Too many issues remain contentious at Bali meeting

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.