More pains than gains

If the removal of brackets is an indication of the success of a UN conference, then the WSSD made considerable headway during late night negotiations on Sept. 1. Ministers quickened the pace of negotiations to prepare for the arrival of the heads of state, scheduled to join the WSSD negotiations on Sept. 2.

As expected, the text on contentious issues was weakened considerably to reach consensus. Very disappointingly, no progress was made beyond Doha on the hard issue of eliminating trade-distorting subsidies by the Northern countries. If developing countries can claim any victories, that would be in the agreement to establish a World Solidarity Fund to deal with poverty, and in the agreement to negotiate a global instrument to ensure ‘benefit sharing’ – where local communities get a share of the benefits if their biodiversity or know-how is used to develop a commercial product.

1. World Solidarity Fund: The G77 proposal to set up a World Solidarity Fund for poverty eradication was passed. The UN General Assembly will now decide the modalities of this fund. However, the text makes it very clear that contributions for this fund will be voluntary. In addition to governments, individuals and the private sector are invited to contribute.

Unfortunately, the Fund is a prime example of the lack of preparedness and foresight by the G77. The Centre for Science and Environment had proposed such a fund in the run up to the Rio Summit, but made it clear that the fund should not depend on voluntary donations, but on a global system of taxation. A democratic panel should govern it with equal representation from the North and South, and the funds should be used to promote sustainable livelihoods among local communities.

The G77 however, proposed the Fund without a well-thought out plan on how exactly it will be used to combat poverty. As a result the fund will be nothing more than yet another forum for poor nations to go begging for money in years to come.

2. Trade: Developing countries had hoped that at the WSSD, industrialised countries would commit to phase out trade-distorting subsides in their countries, and also grant exports from poor countries better market access. These two measures would go a long way in ensuring self-reliance and create a level playing field in international trade for poor countries. It has been constantly pointed out at the WSSD that if Northern countries simply stop subsidising their farmers, allowing fair competition for agricultural produce from developing countries in world markets, the total benefit to poor countries would be far more than the flow of official development assistance (ODA) from the North.

However, WSSD has turned out to be a huge disappointment in this respect, as the EU (mostly France) and the US resisted any commitment to reduce their agricultural subsidies and open their markets to goods from developing countries. The best the developed countries agreed to do was to reiterate the vague promise they made in Doha in November 2001. In the Ministerial Declaration from Doha, in the section on agriculture, it was agreed that countries,

…commit (themselves) to comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support.

On the issue of providing market access to non-agricultural exports from developing countries, the Doha statement agreed,

…to negotiations which shall aim, by modalities to be agreed, to reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, in particular on products of export interests to developing countries.

The relationship between the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and multilateral environmental agreements was another controversial area at the WSSD. This has been a sticky issue ever since the Uruguay Round, with the trade and environment regimes often contradicting each other. Several attempts have been made to clarify this relationship in the past, but without success.

WSSD was no exception in this regard. At one point in the negotiations, there was a genuine fear that all environment agreements would have to be made ‘consistent with WTO rights and obligations’, thus conferring even more power to the trade body. After protracted negotiations, however, it was only decided that governments ‘enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development’ -- leaving existing controversies unresolved.

1. Finance: No additional funds have been committed at WSSD. The only concession that developing countries got was that the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) would follow up on both the WSSD and the outcomes of the Monterrey conference on Finance for Sustainable Development.

2. Rio principles: Developing countries were able to keep the references to the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ of rich and poor countries in the text. It was agreed to refer to a ‘precautionary approach’ instead of a ‘precautionary principle’.

3. Instrument for benefit sharing: It was agreed that an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources be negotiated within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

4. Biodiversity loss: Earlier text called on countries to achieve a significant reduction n biodiversity loss by 2010. The final agreement does not include the 2010 deadline --countries agreed to ‘achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biodiversity’, provided new and additional financial and technical resources were made available.

5. Fisheries: The fact that the US agreed to a deadline to 'maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on a urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015’ was touted as a major success, since getting the US to agree to any deadline had been so difficult.

6. Sanitation: Japan, New Zealand and the US finally agreed to the target to halve the number of people with access to improved sanitation by 2015 -- another successful deadline despite US pressure.

7. Sustainable production and consumption: The text on promoting sustainable production and consumption is weak, and puts very little pressure on developed countries to change their environmentally harmful lifestyles. The EU had proposed a 10-year work programme for all countries to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production. Opposition from G77 and Japan, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand diluted this proposal, and countries now merely have to ‘Encourage and promote the development’ of 10-year ‘framework of programmes’ towards sustainable consumption and production.

8. Governance: The text on governance was accepted with minor changes after South African Environment Minister Valli Moosa presented it to the ministers on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. Although there were some concerns with the text, it was agreed with two minor changes. The final text was not available at the time of writing.

9. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: the US was unwilling to allow any call to countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Convoluted language was finally agreed to, where 'States that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol strongly urge states that have not done so to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in a timely manner'.

The issue of concrete targets for renewable energy still remains controversial here at the WSSD, and is being discussed at the Ministerial level. The EU is pushing for:

• renewable energy technologies to form at least 15 per cent of the total primary energy supply by 2010, through the implementation of ambitious national goals;
• developed countries to commit to a goal to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the total energy supply by at least 2 per cent by 2010, relative to 2000; and
• consider action to phase out energy subsidies that inhibit sustainable development.

But the G77 is only willing to commit to a general agreement to move to cleaner technologies, if the technologies are provided to them on concessional terms, and the phasing out of subsidies that have market-distorting and socially and environmentally damaging impacts. It remains to be seen where the compromise will be struck.