://allafrica.com/stories/200207020692.html The forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August is being viewed as a multi-stakeholder high-level forum that will shape the environment agenda through the regional and international multi-stakeholder dialogues. It is at this summit where individual governments, companies, international organisations, civil society and other stakeholders will take specific positions in relation to poverty, environment, and sustainable development issues in Africa and the whole world. Considering this summit is taking place in southern Africa, IUCN-the World Conservation Union-has seen it imperative to ensure that the civil society in southern Africa meaningfully contributes to both the preparations for and the deliberations at the Summit. Participation of civil society groups is sometimes constrained by a limited capacity and lack of information. IUCN has therefore supported the participation of the region's civil society in key Preparatory Committee Meetings (PrepCom) for the Summit. "There was a clear recognition that civil society contribution to the summit's preparatory process was constrained," said Dr Yemi Katerere, the regional director for IUCN in southern Africa. "IUCN is therefore ensuring effective contribution by existing civil society networks in the summit's preparatory processes in order to raise Africa's position on conservation, poverty and sustainable development both at the PrepComs and the summit." Katerere pointed out that given the importance of the summit in determining the direction for sustainable development, IUCN realised the need to mobilise civil society in the region ahead of the fourth and final preparatory committee meeting. First, IUCN took some representatives from the civil society in southern Africa to a meeting in Dakar, Senegal in May. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the main issues of the summit with about 50 Anglophone and Francophone experts from Africa on the basis of some expert papers that were produced by IUCN. Fannie Mutepfa, the Programme Co-ordinator from Zimbabwe Regional Environment Organisation (Zero), an IUCN member, stressed the role of civil society as she saw it during the Dakar meeting. "We assist in translating the global agreements and strategies into local action, and ensure that the voices and needs of local and grassroots communities are heard and taken into account when drafting global agenda for action." Mutepfa noted that it is important that civil society documents and brings to the attention of leaders the experiences from the field. "This is critical in informing the agenda for the future. "It is up to us-in consultation with national governments-to create the awareness on WSSD at local levels and consult the grassroots communities on their vision for Sustainable Development."
9. ENVIRONMENT ESSENTIAL TO NEPAD'S LIFE The East African Standard (Nairobi) via All Africa 2 July 2002 Internet: http://allafrica.com/stories/200207020300.html Africa is undergoing a major transformation as the Organisation of African Unity is changing into the African Union (AU), a more integration-oriented institution. At the same time, African Heads of State have launched a major initiative, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad), to put the region on the track of sustainable development. What critical role does the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) intend to play within this new environment and the broader context of sustainable development? How will AMCEN influence the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in line with its priorities? How will Africa's environmental perspectives be fully integrated and taken into account in the discussions in Johannesburg? Barely two months before the WSSD, African Ministers and experts are coming together in Kampala next week to discuss these key questions and consequently deliberate on the strategic involvement of AMCEN in the emerging initiatives in Africa and to shape a new vision for the Conference. A vision that should clearly indicate the environmental issues and problems of the continent, the instruments that are needed to address these problems and specific proposals for practical action to be undertaken at all levels. AMCEN, in operation since 1985, has attained modest achievements particularly with respect to provision of regional leadership on issues pertaining to consensus building and regional environment issues. However, the Conference has not risen to the challenge of building the much-needed strategic partnerships with the new global and regional initiatives. To date also, AMCEN has not enjoyed a broad cross-sectoral support at the national, sub-regional and regional levels. AMCEN needs to position itself strategically within the framework of new regional institutional developments such as the AU, Nepad and, most importantly, prepare for the implementation of activities related to the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). In this context, the objective of the ninth session is to provide a platform for the environment ministers to critically analyse the AMCEN in light of the perspectives offered in the context of WSSD and the major developments occurring in the region. Of special significance is the key question on the links between environment, poverty reduction and economic development. In particular, the conference will discuss means of effectively interacting with the African Union and New Partnership for Africa's Development. Ministers are expected to look at, among other things, the need for institutional linkages with the Secretariat and the Heads of State, Implementation Committee of the Nepad, the Commissions of the AU and the sub-regional economic communities. Nepad process has integrated the full development of its environment initiative. Resources mobilised through the GEF by UNEP are being used to support the work of a steering committee. This committee is expected to finalise the draft environment initiative of the Nepad to be tabled before the ninth session. The conference will be looking back over the past 17 years to evaluate its performance in the face of pending environmental challenges and emerging threats such as growing population, poverty, natural disasters, wars, the unabated burden of national debt and diseases. Other challenges include introducing clean technologies, enforcing environmental agreements, empowering of local communities and securing access to the international markets for their goods and services.
10. 'WE WON'T SOLVE CAPITALISM EVILS' The Post (Lusaka) via All Africa 1 July 2002 Internet: http://allafrica.com/stories/200207010104.html WE are not going to solve the general evils of capitalism or unfair trade at the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), said South Africa's environment minister Vally Moosa last week. Addressing Southern African Development Community (SADC) region editors at a media conference on the coming WSSD slated for Johannesburg, Moosa said while the issues of the world economic order and the unfair trade between the developed and developing countries would come up, it would not be possible to resolve them. "It is true that these evils will not be immediately solved at the summit, but the WSSD will help address those other pressing issues which we can solve," he said. Moosa said the world was faced with several problems which would not all be solved at the much publicised WSSD but there was need for the developing countries not to give up their fight. "We have several challenges. We have got one single country, the USA, ruling the world, yes this is unfair," Moosa said. "The same US wants to dump genetically modified crops in Africa but we have a problem, our people are dying from hunger. The only way we can fight this is as a club (unity)." Moosa cited as among other major challenges, the developed countries' failure to give Third World nations access to their markets. He cited the issue of subsidies to farmers in developed countries as adversely affecting the developing nations' agriculture sectors while donor aid was not helping the situation. "In fact a recent study has shown that for every dollar that developing countries receive they lose US $14 billion in trade barriers," said Moosa, quoting the Time magazine. However, Moosa expressed confident that some sound implementation plans would be reached at the world summit slated for Johannesburg in August to help the nations in the world attain the global targets of halving poverty levels by 2015, including access to basic education and water. But civil society leader and researcher Oupa Lehulere, commenting on the minister's statement expressed concern that very little tangible results would be achieved as long as enforcement and implementation of the resolutions was not sound. "To what extent does the United Nations have jurisdiction over the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, we know that it has none," Lehulere said. "Whatever will come out of the summit has been mortgaged to what the IMF and the World Bank will decide." Lehulere said his assumption was based on past experiences. "Fine, Japan may have finally ratified the Kyoto Treaty but the USA is likely to stay out of most of these treaties and will continue polluting while trading this off with other activities," said Lehulere.
11. U.S. LINKS AID, ACCOUNTABILITY IN HELPING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SECRETARY O'NEILL ADDRESSES UN COUNCIL MEETING Washington File 1 July 2002 Internet: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/develop/02070102.htm United Nations -- The right combination of aid and accountability from both rich and poor nations can accelerate the availability of clean water, education, and health care throughout Africa and the developing world, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said July 1. In a speech to a high-level meeting of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, O'Neill discussed President Bush's "Millennium Challenge Account" emphasizing that if nations work together, global poverty can be eradicated "not in the next generation, but right now." "I feel great cause for optimism," O'Neill said. "In the year 2002, I believe we are seeing a breakthrough for human development around the world. From the UN conference in Monterrey this March, through the G-8 summit in Kananaskis last week, a consensus has been forming among the world's economic and political leaders." The ECOSOC meeting, which is being held July 1-3 at UN headquarters, was planned to help developing countries focus on health and education policies and amplify their call for more international aid. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the opening session that ECOSOC must ensure that there is an integrated, results-oriented, systematic follow-up process to pledges made during international development conferences. "Let me stress again: the focus from now on must be implementing the commitments that have been made," he said.
"ECOSOC must give life to the guiding motto of the United Nations in the 21st Century: Putting people at the center of everything we do," the secretary general said. The "Millennium Challenge Account" will increase U.S. assistance to developing countries by 50 percent over the next three years, O'Neill said. The initiative will result in a $5,000 million annual increase by 2006. The account will fund initiatives that support economic growth in countries that govern justly, invest in people, and encourage economic freedom.
O'Neill said that the United States is currently developing a small number of criteria for gauging the leadership and commitment of each nation and determining which will receive the funds. "Too often, aid has been sustenance for bureaucracy, rather than investment in people," the secretary said. Sometimes, he said, donors are at fault, often prescribing western solutions for problems that only local leaders can solve, and giving aid without setting standards for accountability or defining clear measures for success.
Using education as an example of how to gauge "real results," the secretary said that "for primary education we should measure the number of 10-year-olds who have full functional ability to read, write, and compute. That's different than measuring how many children are purported to be in school." Clean water, primary education, and fighting HIV/AIDS are the areas where aid and investments can make a difference in Africa, O'Neill said. "We can help local and national efforts to bring clean water to many towns and villages fairly quickly," the Treasury secretary said. "Working together, we can make an enormous difference in a very short time at a reasonable, achievable cost." In the area of primary education, one starting place would be books, he said. "It would cost only an estimated $18 million per year to buy one textbook for each of four core subjects for every primary student in Uganda, for example. That is a small step but a manageable one, and it would make a big difference in the learning environment for those students, O'Neill said. No area needs investment more than health care, especially in fighting AIDS, O'Neill said. "Prevention of further HIV contagion is the utmost priority, especially to keep the next generation of newborns free from disease."
Key participants in the meeting of the 54-country ECOSOC include national ministers of health and welfare, heads of the World Bank and World Trade Organization, as well as officials of international agencies, including the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), UN Development Program (UNDP), UN Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS. A ministerial declaration giving policy guidance to the UN agencies and member states will be issued on July 3.
12. UN WARNS OF HOT AIR AT JO'BURG SUMMIT Mail & Guardian 1 July 2002 Internet: http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.jsp?a=13&o=5459 A top United Nations envoy on Monday called on member nations to reach a viable agreement on sustainable development at the upcoming Earth Summit in Johannesburg. "If there is no agreement on a plan of action, if there are neither type II (concrete) results nor political statements, the World Summit on Sustainable Development will be a failure," said Jan Pronk, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's special representative for summit preparations. Pronk made his comments at the start of a two-day pre-summit conference attended by 500 French politicians, business leaders and members of non-governmental organizations in the western city of Rennes. The UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, or Earth Summit, is due to be held in Johannesburg from August 26 to September 4. The conference, a follow-up to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, is aimed at coordinating economic growth plans and environmental protection in order to guard against global depletion of natural resources.
About 65 000 people are expected to attend the meeting, including some 70 or 80 heads of state, though most have not yet committed themselves. Pronk, who is also Dutch environment minister, urged heads of state to attend to lend the conference more political weight, and warned against the adoption of empty texts or additions to official documents in preparation.
The final preparatory conference in Bali, Indonesia, ended in disarray last month after delegates failed to agree on key goals. French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin lent his support to Pronk, telling those assembled in Rennes: "We don't have the right to fail." "France wants to take action so that Johannesburg is a success," Raffarin added, noting that Paris was ready to boost its financial aid to developing countries. France currently contributes 0,32% of its gross national product in development aid, compared with the international goal of getting each industrialised nation to commit 0,7% of GNP to aid efforts. - Sapa-AFP
13. PRESS BRIEFING BY SECRETARY-GENERAL’S SPECIAL ADVISER ON MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS United Nations 1 July 2002 Internet: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2002/sachsbrf.doc.htm “We need a real partnership between the rich and poor countries, and a real operational strategy” to address the needs of developing nations, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Millennium Development Goals, Jeffrey Sachs, told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon. He stressed the close connection between those goals and the subject of the high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council, which opened today. [During the Council session, which continues through 26 July, ministers and high-level officials from all over the world will consider the role of human resources development, particularly in the areas of health and education, as an essential factor in the development process. In preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which is set to open in Johannesburg next month, the participants are also expected to address follow-up to the recent Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development.] The Millennium Goals, which were set by the international community during the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, represented the global political commitment to dramatically reduce hunger and poverty and fight pandemic diseases, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, said Mr. Sachs. It was impossible to achieve economic growth with populations succumbing to epidemics and with children not finishing school, for they were not developing skills required in today’s global marketplace. Thus, human development goals in health and education were vital in achieving the goals of economic growth. Today, he said, he had taken part in the first meeting of the Chairs of various task forces of the Millennium Project. That was a project under the auspices of the Secretary-General and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Administrator, designed to make an analytical assessment of how the world could actually achieve those goals. He had also been meeting with leading scholars and practitioners in those areas to initiate the Project, which over the next few years would “try to make a road map, as specific and detailed as possible, to get the job done.”
The reason today’s meeting was so important and the Millennium Project was needed was that the problems facing developing countries were not taking care of themselves. The last 10 years had been a dire period from the point of view of the world’s poorest countries. With spreading pandemics of life-threatening diseases and deteriorating living standards, they were falling further and further behind. At least 100 million children were not attending school, even at a primary level. “We are just losing lives now, at a shocking rate”, he said. The question today in the Economic and Social Council was what to do about it. The answer was that it could not be business as usual, because business as usual could not pull the poorest countries out of the terrible downward spiral they were in. Strategies to deal with the problem did exist, he stressed. For example, between 20,000 and 25,000 lives around the world could be saved every day by applying existing, standard health interventions for impoverished people who currently did not have access to them. That would be affordable, with assistance from rich countries. Such strategies needed to be assessed in critical areas of human resource development areas, such as health, water and sanitation, and education. Asked about how specific the road map would be, Mr. Sachs said that the Millennium Project was mandated by the Secretary-General to try to assess a way forward that could actually work. The road map would talk about areas of neglect, where the problems stemmed either from local or international governance, or where the need for financial assistance was essential. He added that it would be an international effort involving leading international scholars who liked to "tell it like it is", as well as participants from civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the business sector and the United Nations agencies. "But we're going to tell it very straight", he said. The project would have at least 12 outputs, he replied to a further question. There would be 10 separate studies on parts of the Millennium Development Goals, for example on lack of access to water, on the disease pandemics of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and on the question of hunger. There would also be an overall synthesis volume delivered to the Secretary-General, while the Human Development Report for 2003 would focus on the Millennium Development Goals. As for the time-frame, he said, "we're off and running". Those goals were to be met by 2015 -- and he was intent on standing there and cutting the ribbon. That was a serious world commitment, and he did not have years and years to study. Fortunately, there were existing studies from the United Nations and other organizations, so he would not have to reinvent the wheel. He said he would evolve practical suggestions, best practices, and illustrations of what was working and what was not, as soon as possible. The project would run for three years with plenty of outputs in the months ahead. Practical papers would continually be produced, not to sit on the shelf, but to try to move the practice forward. Asked about the effect of war on HIV/AIDS, he said it was most surely a risk factor or a co-factor in the spread of disease. When war had stopped in Uganda at the end of the 1980s, for example, that was the first time a national policy could be put in place that led to a dramatic drop of HIV prevalence. Soldiers and mercenaries in the midst of conflict and surrounded by displaced populations were often transmitters of the disease. So that would have to be looked at. In the general area of poverty alleviation, conflict was a major factor and an objective of the task force that he himself would head. All Member States had signed on to the Millennium Development Goals with their respective obligations, he replied to a further question. The rich countries were committed to being real partners of the poor, including providing financial assistance and helping to create open markets that made it possible for poor countries to grow. Poor countries were committed to doing what was necessary on the ground to make those goals achievable -- because if domestic governance did not work, there was no chance for success, no matter how high the level of international cooperation. His main role was diagnostic. He was also involved in implementation, for example working with governments to help them "scale up" their health interventions. Responding to a question about the different approaches to rich and poor countries, he said he was trying to assess the extent to which barriers faced by the poorest countries were due to insufficient donor assistance or lack of access to rich-country markets. The poor countries were being asked about how much domestic policies could be improved, or the degree to which corruption or discrimination against various ethnic groups were blocking success. He said he was trying to disentangle the story. It was not a simple story, as different regions were suffering for different reasons, and different poor countries faced different barriers. Sometimes it was terrible leadership; other times it was extreme geographical isolation, or very difficult physical or ecological conditions. So he was trying to "pull apart" the various factors causing some countries to fall very far behind in meeting the Millennium Goals. A correspondent asked whether it was predominantly the rich countries that needed to pull back their trade barriers and provide aid, or the poor countries that needed to "rejigger" their State-run economies. Mr. Sachs said "we are not on a good path right now for a significant part of the world -- there are some real pockets of extreme distress". He highlighted sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Asia, particularly Central Asia, and parts of Latin America. The news had not been good for many years in those regions. "We are so far behind where we could be in alleviating international suffering", he said. Action would have to be taken on a number of fronts simultaneously -– better governance internally, fairer trade, and more financial assistance. Turning to the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development, he said he was worried because there was not yet a "clear win". For example, the level of international cooperation on some key issues was still unclear. The Conference was important, as it was really the first major meeting of its kind in 10 years on sustainable development, and "we're not doing well on sustainable development". Not only were the development prospects not looking good for some of the poorest places of the world, but the sustainability of the world's life-support systems had been neglected in the last 10 years. If the Summit produced nothing because rich, powerful countries did not commit to do their part, that could be a terrible blow for the world. Hopefully, he said, it would be possible in the coming weeks to make some substantial commitments with the real weight of political leaders behind them. The Secretary-General had identified five priority areas -- water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. Those were five critical areas and he was looking for real initiatives by rich countries. Asked to describe what he meant by "rich" and "poor" countries, he said the rich nations were the high-income countries, as classified by the World Bank, or the 22 donor country-members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Those were the United States and Canada, Western Europe and Japan, with an average of $25,000 per capita right now. When those countries closed their markets that was the biggest punishment of all for the poorest countries hoping to stay alive and make it on their own. By poor countries, he went on, he had meant the low-income countries, of roughly $750 per capita or below, depending on the classification being used. He added that he was most concerned about the poorest of the poor –- the so-called least developed countries -- which tended to have average incomes of $1 a day or less. The poverty in those countries was so extreme that millions of people were dying each year. While the rich countries had escaped from the crises of absolute poverty and enjoyed a life expectancy of around 80 years, in the least developed countries people were dying decades younger, with children still dying in huge numbers from preventable disease. Studies showed that it was possible for the whole world to enjoy improved living conditions, he said, and that the rich countries, if they made a modest effort, could make a huge difference in helping the poor escape from the trap of poverty. But so far that effort had not been commensurate with the need.
14. ECOSOC PRESIDENT URGES INVESTMENTS, MORE FOREIGN AID IN EDUCATION AND HEALTH United Nations 1 July 2002 Internet: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=4088&Cr=ECOSOC&Cr1= 1 July – The current high-level segment of the United Nations Economic and Social Council should centre on building on the achievements of previous UN global conferences and work towards making an upcoming summit on sustainable development a success, the President of ECOSOC, as the UN Council is known, said today. Speaking at a news conference at UN Headquarters in New York, Ambassador Ivan Šimonovic of Croatia said that the current part of ECOSOC’s annual session, which was attended by senior government ministers and the heads of various international agencies, aimed to improve the health and education policies in developing countries and build momentum towards more international aid. He stressed that the main message of the meeting was that investments in human resources in health and education were productive investments, noting that for example, a $1 investment in health led to $7 in economic output. The three-day segment was also taking place in an extremely important environment, Ambassador Šimonovic said, noting that it came after the International Conference on Financing for Development, held in March in Monterrey, Mexico, and before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, later this year. Furthermore, five of the Millennium Development Goals agreed to by world leaders at the 2000 Millennium Summit were directly related to health and education. In order to achieve them, he said, estimates called for a doubling of official development assistance (ODA), to about $100 billion per year. In echoing that theme, Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Special Adviser on the Millennium Development Goals, Prof. Jeffery Sachs, told reporters that a real partnership between the rich and poor countries was needed in order to achieve the goals in health and education, which were vital for poverty reduction. With spreading pandemics of life-threatening diseases over the past decade and deteriorating living standards, the world’s poorest countries were falling further and further behind, while a least 100 million children were not attending school, even at a primary level, said Professor Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York. “We are just losing lives now, at a shocking rate,” he said. “The question today is what to do about it, and the answer is: It can’t be business as usual, because business as usual is not going to pull the poorest countries out of the terrible downward spiral that find themselves in. We need a real partnership between the rich and poor countries, and a real operational strategy for getting out of this mess.”
15. PEOPLE MUST BE CENTRE OF UN’S WORK, ANNAN TELLS OPENING OF ECOSOC SESSION United Nations 1 July 2002 Internet: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=4080&Cr=ECOSOC&Cr1= 1 July – The international community must seize the unparalleled opportunities offered by the globalizing world in order to achieve greater equity through more sustained and balanced growth, especially in Africa, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) today as it opened its annual session at UN Headquarters in New York. Referring to recent and upcoming UN conferences dealing with international development aid and sustainable development, the Secretary-General said that “the challenge before this Council is to ensure an integrated follow-up process” to the meetings. “The process must be results-oriented and systematic, and it must avoid duplication or fragmentation,” he said in an address to the high-level segment of ECOSOC, a three-day meeting of senior government officials and heads of international agencies. “Let me stress again: the focus from now on must be implementing the commitments that have been made.” The Secretary-General noted that the high-level segment was focusing on the contribution of human resources development to the process of development in general, and that health and education, in particular, were the “twin pillars on which we must build the well-being of individuals, and thus a more healthy, equitable and peaceful tomorrow.” “They are mutually reinforcing: a healthy individual has a better chance of achieving his or her potential; educated individuals have a better chance of remaining healthy, and contributing to the health and development of their family, their community, and ultimately their country,” Mr. Annan said. As for the global economic situation, which was suffering its biggest setback in a decade, Mr. Annan said that poor economies were paying the highest price for the downturn and warned that only limited improvement was foreseen in the developing world for this year. “The statistics do not adequately capture the human suffering and misery generated at the level of the individual and the family,” he said. While the past year offered the UN many challenges, the Secretary-General said, and the year ahead will again put the world body to new tests, its overall agenda and the plan of action for ECOSOC remained the Millennium Declaration – a blueprint for improving the lives of people everywhere in the 21st century. “ECOSOC must give life to the guiding motto of the United Nations in the 21st century: putting people at the centre of everything we do,” Mr. Annan said. “It must make the implementation of the Millennium Declaration its first priority.”
Among those also speaking at this morning’s opening session were Ivan Šimonovic , President of the Council, Horst Köhler , Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Rubens Ricupero Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and Mamphela Ramphele, Managing Director of the World Bank.
For more information please visit: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8294.doc.htm
16. BRAZIL IN BID TO SAVE GREEN SUMMIT FROM DISASTER Independent 30 June 2002 Internet: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=310575 Brazil, long castigated as an environmental villain, last week launched an extraordinary bid to save this year's Earth Summit from disaster. The country's president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, held three days of talks with political leaders and environmental experts from around the world in a last-minute attempt to rescue the summit that opens in Johannesburg in August.
The meeting was officially billed as a "passing of the torch'' from Goran Persson the Prime Minister of Sweden (which hosted the first Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972) to President Cardoso (the second was held here 10 years ago) and on to President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, who will take the chair in Johannesburg. In fact negotiations behind the scenes led to the formation of an alliance between the three leaders and John Prescott to lobby world leaders in what the Deputy Prime Minister called "a race against time''. President Mbeki flew straight from the meeting to the G8 Summit in Canada to try to persuade the leaders of the world's richest countries to get behind the summit. Earlier this month, the last preparatory negotiations, in Bali, Indonesia, ended in almost total failure as a result of the intransigence of the Untied States, backed by Australia, Japan and Canada. Top UN officials here warned that if the Johannesburg summit failed, the world's entire international negotiating system would be at risk.
President Cardoso's initiative marks an big turnaround for Brazil, which was the most outspoken advocate of environmental destruction at the first summit in Stockholm, arguing that pollution should be welcomed because it accompanied economic growth. The country has been one of the main targets of environmental campaigners because of the felling of tropical rain forests in Amazonia. The President admitted that his country's previous stance had been "terrible'', "abominable'' and "insane''.
Jonathan Lash, the president of the prestigious World Resources Institute, described the initiative as "the best hope for saving the summit in Johannesburg, and also the last hope''
17. 'DEVELOPMENT HAS MEANT DEPRIVING POOR PEOPLE OF THEIR RESOURCES' The Post (Lusaka) via All Africa 30 June 2002 Internet: http://allafrica.com/stories/200206300103.html DEVELOPMENT has too often meant depriving the world's poor of their resources, Dr Wolfgang Sachs of Germany's Wuppertal Institute has observed. Launching a memorandum entitled the Jo-Burg Memo for the coming World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) slated for Johannesburg in September, Dr Sachs called for a redefinition of development that would ensure equitable distribution of wealth and social justice. He observed that there had been excessive exploitation of natural resources by only 20 per cent of the world's rich population while the rest of the global population were being denied access to their resources. "Too often, development has meant depriving the poor of their resources to sustainable livelihood for the benefit of the rich who are exploiting resources even beyond their reach," he said. Dr Sachs said as the WSSD was coming 10 years after the Earth Summit held in Rio de Jeneiro in 1992, there was need to take stock of the status of the implementation of the resolution branded Agenda 21. However, Dr Sachs noted that it was a matter of concern that very little had been achieved or implemented, especially at a time when humanity had in the last 25 years outstripped the Earth's carrying capacity ecologically. "It is a challenge for Johannesburg to move beyond Rio," said Dr Sachs, noting that it was further regrettable that the WSSD summit seemed to focus more on development rather than the environment. "It should be noted that equity among nations can't be achieved without the environment." Dr Sachs said he anticipates this approach at the WSSD because most nations still viewed ecological concerns as an obstacle to development. He further observed that the already disadvantaged poor societies who have survived from the environment were now suffering from the depleted fish in their fishing areas, reduced soil fertility in their fields, including fast reducing forests due to "the so called development projects" mostly driven by the corporate world. "Any degradation of the environment means you are increasing these people's vulnerability," he said. Dr Sachs said he expects that it would also be taboo to talk about wealth alleviation even when the rich nations know that this cannot be detached from poverty alleviation, especially when the world's wealth lay in the hands of the rich minority. He called for consumer classes in the developed world to immediately change to resource light production and consumption patterns that were rapidly affecting the Earth's environment. The Jo-Burg Memo was co-ordinated by Dr Sachs and commissioned by the Heinrich Boll Stiftung. It was jointly formulated with the collaboration of 16 other scholars and experts from around the world. And South African scholar Professor Viviene Taylor, formerly of the University of Cape who also took part in the memorandum's formulation, called on world leaders to make people's rights a priority in sustainable development strategies to be tabled at the WSSD. She said there was need to move away from the notion that economic development, regardless of its impact, was justified. Prof. Taylor further called for economic growth in the Third World countries which did not alienate the locals from the production and economic systems. She cited the South East Asian situation where the local people had not benefited from the economic block's boom. And Kenya's Professor Wangari Maathai expressed concern at the world leaders' failure to implement international treaties. However, she noted that the problem did not only lie with leaders on the international scene but also on the African continent's leadership. Prof. Maathai said it was worrying that leaders did not seem to even understand the treaties they were signing . "I am sure our leaders even forget whatever they sign after they leave the summits," Prof. Maathai said. "What is further unfortunate is that, it is these same leaders that we have entrusted a great deal in issues of governance, human rights and sustainable development." Prof. Maathai called on leaders in developing countries to continue lobbying the rich nations for social justice as they were not in any way compelled to change their current stance without such efforts. "Do you think they will push for fairness on your behalf when they know they stand at an advantage to get whatever they want under the current world order?" asked Prof. Maathai.
18. WSSD STRUGGLING WITH MAJOR FUNDING CRISIS |