Argwings Odera and Fiona Macleod
South Africa does not have a national strategy for sustainable development and does not plan to have one before hosting the giant World Summit on Sustainable Development in early September.
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has notified other local players involved in the summit that “meaningful process” towards a national strategy for sustainable development will resume only in October, after the summit.
Outraged NGOs say it will be presumptuous of South Africa to lay down the law on sustainable development to the estimated 50000 delegates expected to attend the summit when the country has not cleaned up its own doorstep.
The NGOs add that the decision leaves them operating in a vacuum in their bid to fight poverty.
Annie Sugrue, head of Midrand Eco-City, which is being touted by the government as a model of sustainable development, says: “Trying to implement programmes like Eco-City without a national strategy makes our work very difficult. Putting it off until after the summit defeats the whole purpose of tackling poverty urgently.”
The United Nations has asked all developed nations to table strategies for sustainable development during the summit. South Africa, classified as a developed country, has undertaken to have its strategy ready before the summit.
“A national strategy is an important framework against which we can measure our development,” says Moss Mashishi, head of the Johannesburg World Summit Company, responsible for co-ordinating the gathering.
The strategy’s ultimate aim would be to give coherence to numerous policies that promote the rights of citizens to a better way of life. The department has been mandated to shape the national strategy.
Discussions with NGOs started in October 2000, but late last month the department suspended any further talks on the topic until October 2002.
Saliem Fakir, representative of the umbrella body IUCN-World Conservation Union, says it is impractical to expect South Africa to formulate a national strategy now, given time constraints before the summit.
“The framework must include economic and social components, as well as environmental concerns. There has been no proper engagement with players in those sectors yet,” says Fakir.
But the Environmental Monitoring Group’s Stephen Law questions whether lack of time is the only reason for suspending the process.
“There has been a fairly lengthy emotional commitment by the bulk of civil society groups towards a strategy for sustainable development. It is not a document with a beginning and end; you have to revise it constantly because of the complexities involved.”
Richard Worthington, speaking for Earthlife Africa, says business interests that represent the economic sector should put more effort into setting up a national framework, instead of “bleating” about poor representation. “It is not the NGOs’ responsibility to ensure strong representation for business,” he says.
Civil society groups are worried that delays in the process will favour industries, because a national strategy may ultimately make sustainable business operations more expensive.
But Zo Budnik-Lee, director of the Industrial Environmental Forum, says while stricter environmental controls will make doing business more expensive, the business sector will ensure its stake in the national strategy is not prejudiced. This is why more time is needed to develop a fair development framework.
“You cannot prevent change; neither can you prevent progress,” she says. “While business is totally committed to a national strategy on sustainable development, you need time to make realistic solutions that are workable and achievable.”
The Congress of South African Trade Unions was caught by surprise about the suspension of the process this week and chose not to comment.
Department representatives, busy promoting a “global deal” on sustainable development at a summit preparatory committee meeting in New York this week, failed to respond to questions on the suspension sent through by the Mail & Guardian.