Instead of discussing fair multilateral rules for global environmental governance, the US is undermining multilateralism by shifting the focus to voluntary partnerships

"The US is trying to undermine the multilateral nature of the WSSD by shifting focus to voluntary partnerships," Sunita Narain, Director of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi, said today. "Instead of agreeing to a rule-based system to govern the management of the global environment, where nations take responsibility for their actions and can be held accountable for them, the US is trying to shift focus onto voluntary agreements that have nothing to do with rules or responsibility, and over which there will be very little control."

Narain was reacting to a US press conference, where Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation, made it clear that voluntary bilateral partnerships, and not the ongoing multilateral negotiations, were of utmost importance to the US. "The WSSD is focusing more on text, more than 35,000 words. These words can’t save the Earth," she said. "We need actions. That is the reason why we have come to Johannesburg with practical partnerships."

Dobriansky had declared that "with the current partnerships, USA (is) the world leader in sustainable development". The focus on voluntary action through partnerships instead of the WSSD process is, however, consistent with the views of many in the Bush administration, which see multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol as an unnecessary restraint on the US.

Unwilling to make any firm commitments or deadlines to fund global sustainable development efforts at the WSSD, the US first proposed the idea of voluntary partnerships in the preparatory process of the WSSD. Despite widespread protests that the WSSD was meant to be a venue for multilateral commitments to strengthen global cooperation and not bilateral partnerships, the idea of Type II agreements -- partnerships between governments, regional groups, local authorities, non-governmental actors, international institutions or private sector actors -- were accepted by governments with minimal discussion.

From outright rejection of Type II agreements, many non-government participants at WSSD have been forced to accept that they will form part of the Summit agreement. They have started lobbying for some sort of control over the free-for-all process, with over 500 partnerships already registered, and more added everyday. Several NGOs and UN agencies have also jumped onto the Type II gravy train, choosing to overlook the dangers of endorsing a voluntary bilateral process at a multilateral forum such as the WSSD.

Such partnerships take the world a step further away from global implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle, where rich countries provide funds to developing countries not out of charity, but instead as payment for using more than their share of the common ecological resources.

Instead, Type II agreements will be riddled by the same problems as existing aid projects, where donors decide priorities. Very few of the registered partnerships so far have come from developing countries. There are already fears that particularly with the involvement of corporate partners, these priorities could range from promoting genetically modified products to privatisation of natural resources in developing countries.

Besides their role in undermining the global process, many other problems plauge the partnerships. Other than three pages of general guidelines, there are no rules to ensure that the partnerships will actually work towards Agenda 21 or the Millennium Development Goals, instead of undermining them. There is currently no monitoring system in place. Although the US has suggested that the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) be appointed the monitoring agency, CSD is unlikely to have the capacity to oversee hundreds of projects among hundreds of partners.

There is also no guarantee that the partnerships bring additional financial gain to developing countries. Instead, old projects are likely to be repackaged. The Economic Cooperation Bureau of Japan has already announced during a Summit press conference that they will be pulling out money pledged to the Global Fund for HIV, TB and malaria to fund water and sanitation projects in the South Pacific.

"Governments do not need a multilateral forum like the WSSD to announce bilateral partnerships," Narain said. "Instead of reducing everything to a business proposition, they should focus this Summit on establishing fair rules for sharing the limited resources of the Earth."