|
|
World conferences such as the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 are important for discussing global and coming up with a common way forward of tackling challenges that befall us all. The first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil was a real watershed in which environmental issues were placed at the top of international agendas linking development with environment. The litany of broken promises and implementation crisis of Agenda 21 are indicators that the wake up call was heard and governments in developing countries are aware of their rights and responsibilities. At the same time the emergence of pro-sustainable forces in governments, civil societies and even in some transnational corporations (TNC) reaffirms that business is definitely not as usual. At every summit, we negotiate and create new hopes of global partnerships where international economic relations would be the basis of sustainable development in our countries. Unfortunately, the summits have turned out to be platforms for imposition and contradictions where the mighty meet the meek to lobby for issues based on individual special interests regardless of what common sense dictates. A case in point is the failed Cancun conference on Trade.
Delegations from developed nations such as the US, China, Japan, Great Britain attend these meetings buttressed by pragmatic researchers, serious scientists, eagle eyed private investors and seasoned government negotiators focused on their national interests. The world Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg attracted over 20,000 participants from 191 institutions (governments, NGO’s, Intergovernmental authorities, civil society, academic and scientific communities). They assessed progress made so far, reviewed the decisions reached ten years ago, and reinvigorated global commitment to sustainable development. To facilitate broad and effective participation, the Summit was structured in seven thematic partnership plenaries, statements from non-state entities, addressed by Heads of States and Governments and other senior officials, four high level round table discussions on the single theme “making it happen”, and a multi stake holder event. Out of this process that had earlier on been preceded by a broader based preparatory exercise, the Summit negotiated and adopted two main documents. These are the plan of implementation and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. The major areas of disagreements included time bound targets for sanitation, renewable energy, energy subsidies, chemicals and health, natural resource degradation, biodiversity loss and fish stocks. Other contentious issues were the Rio principle that refers to common, but differentiated responsibilities and 15 that addresses precautionary approach. Governance, trade, finances, and Kyoto Protocol were the other issues that generated a heated debate, and consensus could not be reached.
At the end of the day, what seems to have emanated from Jo’burg were just watered down positions and non-committal timelines on almost all issues. My biggest concern, however, is drawn to the capacity, both in numbers and intellect of delegations from developing countries. With new terms being churned out and words assuming different meanings as negotiations were underway, our delegations were overwhelmed and intimidated. Of course, I don’t blame them for seeming lost in the “circus” and sometimes, reduced to spectators. The Jo’burg Earth Summit was not all that bad, despite the fact that participants went back home with nothing to show, but sweet glittering memories of Egoli (city of gold, as Jo’burg is known locally).
The big question, however, still remains to be answered. Why couldn’t developing nations in general and African countries in particular rally behind pertinent issues of special interest to them, such as farm subsidies as in the North? It has been convincingly argued that without these subsidies, African farmers, for example, cannot get a toehold in the western marketplace denying them crucial opportunities to create wealth. I’m reminded of Rio in 1992 when we were armed with African common position that we lobbied for aggressively. Our efforts were rewarded and escorted with a sterile convention to be finalized albeit with no financing mechanisms and all the problems associated with its implementation. All of us then went home happily with the Rio principles, Agenda 21, and the Forest principles. In the ten years between Rio and Jo’burg, very little has been achieved on those very noble documents although the world has experienced drastic changes. These include the HIV/AIDS pandemic, globalisation and liberalisation, corporate near takeover of the world economy and natural resources, emergency of ravenous multilateral institutions such as WTO. In fact, the world poor are now poorer and the state of the world’s environment has deteriorated since the last summit.
The Rio Summit witnessed the formation of many alliances and creation of several initiatives between NGO’s, governments, and the UN. They are the famous multi-stakeholder initiatives designed to promote greater involvement of major groups. The growth and development of Sustainable Development as a concept was remarkable to an extent of being internalised by governments. NGO’s and other civil society groups went full throttle as they challenged any emerging declarations and actions that were contrary to sustainable development.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
victor
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
That is the question... Zorica Vukovic | Aug 27th, 2004
Very indicative article starting with an interesting title - a question that is not philosophical but rather existential - calling for immediate response as it seems. Are the Third World countries serious participants or mere observers is the question that is shaping current issues of leadership on the planet?
Tapping the resources of underdeveloped world happen to be the model of the other part of the world to be more and more developed. We've learned from history that the interests of strong ones are always projected to the course of development of the weak ones, so to speak. The news is that today leadership was meant to make a balance of strength and not a balance of the impact though. No ones interest is to allow anyone else to be (too) weak, but everyone's interest is to take control over the others, make them report to one center of power. Taking control. Allowing growth, but taking the control over it. There is a metaphor of doctor who would be useless if there would be no patients for the disease he can cure, but also the doctor would be lost if everyone except him would be ill. That speaks for the balance and the most turbulent times in the world are those which are dedicated to keeping that balance. Balance doesn
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
