Unscaled summit? - an enduring process

I can say I am not unhappy with the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Johannesburg. This is because I did not go with inflated expectations to be let down. Events of this nature are not going to change the tide of the opinion of the public and policy-makers in favour of development. But they definitely raise awareness on these issues. This in turn is crucial for shaping opinion within the country and internationally. Johannesburg has to be seen in a historical context of previous meets like the Stockholm Conference in 1972 and Rio Earth summit i 1992. It was basically a follow-up to Rio. Some of the expectations since Rio were met, others not. Rio too did not have a concrete plan of action. But most importantly, there has been much greater awareness in the Nineties that poverty is a basic issue not addressed globally. While Rio had lofty targets, the fact ii that the poor are worse off than before. About 2.8 billion people live on less than, two dollars per day. Inequalities have increased: The richest one billion people receive 78 per cent of annual world income. Though the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into existence at Rio; the climate treaty is yet to be ratified. Bi,)diversity is threatened with 89 million hectares already destroyed in the intermediate period. There are serious problems regarding access to water and sanitation. These have reached crisis levels. Public health is alarming with diseases like AIDS infecting vast numbers of people. We are living in an environment that has worsened rather than improved. There are no resources as well. Official Development Assistance (ODA) promised at Rio never reached 0.7 per cent. Is the situation likely to improve? I am pessimistic. But a summit cannot change things overnight. What is important is the focus on sustainable development and public awareness. In these 10 years, there is heightened awareness guiding the development process. In that respect, the Johannesburg Summit has achieved a great deal. The implementation plan has gone beyond the Millennium Development Goal. Nations have promised to halve people without access to sanitation by 2015, and phase out toxic chemicals by 2005. There is renewed hope about combating climate change, with Russia and Canada sending positive signals about joining the Kyoto Protocol. Rio partly failed not because there was no monitoring, but because there was not enough awareness among the general public' But now civil society is far less patient with Governments and corporates. Not only will there be pressure from within the country but internationally as well for them to perform. Of course, Johannesburg leaves some unfinished business. Developed countries have for the first time acknowledged that their consumption and production are problems. Earlier, these were swept under the carpet. We got statements from a former President that "lifestyles are not negotiable". Now the wording of the text has left an opening. But they leave not made an action plan on decrease in the quantum of energy or raw material used. But far more important than all this is a level-playing field for developing countries. Developed countries are draining the poor economies with perverse subsidies, especially to their own farmers. For instance, in Senegal, people consumed coarse grains that they cultivated. But with high subsidies in cereals like wheat and corn to European farmers, their markets were flooded with these products, and even bread. This led local farmers to ruin. Agricultutal subsidies in developed countries are far more harmful and negate gains made on overseas assistance. The World Bank estimates that removing obstacles to trade boosts incomes in developing countries by anything from $ 200 billion to $ 500 billion a year. This provides an alternative to begging for ODA. Developed countries talk about free trade. What about then removing subsidies in their own countries to benefit developing countries? There was some movement in Johannesburg on Type II initiatives. It is too early to say these will succeed. The fact there were more CEOs at the summit than heads of state is in itself an indication that business is serious. I think this is a healthy trend. Tne UN will have to organise itself India has a larger role in global meetings and should go with a focus and analytical arguments and take other developing countries on board. (As told to Yoga Rangatia of The Pioneer)