A report back from the Earth Summit
Environment
by Nikki Skuce

The United Nations General Assembly decided in late 2000 to hold the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to both review progress since the Rio conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and to identify further measures to implement Agenda 21 and the Rio agreements. The goal of the WSSD: an action-oriented plan of implementation.

With more right-wing governments in power today with economic growth and military security on the brain, it’s not surprising that a summit on "sustainable development" isn’t given great priority. Despite a more pressing need to address the ever-growing disparities between rich and poor and an environment increasingly endangered, the world leaders weren’t inspired to come up with forward-looking policies that would put us on course towards a better future.

The fourth and final prepatory meeting in Bali left delegates with little hope that much would be resolved and accomplished at the Summit. Delegates arrived in Johannesburg with more than 400 points of disagreement on the plan of action, and without having even begun to discuss the political declaration. Somewhere along the way the environmental component of sustainable development became lost to development and poverty. Between Bali and JoBurg, Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan launched the WEHAB campaign to try to invigorate greater commitment and attention with regards to water and sanitation, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity (WEHAB). In part he succeeded, at least in getting countries to concede on certain issues and in putting the environment somewhere on the radar screen.

With faint hope, the Canadian delegation headed off to Johannesburg at the end of August for the largest UN conference in history. With a wide range of issues being addressed, it wasn’t surprising that the delegation was also substantial. What did surprise me and the other environmental and development NGO representatives and youth delegates (limited to 2 each) was the large number of private sector representatives allowed on the delegation (close to 30). According to the Honourable David Anderson, sustainable development hasn’t worked with governments and NGOs, so there’s a need to try to achieve it with governments, NGOs and the private sector… No one doubts the importance of the private sector to achieve sustainable development and the need for partnerships, but this disproportionate representation and access to decision-makers isn’t acceptable and only reinforced the need for corporate accountability at home and in the WSSD outcome.

The Summit kicked off on August 26th and immediately began the long days of negotiations and separation of contact groups to resolve contentious issues. Negotiators tried to resolve as much they could before being passed on to the Ministerial level. Being negotiated was the Plan of Implementation including: an introduction, poverty eradication, consumption and production, the natural resource base, globalization, health and the environment, small island developing States (SIDS), Africa, other regional initiatives, means of implementation, and institutional frameworks (governance). Major areas of disagreement were around setting time-bound targets especially for sanitation, renewable energy, elimination of perverse subsidies, chemicals and health, natural resource degradation, biodiversity loss and fish stocks; Rio Principles 7 (common but differentiated responsibilities) and 15 (precautionary approach); good governance; trade and finance; globalization; the Kyoto Protocol; and health and human rights.

As the days went on, disappointments grew amongst civil society (and some delegates) with more and more weak paragraphs with "encourage", "promote", "improve", "where appropriate" being agreed to. The dynamics in the negotiating rooms highlighted the differences between nations. Generally speaking the United States against targets and committing to more funds, and pro trade and globalization; the EU, Norway and Switzerland rallying for targets (except where agricultural subsidies were concerned) and in general wanting to push the world further on environmental issues; the G77 (all developing countries) and China pushing the development agenda (more funds, tech transfer, common but differentiated responsibilities) and split on various environment issues (eg. Latin America strongly in favour of new renewables targets and OPEC staunchly against); small island states (eg. Tuvalu, St. Lucia) rallying for strong action around climate change and renewable energy; and middle power countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Canada being at times obstructionist, at times mediators, and at times championing an issue or two (eg. New Zealand on renewables and Canada on human rights).

Greenpeace and FOE international dubbed Canada, Australia and the US the environmental axis of evil. Canada lived up to this reputation with a few exceptions. However, Canada also became the champion of human rights. Members of the delegation (both NGO and government) worked throughout the Summit trying to garner support for Canada’s proposal for a paragraph related to access to health services "in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms". Canada held out the approval of the entire Plan of Implementation for this inclusion. In the end it was only the US, Argentina, the Holy See and a couple of others who were against it, interpreting the right to health care services as meaning abortion. In the end, the language was modified slightly and Canada essentially ‘won’.

Despite having 190 of the 195 eligible nations in attendance and a large number of world leaders speaking about the importance of sustainable development, the Summit ended with a whimper. A few strides were made, including committing to halve the number of people lacking basic sanitation by 2015 and eliminating harmful chemicals by 2020, however the final document has fewer than 35 targets, and most recycled from previous agreements. The goal of the WSSD was to produce an action-plan. Without targets and timetables, nations can not be held accountable. When we look back on Johannesburg in ten years, will we be able to measure its success?

As I prepared to leave the Summit, held in the richest neighbourhood in all of Africa (also ironically set in a shopping mall), I pondered the usefulness of the Summit. Operating by consensus in a globalized world dominated by one superpower, the UN offers a truly international forum where small victories can sometimes have significant impacts. Even though a weak Plan of Implementation resulted, there’s hope that the environment and development are back on government agendas and that most countries, including Canada, will go beyond the lowest common denominator agreed to. The overall answer to the success of the Summit can only be answered with time, but outside of the negotiating halls partnerships were created, networks enlarged, inspiring and innovative projects showcased, ideas exchanged, and evidence shown that people are implementing sustainable development and that it does make a difference. After all, change also comes from the bottom up.

(Nikki Skuce is the Communications Coordinator for One Sky in Smithers. She coordinated the Canadian Earth Summit Coalition last year and produced an alternative report entitled "Summit or Plummet? A call for Canadian leadership ten years after Rio".)

For more information visit: www.cen-rce.org/wssd or write nikki@onesky.ca .

To access the Plan of Implementation and Political Declaration, visit the official site at: www.johannesburgsummit.org.
Back to Fall 02