Too many issues remain contentious at Bali meeting

Hira Jhamtani, Board member of KONPHALINDO, An environmental NGO based in Jakarta

After more than a week of tedious negotiations in Nusa Dua, Bali, many issues remain contentious and require further negotiation before they can be resolved and put in the document to be signed by heads of state at the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg later this year.

As of the weekend, the sections on energy, oceans, and trade and finance -- as part of the means of the implementation of the sustainable development action plan -- were still being negotiated in contact (smaller, informal) groups.

There is still another week of negotiation to finalize the plan of action that is to be agreed upon in Johannesburg.

After following the week-long negotiations, the fundamental question remains on whether this plan of action will strengthen the implementation of Agenda 21 to pave the way to sustainable development.

There are basic conditions to be fulfilled to allow sustainable development to be realized.

They include a strong North-South partnership, changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, the existence of additional financial and technological support, reversing the negative trends of globalization and effective governance at all levels.

These need to be reflected strongly in the Chairman's Text/Bali Commitment, yet governments seem to be reluctant to do so.

For instance, the words "common but differentiated responsibilities" which were coined in Rio as the basis for North-South partnership were all bracketed, which means they have not been agreed upon.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities implies that there is a need to address the unequal power relations between the North and the South, particularly economic power relations.

In practical terms, this would mean that the North needs to provide financial and technological assistance for sustainable development, reduce consumption and change production patterns while at the same time forge a fair international trading system.

This responsibility was not fulfilled after Rio, and by not agreeing on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the current Chairman's Text, the North is basically not willing to pick up the burden of sustainable development.

On the changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, the text makes no mention at all of technology assessment.

On the other hand, the dialog paper of NGOs states that changing production patterns would need assessment of technologies to evaluate their environmental, safety, social, health and economic impacts.

It would mean formulating a legally binding agreement on liability, making producers financially liable for environmental impacts of products released into the market.

Sustainable development needs financial resources, but this is one of the most contentious issues in the ongoing preparatory committee (PrepCom) meeting in Bali.

Also, no agreement has been reached on the globalization section.

There are attempts by the U.S. to undermine concerns about the negative impacts of globalization on sustainable development.

But globalization, particularly as currently institutionalized in the WTO, is a rival paradigm for sustainable development and therefore needs to be seriously addressed.

In this regard, NGOs are recommending that the WTO change the focus of its work program from a narrow market liberalization focus to measures that would help achieve sustainable development.

At the same time, rich countries need to provide market access to agricultural and industrial products of the South.

The NGOs have also provided a set of recommendations for the reform of the WTO, including review and reform of intellectual property rules to enable developing countries to afford new technologies, basic medicines and for farmers to have access to, save, sell and use seeds. But many of these issues have not been adequately addressed in the revised Chairman's Text.

Then, global governance for sustainable development needs to be strengthened to create a more balanced global power structure and to balance the negative impacts of globalization.

But there is doubt that such measures will be spelled out in the text that is still being negotiated.

NGOs are calling for the strengthening of UN institutions, including having a clear mandate and providing more resources for agencies such as the Commission on Sustainable Development.

Also, there needs to be coherence between the UN, Bretton Woods Institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) and the WTO.

Another concern for civil society groups is that the WSSD must address corporate accountability seriously. Corporations are currently enjoying privileges without any serious responsibilities.

So, a strong regulation to ensure good corporate governance is needed at an international level. But again, this is a contentious issue and might either disappear altogether or be watered down in the tedious negotiations during which delegates are becoming too tired to think clearly.

But the WSSD is not just about the Chairman's Text or the plan of action, although this is very important. It is about real commitment to sustainable development.

Indeed, we need to be honest about the fact that we all have failed to commit ourselves to the sustainable development agenda.

Without that honest admission, the next program of action, currently being negotiated, will most probably meet the same fate as the Rio commitment.

So, 10 years from now or at the Rio+20, we may be again assessing the commitments made today and find that we failed yet again in the efforts to achieve equitable welfare of communities and a healthy planet.

But we need to be optimistic; we need to convince ourselves that all is not lost. Now is the time to make real commitments, and it is possible to do so.

Indeed, we can look forward to a better situation at Rio+20 if governments and the international community take heed of the prerequisites to the conduct of sustainable development.

This time world leaders, particularly from the North, must demonstrate their commitment to just and fair development or the people will lose faith in the multilateral system, and sustainable development will remain a historical term, untested and unimplemented.

It is not too late to do so. Such commitments could be forged even within the next week.