A BRIEF REPORT ON WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WSSD), JOHANNESBURG
|
|
|
A BRIEF REPORT ON WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (WSSD), JOHANNESBURG |
A brief report by Lawrence Correa on behalf of
VIVAT International
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)
process in Johannesburg consisted of two events: A Civil Society Forum, “A
Sustainable World is Possible”, from August 19 to September 4 and UN WSSD
(official UN Summit) from August 26 to September 4, 2002. WSSD was called mainly
to draw up a plan of implementation of Rio Agenda 21, in the light of Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for
Development. It was considered to be an important event of the UN, taking into
consideration economic, social and environmental issues striving to work out a
plan of action/implementation to have a sustainable development that would be
beneficial to all peoples and nations at present and in the future. The real
challenge for WSSD, Johannesburg, however, was different from Rio’s. It was to
address Agenda 21 in the changed scenario of Globalization
and terrorism and to get into the nitty gritty of writing the rules for
implementation rather than just talking about principles.
The
VI delegates, consisting of Lawrence Correa, SVD, co-chairperson of VI, Marie
Jose Garcia, SSpS, and Thomas Nelluvely, SVD, both from Botswana, and Michael
Seigel, SVD, from Japan, participated in both events.
The official UN WSSD began on
August 26, 2002. The theme of the summit was “People, Planet and
Prosperity”. On the whole, WSSD had around 22,000 participants: around 10,000
government delegates, 8000 major groups’ representatives and 4000 media
personnel. The real contentious issues to be hammered out at the WSSD process
were: globalization, subsidies to farmers in developed countries, trade,
corporate responsibility and governance. The financial aspect played a major
role in the debate on the Rio principle of “common but differentiated
approach” and “precautionary principle”. A few of the most developed
countries were resistant to some of the document’s agreements that were aimed
at correcting areas that were making the world unsustainable. It was hoped that
the most developed and influential countries would give in a bit, as the final
document took shape, at informal and corridor meetings between the Govt.
delegates. On the whole, most of the NGOs, including VI, were not too optimistic
about this summit, though some progress was foreseen.
The summit process put special emphasis on five key
areas of action: water and sanitation, energy, health, agricultural
productivity, and biodiversity and ecosystem management, which are known by the
WEHAB acronym. It is worth mentioning here that the United Nations General
assembly, in resolution 55/196 proclaimed the year 2003 as the International
Year of Freshwater. (www.wateryear2003.org).
The
main documents that came out of the Johannesburg summit were: 1. A plan of
Implementation and 2. The Johannesburg Declaration on sustainable Development
(Both are found on VI website, under sustainable development).
VI participation in WSSD, Johannesburg:
(Michael Seigel’s paper on “Debt and Sustainable
Development” is on VI website, under “Sustainable Development”).
Some other important side events VI participated in were:
1. A one-day conference on “What lies beyond globalization? Localization as an alternative”, organized by the New Economics Foundation. The participants tried to analyze the negative impact of globalization on developing countries and how localization could solve some of the problems faced by the poor. Ann Pettitor, director, Jubilee Research, New Economic Foundation, and Miss Vandana Shiva were among the main speakers. The day-long conference also brought out a statement that was given to the delegates and government leaders attending WSSD (The text is found on the VI website, under “sustainable development”).
2. Civil Society March: September 31, 2002: VI actively participated in the Civil Society March, which had some 15,000 to 20,000 supporters.
3. Civil Society Workshop on “Human Rights, Environment
and Sustainable Development” on September 1, 2002. This workshop was designed
to provide participants with the information, tools and resources that will
enable them to use human rights principles and mechanisms to protect the
environment and promote sustainable development. The key speaker was Mary
Robinson, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She explained how she
tried to make substantive and relevant interventions on issues such as the right
to water,
HIV/AIDS, human rights and sustainable development, corporate responsibility and
human rights and the environment. She hoped that the human rights language would
be out of brackets and find its rightful place in the final document. She
acknowledged the role played by NGOs, especially on the issues of environment
and development, as well as of human rights activists, and thanked them for
their appreciation of the leadership the Human Rights office was giving. She
acknowledged the civil society message: “No sustainable development without
human rights.”
4. Special Sunday Mass on September 1, 2002: VI
delegates participated in the special Sunday Mass at Holy Trinity Catholic
Church for the success of the WSSD. Most of the Catholic-based NGOs, the
Vatican, and a few other Government delegates participated in the Mass.
5. VI also participated in a Global governance caucus. The statement of the caucus is available on the VI website under sustainable development.
6. VI also took active part in the “Peace Caucus” that brought out a declaration “No Sustainable Development Without Peace” (Text on the VI website, under sustainable development).
Achievement of the summit:
The major commitments made by the governments
during the summit were “to expand access to safe drinking water, proper
sanitation and modern, clean energy services, as well as to reverse the decline
of ecosystems by restoring fisheries, curtailing logging and limiting the harm
caused by toxic chemicals. In addition to those commitments, many voluntary
partnerships were launched in Johannesburg by governments, NGOs and businesses
to tackle specific projects”
(http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/whats_new/feature_story40.html)
The highlights of commitments are:
To halve, by
the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than
$1 a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (reaffirmation
of Millennium Development Goals).
By 2020, to achieve
a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, as
proposed in the “Cities without slums” initiative (reaffirmation of
Millennium Development Goal).
To establish a world solidarity fund to eradicate poverty and to promote social and human development in the developing countries.
To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people without access to
safe drinking water (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goal).
To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who do not have
access to basic sanitation.
To encourage and promote the development of a 10-year framework of programs to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production.
4. Energy:
Renewable
energy: To diversify energy
supply and substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources
in order to increase its contribution to total energy supply.
Access to
Energy: T
improve access to reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable
and environmentally sound energy services and resources, sufficient to achieve
the Millennium Development Goals, including the goal of halving the proportion
of people in poverty by 2015.
Energy Markets: To
remove market distortions, including the restructuring of taxes and the phasing
out of harmful subsidies.
To support efforts
to improve the functioning, transparency and information about energy markets
with respect to both supply and demand, with the aim of achieving greater
stability and to ensure consumer access to energy services.
Energy
efficiency: To establish
domestic programs for energy efficiency with the support of the international
community. To accelerate the development and dissemination of energy efficiency
and energy conservation technologies, including the promotion of research and
development.
5. Chemicals:
To aim, by 2020, to use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment.
6. Management of the natural resource base:
Water: To
develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by
2005.
Oceans and
fisheries: To encourage the
application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach for the sustainable development of
the oceans.
On an urgent basis
and where possible, by 2015, to maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to
levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
Atmosphere: To
facilitate implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer, by ensuring adequate replenishment of its fund by 2003/2005.
To improve access
by developing countries to alternatives to ozone-depleting substances by 2010,
and to assist them in complying with the phased-out schedule under the Montreal
Protocol.
Biodiversity: To
achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of
biological diversity.
Forests: To
accelerate implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action by countries and
by the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, and to intensify efforts on
reporting to the United Nations’ Forum on Forests, and to contribute to an
assessment of progress in 2005.
7.
Corporate responsibility:
To actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, including through the full development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures, international initiatives and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations.
8.
Health:
To enhance health education with the objective of achieving improved health literacy on a global basis by 2010.
To reduce, by 2015,
mortality rates for infants and children under 5 by two thirds, and maternal
mortality rates by three quarters of the prevailing rate in 2000 (reaffirmation
of Millennium Development Goal).
To reduce HIV
prevalence among young men and women aged 15-24 by 25 per cent in the most
affected countries by 2005, and globally by 2010, also to combat malaria,
tuberculosis and other diseases (reaffirmation of General Assembly
resolution).
9. Sustainable Development of Africa:
To improve sustainable agricultural productivity and food security in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, in particular to halve by 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
To support African countries in developing and implementing food security strategies by 2005.
To support
Africa’s efforts to implement NEPAD objectives on energy, which seek to secure
access for at least 35 per cent of the African population within 20 years,
especially in rural areas.
To recommend to the UN General Assembly that it
consider adopting a decade of education for sustainable development, starting in
2005.
(The above are culled from “Key Outcomes of the Summit”. For details about these and other key outcomes, and key initiatives and announcements from the Johannesburg Summit visit: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2009_keyoutcomes_commitments.doc)
Government delegates in general supported the Kyoto Protocol and the States that have ratified it strongly urged those that have not done so to ratify in the near future. This way the declaration maintained a momentum to move forward the climate treaty. Countries like China, India, Brazil and Thailand announced their ratification of the Kyoto Protocol at the Summit. Russia and Canada have given strong signals that they will ratify it in the near future. The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force 90 days after 55 governments have ratified it, including developed countries representing at least 55% of that group’s 1990 amount of carbon dioxide emissions. As of September 2002, 94 countries have ratified the Protocol– including all European Union member states and Japan, accounting for 37.1%. The ratification by Russia and Canada, when actualized, will fulfill the requirement to bring the Protocol into force (More information available at: www.unfccc.int).
The Earth Charter and the Johannesburg Summit:
In 1987 the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Development issued a call for the
creation of a new charter that would set forth fundamental principles for
sustainable development. The drafting of an Earth Charter was part of the
unfinished business of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The Earth Charter Commission
at the meeting at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris in March 2000, approved a
final version of the Earth Charter. It was hoped that this Charter would be
recognized and accepted by the World Summit at Johannesburg. Unfortunately,
though the draft political declaration prepared by South Africa contained
recognition of “the relevance of the challenges posed in the Earth Charter”,
the final declaration omitted reference to it in closed-door negotiations.
Though this development is disappointing, the spirit of the Charter is seen in
different sections of the Political Declaration. (For details log on to Prof.
Rockefeller’s Johannesburg Report in www.earthcharter.org).
Partnership initiatives were an innovative aspect
of this Summit. It is said that more than 300 voluntary initiatives by
governments, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations and businesses were launched
during the Summit. There have been mixed reactions to these initiatives. While
it is intended that these should complement rather than substitute for
government measures, it is feared that some of the essential commodities, like
safe drinking water, may be privatized, and poor people may have to pay to
access these basic commodities. The privatization of drinking water was already
attempted in Delhi, India and Jakarta, Indonesia. Most of the NGOs, including
VI, have consistently opposed the idea of privatizing drinking water. The
Commission on Sustainable Development is asked to monitor these initiatives as
well and see that these fears are put to rest.
Problems, drawbacks, disappointments:
The main building, where the UN WSSD was being
conducted, had room for only 6000 people, which included service personnel. So,
there was a lot of trouble getting a pass to enter the building. Moreover,
side/parallel events were conducted at different venues in the city. There was a
transport system provided for by the organizers to go from one venue to the
other. But, a considerable amount of time was spent on such traveling.
The
first week at the Civil Society Forum was not that well organized, as the
organizers, the South African National NGO Coalition (SANGOCO) did not have a
schedule of events in place. Things started falling in place to a certain extent
in the second week.
What can be done from now on:
In the political climate the world faces at the
moment, the political will of the national governments to make the world more
sustainable will find this difficult to do, especially when the present
government of the most developed and powerful country in the world is not
supporting the process significantly, even though most other nations do. While
terrorism is certainly bad and a certain amount of resources and funds have to
be diverted to tackle it, one cannot divert the resources and funds meant for
tackling many other serious problems of the world, like extreme poverty,
HIV/AIDS. VI believes that as the poverty, sickness and injustice decrease, the
number of people being drawn towards terrorism or supporting it will also
proportionately decrease. In order that the world become sustainable and
peaceful, one has to first concentrate on solving serious problems that affect
many people in the world.
In order that some of the good decisions taken in
terms of the plan of implementation will be actually implemented, the
governments of every nation will have to pass laws and establish secretariats to
enforce the decisions.
On the other hand, the civil society, especially
the NGOs, will have to keep the pressure on and support movements from below
toward sustainability, both at the local and international levels. The
international movements will be more effective, if the NGOs from those powerful
countries, whose governments hinder the process, make their people aware of the
harm being done and mobilize them to demand a change of policy for the better.
We can see that happening already to a certain extent.
SVDs and SSpS, who are members of VI, could
participate in this movement in different ways: At the local level, to find ways
to identify issues related to sustainability, like water, sanitation, pollution,
HIV/AIDS, eco-friendly farming, deforestation and to see what people can do to
improve the situation. To network with other like- minded people or
organizations in your vicinity and strengthen the movement. To pressurize the
government to pass legislation to implement decisions, arrived at the UN and
other international forums, related to sustainable development. To sign on to
statements and petitions initiated by like-minded NGOs and other organizations
in one’s district, city or country that call for accountability and action by
the government. To send in an action report to VI so that it can be used to
lobby at the UN and also to network with other UN-accredited NGOs.
The Civil Society Forum was poorly organized,
though all the facilities were available for a large meeting. It did not succeed
in bringing different NGOs, especially larger ones, to a common table to draw up
statements for submission to the official UN event. In order that such a
situation is not repeated in the future, Lawrence, as chair of the NGO Committee
for Social Development, made three suggestions during the CONGO meeting with the
CONGO chair in New York on September 12, 2002. They were: one,
the CONGO and NGLS need to take an active part in the organization of future
international civil society Forums. It should not be left in the hands of the
local NGOs alone. Two, the secretariat of the Conference should
communicate in advance regarding entry to and other arrangements at the venue of
the conference. Three, each accredited NGO should get at least one
or two passes to enter the venues and they should be made available in advance.
Conclusion:
VI has been participating either on its own or
through association with other accredited NGOs in several UN Summits and
Conferences in the last two years. Even though one was convinced that some of
the major decisions visualized were essential to justice, peace and integrity in
the world, these decisions did not reach the final agreed upon documents. For
instance, in this Summit, the original themes of poverty, social justice and
environmental degradation, which most of the experts and non-political people
were exercised about, were ignored in favor of talk about a globalized market
economy. It appears that though the UN wants to work democratically and in favor
of peace, poverty eradication, human rights and a sustainable world, its actors,
especially a few from the developed world, together with WTO, are making all
that difficult to implement against the push for an uncontrolled free market
economy. The Johannesburg Summit was the best example of this.
Though, in a way, the “World Summit on
Sustainable Development” in Johannesburg, was the “last chance” for the
world community to save our planet from destruction, one need not lose hope and
stop working. On the other hand, each one of us is called to make an effort to
save this world and make it more livable in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from Mick Seigel’s reflections:
The experience of being at the summit was a very good one. The two participants from Botswana, Marie Jose Garcia and Thomas Nelluvely, brought valuable insights and experience. The outcome of the summit has not been very significant. This may sound too pessimistic and there have been some good indirect results of the Summit. Russia was persuaded to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (thus making it binding in international law) and Australia has agreed to reconsider its stance. Nevertheless, this Summit was in some ways a “last chance.” Of course, there are possibilities of other strategies to deal with these problems—there will be international meetings, but they will be less comprehensive and deal with the issues in a more piecemeal way. One aspect of the summit that was disappointing was the lack of organization and coherence among NGOs.
There are always two approaches to social change—change from below and change from above. The ideal is that these go in tandem, but this time the governments were unwilling to make the necessary decisions. We can still work for a change in our lifestyles, our consumption patterns, our economic behavior, etc. And we can organize to change society from the bottom up. This would seem to be the door that remains open, although obviously we should maintain an openness and willingness to work with governments as well.
--------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from
Thomas Nelluvely’s
reflections:
Mentioning the Civil Society Forum he says, “For the first week there was total confusion. Nothing was properly organized.” As the days progressed, things started falling in place. One major disadvantage was that the various events were held at different locations, far from each other. Though there was a lot of talking about “networking”, each group was busy canvassing people to attend its program. Instead of the like-minded coming together and discussing common policies, each was busy with its own agenda and networking was left to individuals.
And about the official UN WSSD itself he says, “There has been a great deal of horse-trading.” Powerful governments, most especially one leading country, resisted any compromise. Free Trade (WTO) was their baby. Agricultural subsidy was another. The introduction of Renewable Energy within a certain time-frame was a real bone of contention. Many people gave up hope; many even christened the Summit “The Summit of Corruption”. However, the end result, though not up to the expectation, is, indeed, a great achievement, and most people expressed satisfaction at the outcome.
-------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from Marie Jose Garcia’s reflections:
This was my first time at a world summit and as such a great opportunity for exposure. Meeting so many people from all over the world with different backgrounds and interest is a fertile soil for growth. …. I focused on certain topics of interest and relevance to VIVAT and to my present work situation in Botswana, such as poverty eradication, development, women, peace, and health, which relates especially to HIV/AIDS and children. … The distance between venues was a constraint, as much time and energy were wasted in commuting to the different places, so that following up on issues and processes became difficult. There was a lack of proper organization and coordination and this was especially evident at Nasrec the week before the summit.
I joined the civil societies’ march (one of the two marches), which had some 15,000 to 20,000 supporters. It was a very powerful experience. I was sure that the world leaders who were in session at Sandton would have taken notice of the march.
In all these varied, chaotic, enlightening, energizing experiences, I sensed the presence of the Creator Spirit who is present everywhere, ever caring for the world. I am grateful for what I have experienced at Johannesburg and commit myself to continue the process beyond the summit, especially through networking with those who are working towards the same goal – a better world for all.
Back to Sustainable Development