In a recent edition of the American journal, The Nation, social activist Naomi Klein asserted that the World Summit was a failure because it was “booby-trapped” to fail from the beginning. Melanie Steiner, from the World Wildlife Federation, has suggested that the summit was like “putting a Band Aid over a gaping wound”.
It was to be expected that there would be a multiplicity of comments from the diverse groups and interests that converged on Johannesburg, each seeking to extract from all the
UN-speak a vision or actions that best meet their own aspirations.
What was interesting was the extensive participation of the business community — far more than was evident at the Earth Summit in 1992. Perhaps this is an indication that the business community is beginning to recognise it will have to engage these issues, no matter what.
One of the more significant symbolic gestures was the “peace accord” signed between the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and Greenpeace, committing these two former adversaries to tackling climate change. Both groups castigated some powerful countries and governments for their lack of commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
So some parties got something out of the summit, while others thought it was not worth the effort. There is general consensus, though, that the World Summit on Sustainable Development will probably be the last of the mega-summits.
There is a global sense of summit fatigue. This is enhanced by some of the glaring contradictions of these mega-events, where delegates wax poetic about the challenges of poverty while feasting on sumptuous dishes. Too often these gatherings seem like a grand façade for great talks and no action.
What is one to make of the outcomes of the World Summit? I would like to highlight a few interesting areas where I think progress has been made:
To the chagrin of many “greenies”, the summit brought to the forefront the importance of socio-economic aspects. The summit dealt with a wide range of issues and, although many of the debates were not new, they made significant advances in that an environmental platform was used to reassess sustainable development in a more comprehensive way.
It was a coup to secure a special focus for Africa in the Implementation Plan. Strategically, it was important to use the summit to locate the debate about Africa’s future with the developed world, and to take advantage of the presence of an international audience to highlight Africa’s challenges.
This in itself may not translate directly into assistance for Africa, but certainly lays the platform to drive the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). The opportunity to give Africa exposure needed to be taken because there is tremendous competition from other regions to capture the attention of the international media, and of leaders and thinkers around the globe. Using the summit was a strategic way to facilitate discourse on Africa’s future, and so had great symbolic value.
The Johannesburg Implementation Plan and Political Declaration that were the final outcomes of the summit are all well and good, but they will come to naught if they are not translated into tangible benefits for people on the ground. When it comes to the 30 or so targets set, it is clear the bulk of the work and investment will have to be undertaken by governments and civic constituencies, as global agencies have limited capacity to fulfil all the demands.
It is difficult to ascertain which components of the plan will result in additional and new sources of finance. There has been very little clarity on how these funds will be secured. What channels will be used to manage the flow of funds, and which of the actions in the plan will be given priority?
For instance, although there was agreement on a Global Solidarity Fund for Poverty, there has been no indication of commitment of resources to this fund by the developed world. The only mechanism about which there is clarity is the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which has received an additional $3-billion. The upside is the GEF is to be the principal mechanism for supporting the Convention on the Combating of Desertification. If this materialises, funds will be allocated to supporting natural resource management and land degradation issues in Africa.
There was some discussion about the future of international multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the UN, but it was not taken forward substantively. Some delegates expected that radical transformation of these institutions would be mooted.
I believe we must guard against elements, from both the ultra-right wing and the left wing, who want to undermine the integrity of the UN system and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The left unwittingly plays into the hands of right wing agendas by attempting to weaken the UN, by making it less functional and prone to manipulation by dominant constituencies and countries. There is always a danger that such political posturing will destroy an institution, without replacing it with suitable alternatives that are acceptable to all.
Both the UN and the WTO are problematic institutions. However, we are mistaken in seeing them as monolithic entities, rather than variegated structures that can be engaged positively.
For many developing countries, these are the only institutions where they have a voice, a way to interact with others, to gather information and opinions on trends in policies and positions, and where alliances between like-minded countries can be reinforced. The demolition of these institutions could mean further marginalisation of developing countries, and their possible total exclusion from participating effectively in global policy and governance issues.
The global community lacks adequate platforms outside of the UN and WTO where those who are already weak feel they can participate with some sense of dignity and respect in international forums and debates. The World Economic Forum, the G8, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are exclusive clubs.
Perhaps the role UN-like agencies should be playing is to focus primarily on policy-making, coordination and monitoring, rather than implementation, which has led to some of the confusion and tension between the UN and governments needing support.
Finally, two areas that did not receive enough attention at the summit were the growth of informal economies globally and the rise of regional trade agreements in the future global trade regime. These developments are likely to supersede the role of the WTO in the future. They may even mean that the bashing of the WTO may ultimately be superfluous.
Saliem Fakir is director of the IUCN-South Africa Office.