Saliem Fakir, director of IUCN-South Africa Office, debates the chances of the World Summit succeeding – particularly after the failures at Bali.
There were great expectations that the preparatory committee meeting in Bali, Indonesia, in June would deliver a pact that would set the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg sailing. The expectation of arriving at an inspiring plan of action was not fulfilled, and in fact, it is questionable whether the draft implementation plan, can be considered a plan of action or simply broad statements of principle.
It is therefore not surprising that a desperate mood among delegations, and one of nostalgia and frustration among NGOs and the business community, prevailed at Bali. On everybody’s lips was the question: will the World Summit be a success? Bali did not deliver on the much-vaunted request by the chairperson, Professor Emil Salim, for a commitment that he could take forward to Johannesburg. Bali did not deliver on a political declaration, there were no agreements on targets and timeframes for some key areas and there was no conclusion on how to take forward the initial proposal for Type II outcomes which would formalise partnerships between governments, the private sector and NGOs.
Disagreements on targets ensued because some developed countries hold the view that this amounts to a request for additional funds which they are not prepared to commit. It is for this reason that NGOs at the Bali meeting urged government delegates to take unresolved issues to Johannesburg, rather than agree on a bad deal at Bali.
So what has been left for negotiation at the World Summit? Several core areas that would have created meaningful and binding commitments have not been agreed upon. These are in many respects make-or-break issues for the summit and the future of Agenda 21, the action plan for sustainable development agreed at the 1992 Rio conference for environment and development. The United States has voiced opposition to the inclusion of the Rio principle on “common but differentiated responsibility” and is instead advocating individual responsibility. This, in the eyes of many developing countries and NGOs, reflects the unilateralist stance the US has taken since September 11 last year.
This stance is also evident in the US’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and in a recent US report on climate change, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, which suggests that climate change is inevitable, that nothing much can be done to mitigate against it and that countries will have to learn to adapt to these changes. The US’s intransigent position at Bali was shared by Canada and Australia, leading some NGOs to call the trio the “Axis of Environmental Evil”.
The second sticking point at Bali related to issues of trade, finance and globalisation, also known as the “economic platform” of the WSSD. Many developing countries and NGOs saw promise when, at the Doha trade negotiations in November last year, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) appealed to WSSD participants to give consideration to these matters.
Ten years after Rio, globalisation and poverty have become the major challenges facing world leaders and decision-makers. There was an expectation at Bali that negotiations on trade and finance would contain sustainable development principles. However, some of the dominant developed countries refused to accept text that is not consistent with what emerged from the Doha negotiations.
The United Nations Summit on Trade and Finance at Monterrey in March this year reflected on the different dimensions of globalisation and the poverty nexus, such as aid, debt, foreign direct investment and trade. In the end it merely became an aid conference, with the US and European Union replenishing the aid “kitty”, rather than committing to fundamentally changing global financial and trade systems.
To add insult to injury, the US has recently introduced a new Farm Bill, guaranteeing $180-billion worth of agricultural subsidies for US farmers. This, combined with recent protectionist interventions such as an increase in steel tariffs, seems to suggest that in fact free, fair and open trade is being replaced by large-scale protectionism that dismisses multilateral forums as a basis for negotiations.
How do we read all of this? It could mean firstly that the multilateral system for the environment has limited influence and power over other multilateral systems, such as those represented by the WTO. Secondly, the growing culture of unilateralism which is beginning to rub off on to US allies places pressure on the UN system and creates doubts about whether the multilateral system of negotiation is indeed a workable basis for constructing a future that all countries are committed to. Unilateralism is founded on a doctrine of absolute power, rather than compromise and consensus-building that have been the basis of the multilateral system for decades. Unilateralism places economic and security interest above all else. It is for this reason that there is a growing perception that multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), flagships of the post-Rio Summit era, will begin to see their demise. A lack of commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is a good indication of this.
It is ironic that, as the world needs more political will and strength to deal with the negative aspects of globalisation, it is being reinforced by ever more exclusionary measures through protectionist trade, anti-immigration laws and a lack of interest in pursuing real development challenges.
For the MEAs to work, they need consensual politics, based on the principle of common purpose and shared responsibility by the international community. This was at the heart of the Rio principle on common and differentiated responsibilities, which appealed to universal consciousness. It also personified the idea that the world needs to work collectively to resolve global problems, despite the fact that countries have different resources and capacities to deal with these issues. If anything, the principle enshrined a humanistic ethos to dealing with sustainable development issues. This ethos stands to be undermined by unilateralism.
The events at Bali, and at other recent international forums, indicate that the environmental agenda is an increasing irritation and is at loggerheads with those who are pushing for stronger trade liberalisation, greater mobility for corporations and the movement of capital.
Even if the EU wants to present a noble face as regards environmental issues, its real interest is to establish environmental standards as a non-tariff barrier within the international trade rule system. It sees environmental issues not from a social perspective, but from a narrow technical perspective of enforcing standards, which bring a new form of protection. Indeed, the US and EU might agree never to dismantle the subsidy system which is at the core of preventing developing countries from expanding their markets and realising full economic potential.
The events at Bali indicate that we are on a downward slope, where the streets, rather than intergovernmental forums, could well become the place where the environmental, social and equity agendas are fought and determined. This is truly an era of surprises – and there are many yet to come.