Reality and ambitions of world summit on sustainability

Reality and ambitions of world summit on sustainability

By Djauhari Oratmangun and I Gede Ngurah Swajaya

NEW YORK (JP): Last year, the United Nations General Assembly
2000 decided to hold the largest environment and development
event ever. Called the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
or as some prefer to call it Rio + 10 Conference or Earth Summit
2002, it will be held in South Africa in early September 2002.

They also decided that Indonesia would chair the preparatory
process and host the third and final substantive preparatory
session in Mid 2002.

The decision is timely as a balance between economic growth,
development and environmental protection is now more imperative
than ever. Time is running out on the environmental clock and the
international community must act before it is too late.

Thus, the 2002 Summit aims to make a comprehensive review of
the progress and constraints in implementing the outcomes of the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, over the past 10 years.

The UN General Assembly set forth a number of ambitious
targets and programs aimed at saving the environment. It also
sought to initiate a new approach that focuses more on putting
concrete measures into practice. Ambitious ideas include seeking
the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and
the establishment of a global institution on the environment.

It was at the UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm,
Sweden in 1972 that the international community came together for
the first time and succeeded in forging a common vision to save
the environment and humanity from excessive and unsustainable
activities.

It also sought to promote international cooperation to help
developing countries generate economic growth and development.

Almost 20 years after Stockholm, a landmark Earth Summit was
organized in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. World leaders again
pledged commitment and succeeded, among others, in signing two
major international conventions on climate change and
biodiversity.

They also adopted a blueprint for action entitled Agenda 21, a
unique outline for action that linked development and the
environment.

Since then more than 150 international treaties and
conventions and some 500 bilateral agreements on issues related
to the environment and development have already been signed and
have entered into force.

Also, a number of global, regional and national organizations
and mechanisms have been established. For instance cabinet-level
positions for environmental concerns have been created by most
governments.

Yet reality is very different. The quality of the environment
is still rapidly deteriorating while progress in economic and
social development is still lacking, particularly in developing
countries. Numerous scientific reports indicate an alarming loss
of the world's forests and biodiversity.

Global warming remains a serious threat particularly in the
small island developing states; over fishing is rapidly
diminishing ocean resources and scarcity of fresh water resources
and transboundary pollution are potential sources of conflict
between countries.

Within a more globalized and liberalized world economy,
poverty, debt burden and further marginalization of most
developing countries continues.

Lack of commitment in official development aid and decreasing
flows of foreign investment, especially since the financial
crisis, has made it difficult for developing countries in
implementing their commitment to Agenda 21.

The international community should further identify practical
ways and means of dealing with poverty, marginalization and debt
burdens. Continuing unsustainable patterns of consumption and
production, particularly in the developed world, should also be
addressed.

Another reality which emerged in Rio was that not all in the
international community shared a common view on how to achieve
the environmental objectives that were adopted.

This is evident from the stance the United States
administration recently displayed over the Kyoto Protocol and the
issue of climate change. Thus, in the lead-up to the World Summit
on Sustainable Development, the international community is once
again facing major setbacks.

In the years following the Earth Summit, the failure of the
developed countries to deliver on their commitments on official
development aid has been an ongoing reality.

The average annual transfer of official aid over the past
eight years from the OECD countries was, on average, even lower
than the levels made available in 1992, except for Norway,
Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands.

An additional burden facing developing countries is the
negative impact of globalization and trade liberalization.

A crucial issue is that of the capacities and resources of
developing countries. If this situation is not adequately
addressed, common goals are unlikely to be achieved.

Nevertheless some countries have already invested high hopes
in the outcome of 2002 Summit. Mobilization of financial aid and
diffusion of technology is of crucial importance to the
developing countries.

This basic need should be translated into concrete actions and
strong political commitment. No doubt international cooperation
plays an essential role in provision of financial resources.

An estimated average of US$6 billion will be needed annually
to ensure that the program to combat land degradation is
implemented.

Setting out overly ambitious targets should be balanced with a
realistic strategy that takes into account the different stages
of economic and social development of each country.

Discussions on establishing a global environment body
authorized to enforce measures regarding compliance should
consider the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, as noted in the Rio Declaration.

Moreover, the idea of hastening negotiations to reach a final
agreement during 2002 Summit without first achieving a
fundamental breakthrough in resolving partnership and cooperation
issues, particularly in areas of financial resources and the
diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies, is considered
too ambitious.

The agreement reached during the UN agreement of 2000 was
designed both to inject new life into promoting sustainable
development and to seek how best to induce the same level of
political commitment into 2002 Summit, as was evident in Rio.

Both developed and developing countries welcomed the decision
and are looking forward to early, effective and quality
preparations. Preparations at the local, national, sub-regional
and regional levels are underway both at intergovernmental and
nongovernmental levels.

Expectations are high, especially on the need to shift from
the old-fashioned image of talking shop to a new emphasis which
prioritizes concrete actions and partnership.

Finger pointing between developed and developing countries in
the annual review of the implementation of Agenda 21 must end.

A major objective should be the implementation of a global
agreement for reducing global emissions.

Another should be to find concrete global mechanisms to
facilitate commitments including financial aid and technology
diffusion from developed to the developing countries.

The idea of debt swaps for nature was also raised as an
innovative option to address financial needs of developing
countries. Furthermore, the international community should work
very hard to ensure genuine participation of all countries in
addressing common problems.

This should be done in a spirit of partnership and cooperation
and in a responsible manner, particularly regarding climate
change. The opportunities presented for achieving concrete
outcomes are very important. Unless this is taken seriously by
the international community we will end up in the same situation
in 10 years time where we are today, a decade after Rio.

A final word: partnership should also include the business
community, particularly multinational companies operating in more
that 50 countries. It should also welcome the participation of
civil society and relevant non-governmental organizations which
will make the Summit more transparent and inclusive.

In chairing the preparatory process and in hosting the final
preparatory meeting shortly before the 2002 Summit, Indonesia
should feel a special urgency in undertaking its
responsibilities.

This will entail, among other things, seeking to keep engaged
some major countries, both developed and developing, and other
major stakeholders. Such engagement and negotiations are crucial
to ensure that the spirit of partnership is fully brought to bear
on the enormous challenges facing the 2002 Summit.

In that sense, Indonesia's role is closely bound to the
success of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

The writers are currently based in New York.