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.