The key controversies here at the Summit are:

1. The removal of Northern subsidies on agriculture, and the elimination of Northern tariff and non-tariff barriers on imports from developing countries -- The elimination of agricultural subsidies (amounting to as much as US $1billion per day in the Northern countries) is strongly opposed by the EU.

2. Concrete deadlines for sanitation -- The US wants to "dramatically reduce the proportion of people lacking access to sanitation", while the G77 wants the proportion of people lacking sanitation to be halved by 2015.

3. Concrete targets for renewable energy -- The EU wants strong targets (several options exist in the text -- including a global target to increase the share of renewables by 15 per cent by 2010), while the US opposes such targets. The OPEC, a G77 member, is also opposed to any deadlines. India came under criticism from NGOs for also opposing renewable targets. A member of the Indian delegation told CSE that they oppose the targets because they could be miscontrued under the Kyoto Protocol as targets to reduce emissions.

4. Globalisation -- This continues to be a very controversial area, starting from the very definition of globalisation. The US is not willing to allow a definition that says globalisation is not working for all countries. The linkages between trade and environment are controversial, with the G77 wary of any such linkages, which may be used as protectionist measures against them. The US is also opposed to text on promoting corporate responsibility.

5. The Rio principles - particularly the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' and the precautionary principle -- are still controversial.

6. A suggestion by developing countries to negotiate a global treaty to ensure benefit sharing for local communities also remains controversial.

According to Mostafa Tolba, former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and an old hand at UN environmental negotiations, the final horse-trading between the North and South will take place on these issues, and the WSSD will end in meaningless compromises, like most such meetings in the past.

A development that should cause concern here at the WSSD is the sudden popularity of the so-called Type II agreements (see press release: WSSD turned into partnership market). The US is making every effort to undermine the multilateral nature of the WSSD -- it is shirking its responsibility to give ODA to developing countries by trying to focus attention on the voluntary Type II agreements. This is in keeping with the view of many in the Bush administration who consider multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court or global arms treaties) as unnecessary restrictions on the US.

The Type II agreements became an official part of the WSSD with minimal discussions, despite protests by non-government organisations. What remains to be resolved now is not whether such agreements should be part of a multilateral process like the WSSD at all, but rather who should monitor these partnerships -- either the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) or the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

The fact that 95 per cent of the Plan of Implementation has been agreed to is no consolation to the developing world. Very little has been gained by them so far, and the text seems to merely echo the ambiguities of Rio. For instance, the text once again makes vague commitments to provide assistance to developing countries to access environmentally sound technologies "that are publicly owned or in the public domain".

Similarly, very little headway has been made on the issue of financial aid from the North to the South, with only fuzzy promises to keep the confusing promises made at the Monterrey International Conference on Finance and Development earlier this year. In Monterrey, the US had made it clear that it will tie any such promise of finance to "good governance" in developing countries, which it felt was important to fight international terrorism. Meanwhile, there are no significant promises on part of the Northern countries to seriously address their harmful patterns of production and consumption.

The text on finance also reflects the attempt to move focus from aid to foreign direct investment (FDI), and contains promises to "facilitate greater flows" to developing countries. However, to get this FDI, developing countries will have to "create the necessary domestic and international conditions".