News Up-dates

1. Press Release: Nusa Dua, June 5
2. Highlights of NGO shadow reports
3. Insights into Prep Com IV, by Lindsay Cole
4. {Brackets} to Johannesburg, by Amelia Clarke
5. Kingston Declaration from the Sierra Club's People and the Planet Conference.

NGOs Challenge Governmental Reports for the WSSD with Alternative Assessments

Are we really on the path to sustainability? This is the question civil society organizations posed to their governments in evaluating progress since Rio a decade ago. While governmental reports claim advances, NGO independent assessments claim overall failure to achieve the goals set out at Rio.

Nationwide coalitions of environmental NGOs from a score of different countries (both South and North) have produced shadow reports to those of their governments. The common theme arising from the shadow reports is that governments have not been doing enough and greater political will is needed to further implement Agenda 21.

At the Indonesian People's Forum (IPF) Monday afternoon (June 3) nine of the countries that have prepared independent assessments for the Johannesburg summit presented summaries of their reports (Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Thailand and the United States). This was the only forum at Prep Com IV where governments' performance has been challenged at the national level for their failure to implement commitments made at Rio.

"Within each country the process of preparing the reports has been collaborative, often forging national coalitions to push for greater action and commitments at the WSSD," noted Nikki Skuce, coordinator of the Canadian Environmental Network's Forum for the WSSD.

The reports follow a similar structure: looking back critically at government performance over the last decade, and providing recommendations for actions and strategies to move forward.

Gidon Bromberg of Friends of the Earth Middle East recommends that: "Governments would do well if they used these reports as a resource for input on national policy and for implementing recommendations and plans of action at both the international and national levels".

The event at the IPF was supported by the Heinrich Boell Foundation.

For further information, contact:
Nikki Skuce: nikki@onesky.ca 
Gidon Bromberg: info@foeme.org 

Highlights of the NGO Shadow Reports:

Canada: Several contributors to the report recognized Canada's high standard of living as impetus to take a leadership position toward change and environmental and social accountability. Civil society organizations are calling on the government to be a leader and show political resolve; to stop being obstructionist in international negotiations and ratify and implement its commitments; and set the course to reduce our ecological footprint.

Costa Rica: Indigenous people in Costa Rica have insufficient knowledge of Agenda 21 and were excluded from the Rio process. Their concerns were inadequately incorporated in the national stakeholder process in the governmental report.

Denmark: After Rio Denmark gained a reputation as a country that is not only willing to talk about sustainable development, but also willing to act and pay for it. This picture is certainly true, at least in some areas.

Ethiopia: Civil society in Ethiopia has no access to decision making processes. The report demands that the Ethiopian government enhance access to information, participation and justice for the overall socio-economic and environmental decision-making process.

Indonesia: The economic growth-led paradigm has proved to be a total catastrophe. Despite a high economic growth rate before the 1997 crisis, Indonesian society suffers from absolute poverty, social injustices, environmental destruction and resource depletion.

Israel: Environmental issues in Israel are generally noticed when they present problems and advocates for the environment are often labelled as impediments to development. The shadow report identifies the theme of environmental justice as a catalyst for political awakening and coalition building in favour of sustainability.

Jordan: A Ministry of Environment must be established and should be equipped with powerful legal instruments and technical and human resources. Effective use of natural resources, especially water, should be ensured and the current uses should be re-evaluated for their environmental, social and health feasibilities and sustainability.

United States: While the U.S. has made many strides toward sustainable development, on balance the United States is farther away from being a sustainable society than it was in 1992. For example, increases in consumption have overwhelmed any gains made through efficiency or pollution control. Stumbling Toward Sustainability sets forth a range of recommendations including the need for a comprehensive national strategy for sustainable development.

3. Insights into Prep Com IV, by Lindsay Cole (Youth representative on the Canadian delegation)

Summary of the Meeting - Official Process
Prep Com IV was the fourth and final meeting of governments and civil society in the lead up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg at the end of August. The primary output was to be a finalized "Bali Commitment," or the Plan of Implementation of Agenda 21. This document was the primary topic of negotiation during the last two Prep Com's, and was to be completed in Bali. It was to fulfill the forward-looking and action oriented mandate given to governments for this summit process. Initial high-level discussions amongst ministers on elements of the Political Declaration delivered at the WSSD were also on the agenda, but this was a secondary objective, and had no major outputs planned for Bali as the final Declaration will be made in Jo'burg.

The "Bali Commitment" was not completed. There are several theories as to why this happened, the most plausible one being that the major negotiating blocks (European Union, G77 and the USA) could not come to agreement on several critical issues, and this blocked agreement. These issues were centered around trade and finance, energy (targets for renewable energy sources and others), and other previously negotiated issues like human rights, the right to be free from hunger, the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities,' good governance, and health care. Negotiators were not working towards consensus on these issues, and instead held firm to their opposing and mutually exclusive positions on these issues. The "Bali Commitment" will now be taken to Jo'burg, and likely be negotiated by heads of state or their representatives and consensus could not be reached by ministers.

Summary of the Meeting - Civil Society
Civil society was generally very concerned with the way that this meeting operated. Many critical sessions were closed to any non-government representatives. The multi-stakeholder dialogue sessions held during the first week were poorly attended by governments, and had no clear input into the preparation of the Bali Commitment. Civil society was very critical of governments sliding backwards on previously negotiated issues, the lack of timelines and targets in the Bali Commitment, and the general feeling that this summit process would not further international movement and progress towards sustainable development.

The partnerships (Type II outcomes) component of the Bali Commitment received very mixed reviews. Civil society was generally in two camps. One group, mostly NGO's, some women, youth and Indigenous Peoples, and trade unions, felt that the Type II outcomes (as currently described) could not be supported. They were not closely linked to clear Type I (government driven) commitments, and had no description of what constituted a 'good' partnership. There is also currently no link between Type I and Type II outcomes in the Bali Commitment, and no plan to measure, monitor and assess Type II's and the degree to which they have enhanced the Type I's. This group felt that partnerships are already occurring in many sectors of the international sustainable development community, and that the WSSD should not be focusing on these, but instead on strong and renewed political commitments. The second camp consisting of business and industry, the science and technology community, farmers, local government, and some representatives from other major groups had largely bought in to the partnership idea. They recognized the importance of partnerships to further the implementation of sustainable development goals, and many are working on new partnerships to launch in Jo'burg.

The Indonesian Peoples' Forum (IPF) paralleled the official PC IV process. Many interesting side events were organized at a site close to the official conference center, and they had a great opening ceremony featuring a women's bamboo orchestra and an Indonesian pop star! During the second week, peaceful protests were organized, and participants had received permission to march past the conference center each day at a set time. This had all been arranged in advance with the local police force. Unfortunately the police did not allow these marches to get anywhere near the conference center, and participants in the IPF got increasingly frustrated. This issue received substantial coverage in the national newspaper, the Jakarta Post. The outputs of the IPF did not have a direct link into the official process, also causing some concern amongst civil society participants. Hopefully these issues will be dealt with in South Africa to allow for more effective participation and expression of civil society.

4. {Brackets} to Johannesburg

By Amelia Clarke, ENGO representative on the Canadian delegation

Below are comments from Amelia on selected environmental topics that were still under contention as of June 5th, 2002:

1. Almost all targets in the text. The United States refuses to commit to any
new targets, until they have a chance to look at them all together (instead of
handling each one on the small working and contact groups). To date no “target
contact group” has been established. It is predicted that once all the targets
and timelines in the text are compiled that countries will start trading
targets in order to keep their priorities. The NGOs are still pushing for ALL
the targets and even the need for some new ones. One of the most controversial
targets for Canada is about renewable energy. NRCan is actively lobbying for
this target to be removed from the text. Hopefully the new head of delegation
will take a more leadership role. The bracketed target reads “[…increase the
share of [non-hydro] / [new] renewable energy sources [by at least 2%] / [with
the objective of increasing the global share to at least 15% of the total
primary energy supply by 2010]. Another example of a target still in brackets
that Canada is lobbying for this target to be kept is [Phasing out lead in
gasoline by 2005].

2. On oceans there is an impasse on the whaling issue. Norway, supported by
Japan wants to add language about the sustainable use of marine living
resources.

3. On energy, other than the renewable energy target there are controversial
issues on the timeframes on removing harmful subsidies.

4. [Common but differentiated responsibilities] is bracketed throughout the
text on numerous issues. Obviously this concept is being promoted by the G77.
Unfortunately they are trying to apply it to almost every reference to
environmental actions.

5. [Strategic environmental impact assessment] concept and the idea of [life
cycle approach] are both still in brackets

6. The idea for a corporate accountability framework is still bracketed. I
will be amazed if this manages to stay in the text.

7. [Promote the further reduction of risks posed by heavy metals and consider
the possibility of addressing heavy metals in an international [legal]
instrument] is still bracketed

7. On desertification, the paragraph on the Global Environmental Facility
(GEF) is still in brackets. In fact references to GEF throughout the text is
still bracketed.

8. On nuclear issues, at one point Russia introduced the idea of nuclear
energy as a clean energy, but this was later removed entirely. There is still
a bracketed section on IAEA and […taking into account the very serious
potential for environmental and human health impacts of radioactive
wastes…transboundary movement of radioactive material, radioactive waste and
spent fuel…arrangements for prior notification and consultations done in
accordance with relevant international instruments].

9. On climate change, the text asking for governments to [make every effort to
ensure energy into force of the Kyoto Protocol] is still in brackets. Norway
is pushing for strong language, now supported by the EU. The USA is trying to
keep any reference to Kyoto out of the text. Canada is trying to play an
intermediary role searching for language that satisfies everyone.

10. On water, the item on [transboundary] watercourses is still in brackets.

11. On biodiversity, [recognize the rights of local and indigenous communities
who are holders of traditional knowledge…] and [negotiate the creation of an
international regime to effectively promote and safeguard the fair and
equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity…] are both
still in brackets. Also the paragraph on enhancing synergy on the CBD and
Doha is still in brackets.

12. All references to the precautionary approach or precautionary principle
are still in brackets.

13. Most of the globalization section was still in brackets as of June 3. The
new text has not been released, but I understand that many of the paragraphs
were moved or combined into the Finance and Trade section of the Means for
Implementation. Generally the northern countries are concerned are about
moving beyond the existing language from Doho and Monterrey, while the
southern countries want to see better language on sustainable development and
access to markets.

14. All references to human rights are still in brackets. Zonny can update you
on this, health, gender, and other developing NGO issues. Canada has really
taken a leadership role (supported by Zonny) on one of the health paragraphs.

15. Another contentious issue has been the listing of existing UN agreements
and conventions (Cairo, Bejing, CBD, etc) as not all governments supported
them initially.

On the partnership initiatives (type 2 outcomes), there have been a couple of
informal dialogues that are developing guidelines. Generally governments are
full-steam ahead on developing partnerships with each other, International
NGOs, and UN Agencies. There is bracketed text in Chapter 10, Intuitional
Frameworks (formally called Governance) in the section on the Commission for
Sustainable Development about reviewing the progress of the partnerships and
discussing ongoing efforts.

Countries are starting to compile their comments for the political
declaration. Rumour is that this will not be discussed here, but may be
created before Johannesburg. There is still a great deal of subjects to be
negotiated and only 3 days left, so we will see how things go.

The People’s Forum started on the weekend. Since then, larger protests have
started. The beach entrances (and probably others) are now guarded by people
with machine guns, and the local newspaper reports that the police have two
water canons on site. I have not seen the news yet, but one of the Indonesians
stated in a press conference today that over a thousand people were protesting
outside the complex. They are protesting participation / consultation in their
government’s sustainable development plans, and neo-liberal globalization in
general. The newspaper also stated yesterday that they are protesting the WTO
and big business involvement in the text. I can hear slogans being shouted
from our hotel, though there is no sign of delegates inside the Convention
Center being aware of the protests. Hopefully that awareness changes at the
day goes on, but unfortunately many governments (including Canada) are staying
in one of 4 large hotels within the guarded perimeter and so can proceed in an
oblivious state.

There have also been the “appropriate” protests of slogans on t-shirts,
messages in newsletters, press conferences, side events, and other actions
within the PrepCom. Today the youth caucus and others walked backwards around
the room to signify the direction the text is moving. Nikki Skuce spoke about
the shadow report at a press conference today. We have been lobbying the
Canadian delegation at morning and nightly meetings, and in the corridors.

If you have any questions or comments on specific sections of the text please
email me at aclarke4@is2.dal.ca 

- Amelia Clarke
Sierra Club of Canada - Atlantic Canada Chapter
and the Environmental NGO on the Canadian Delegation