Executive Summary: Working Group on Environment, Trade and Sustainable Development

Coordinator

Gonzalo Oviedo (Commission mondiale des airs protégés) & Daniel Alexander (Indian Institute for Integrated Rural)

Assistance

Susana Cevallos & Abdullatif Fakhfakh (Mandat International)

A central element framing discussions in the Working Group was Agenda 21 (a comprehensive plan of action for organizations of the UN System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment), in relation to which drawbacks and opportunities for civil society since the 1992 Rio Summit were highlighted. Some of the most pressing issues in the fields of the environment and sustainable development were examined, and took into consideration the views of major civil society groups, such as NGOs, indigenous peoples, and local organizations.

The Group took note of the state of the preparations for the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. Some disappointment was expressed about the fact that expected outcomes for Johannesburg, both legally binding and not legally binding, seem difficult to materialize and will not necessarily reflect what the world’s civil society has been hoping for. The need was stressed for parallel partnerships and alternative arrangements that bring together governments, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations, as a way to complement or enhance the rather limited outcomes that at this stage are foreseeable from Johannesburg.

Criticism was expressed about the position of the US government, clearly uninterested in significant results from the WSSD, a position that is unfortunately followed by a few other developed countries. The complex relationships between demographic issues, environment, and sustainable development were examined, and the Group came to the conclusion that no single, one-way approach to the problem should be taken.

Notably, it was stressed that population growth, although a factor influencing the use of resources and the quality of the environment especially at local levels, should not be blamed as a paramount or universal cause for environmental degradation, as the problem lies mostly in the consumption patterns of industrialized societies, which use and deplete most of the natural resources in the world. The Group considered that addressing population growth requires inter alia better understanding and management of demographic dynamics, including replacement migration, enhancing and improving educational services, raising health conditions, and securing access to employment and livelihoods in an equitable way for all men and women, all this in the context of fully respecting the right of peoples to decide on their present and future.

Energy is at the core of development patterns, and the Group expressed strong concern that the current model of oil-based energy production and consumption is clearly not sustainable and it not only leads to growing pollution and environmental degradation, but also to increased global insecurity because of the geopolitical implications of global powers trying to exert control over oil resources. From all perspectives, the group concluded, energies that are less centralized, closer to the people as consumers, and adaptable to small scale production and management, are preferable and should be given priority in energy development plans.

It was acknowledged that meeting developing countries’ economic needs requires in many cases increased access to energy, thus the answer being not simply one of reducing levels of energy consumption in all cases, but rather making sure that energy developments take into consideration issues of environmental, social, economic, and political implications. It was noted that successful experiences exist already in cities and sectors of activity on the use of alternative energy sources, and that technological aspects of these were not the major obstacle to their development.

Hence, the group strongly encouraged all relevant actors, particularly the private sector whose input in this direction is vital, to make renewed efforts to put energy alternatives at the forefront of the struggle for sustainable development. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, innumerable discussions have taken place in the world about the path to conservation and sustainable management of forests.

The Rio conference produced the so-called Forest Principles, an authoritative, non-legally binding declaration on forest conservation and sustainable management. In the search for appropriate policy instruments, the international community is still discussing, a decade later, ways to ensure those objectives.

This reflects the complexity of the issue and shows that very different and even opposed interests lie behind the debate, not the least being those of the powerful timber companies and the governments supporting them, on the one hand, and the often marginalized and ignored forest-dwelling peoples and communities, on the other. The predominant practice continues to be - mostly in developing countries, but also in some developed countries - that of favouring the interests of insensitive national and transnational companies, while the interests of conservation and livelihoods are pushed aside. The Group took note of examples showing the value of traditional institutions and practices of forest-dependent peoples. They reaffirmed the need to actively support them in the search of policies and actions that simultaneously achieve sustainable management of forests and secure protection of livelihoods and homelands of forest peoples.

A critical assessment of the problems and achievements of international agreements relating to trade and sustainable development was carried out. The group concluded that outlook was bleak; predictions for the results of Johannesburg 2002 on this matter forecasted little progress. The problematic relationship between the three central, interdependent and mutually reinforcing aspects of sustainable development (economic development, social development, and environmental protection) was analysed vis-à-vis the three pillars of the WTO agreements (trading in goods, protection of intellectual property and trading in services). The group recognized the many problems stemming from regulatory and practical impacts of the WTO negotiations, where developing countries are clearly at disadvantage. Likewise, the Group examined the fundamental conflicts between the TRIPS agreement and the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and calls were made to look for ways to prevent the latter from being overridden by trade negotiations.

The group noted with concern the extent to which the current paradigm of free trade has displaced the paradigm of sustainable development and has become predominant, thus contradicting many of the commitments made by countries since the Rio conference in 1992. But as stressed by the Group, free trade cannot solve the most pressing problems of today; notably it cannot solve the problems facing the growing sector of the world living in poverty. Developed countries continue to implement protectionist policies, while at the same time forcing developing countries to put even the most fundamental public services in the hands of the market, and put obstacles to added-value exports from developing countries. Transnational companies are the great winners of this double-standard practice, at the expense of the poor and needy. The case of AIDS drugs was a telling example mentioned by participants.

Furthermore, the Group took note of another alarming consequence of globalization – the loss of cultural diversity due to the imposition of patterns of behaviour and consumption. Loss of cultural diversity is as worrying, or even more so than the loss of biological diversity.

To sum up, an overwhelming consensus in the group was that human and environmental issues should be pushed as firmly as possible in trade discussions, and that developing countries should have more autonomy for developing and implementing their policies for sustainable development.

Agenda 21 identifies indigenous peoples as a major player in sustainable development, and since then indigenous peoples have indeed become a visible and important party to international policy making processes on environment and development. The Group pondered with great interest the experience indigenous peoples’ organizations have had so far in addressing sustainable development issues at international and national levels. They reaffirmed the importance of their contributions, as very often they have not only practised sustainable development in their lands and territories, but have also struggled to keep alive institutions and behaviours rooted in the intimate connection between humans and nature. The group reckoned, that this constitutes a pillar of any positive human attitude toward the environment and sustainable development.

Similarly, great attention should be put to the role of local communities and local governments in sustainable development and in dealing with environmental issues. New governance models, where communities can fully participate and engage in sustainable development without fear of being manipulated and abused, are a fundamental need of our times, and the world should fully support the devising and implementation of such models. Local Agendas 21 were mentioned in the Group as useful tools to move ahead in this direction.

Organic agriculture is a very good example of how traditional and also modern communities can contribute to sustainable development through their own close-to-nature practises. Organic farming is not a new invention, but many innovations enriching and show the great potential it has for meeting the needs of people, while at the same time caring for the land.

The Group expressed clear consensus on the need to support and promote organic farming, and it particularly stressed the urgency of putting in place incentive measures to encourage conversion to organic agriculture, instead of the many perverse subsidies that prevailing chemicals-based agriculture receives in developed countries.

Two issues were repeatedly mentioned in the Group as underlying components of any strategy for sustainable development: education, and ethics. The world not only needs to guarantee everybody’s right to access educational services, but also to develop new educational models, where the true needs of people are addressed, and where strong foundations for ethical values are established.

Education should be a tool to counter the overwhelming and pernicious influence of consumerism on youth. Ethical issues were discussed more in depth by a separate panel on Religion, Spirituality and the Environment, and the Group considered it useful to report on such issues, as they were directly connected to matters under consideration by the Group. It was felt that supporting spiritual values of traditional cultures, and those of humanity at large, would have a positive impact on the attitudes of every human being towards nature and towards other human beings. Spirituality, however, should be dealt with within a framework of full respect for other beliefs, and in open and continuous dialogue with science and innovation.

Declaration of the Working Group on Environment, Trade and Sustainable Development of the World Civil Society Forum in regard to the World Summit on Sustainable Development

1. We, the People and Non-Governmental Organizations participating in the Environment, Trade, and Sustainable Development Working Group of the World Civil Society Forum (meeting in Geneva from 15-20 July 2002), affirm our commitment to work with all others to create a fully sustainable society. We, too, are convinced that urgent and renewed efforts must be made by all countries and people, in a spirit of international solidarity, to achieve sustainable development. Further, we call on all governments to develop plans for full and complete sustainability.
2. We strongly support the Political Declaration presented by the Chair of the Preparatory Committee, Dr. Emil Salim, and firmly request that it be signed as is and should not be negotiated further or weakened in any way. We insist that the countries do much better at honouring their commitments to uphold the Rio Principles, implementing Agenda 21, and achieving agreed development goals, than they have done since the Rio Summit Conference.
3. We also recognize the urgent need for all countries to ratify and fully implement the environmental and sustainable development Conventions and Protocols. Thus we call on the countries to establish a process for reviewing and publishing information as to which countries have ratified and are acting on each treaty.
4. Binding commitments, particularly funding mechanisms, along with short-term targets, timelines, and specific means of implementation, still need to be included in the Implementation Document and should preferably be added now or included through the Commission on Sustainable Development processes.
5. We agree that poverty eradication and changing unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are essential components of the plan of action; but would suggest that "protecting and managing the natural resource base" is inherently of value in and of itself, while also being necessary for achieving economic and social development goals.
6. We would agree that worldwide conditions that pose severe threats include poverty, unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, environmental degradation, armed conflicts, etc. Thus we would suggest that disarmament, non-violent conflict resolution, public health, population, drugs, armed conflicts, and organized crime be specifically included in the plan of action, along with targets, timelines, and means of implementation.
7. Also recalling the Monterrey Consensus and Plan of Action, we urge that specific means for significantly increasing levels of finance should be established and agreed to, with direction given to the Financing for Development process as to how this can be integrated into its activities. Specific commitments must be made to address the priority areas identified in the Implementation and Political Documents.
8. It must be openly recognized that the governments of most developed countries have not kept their commitments to increase the ODA to 0.07% of GNP, nor the target of 0.15 to 0.20 to least developed countries. Thus specific commitments and means of implementation must be established through the Plan of Action to set targets, timelines, and a review process to ensure that these commitments are finally carried out. This should include a review by Commission on Sustainable Development in 2007.
9. In addition, a significant replenishment of the Global Environment Fund is essential for carrying out the Programme of Action, moving towards what is currently spent on unsustainable subsidies, thus increasing by several orders of magnitude in the years to come. Similarly Capacity 2015 must be seen as a primary means of moving towards full implementation in the developing world. It should thus be established as a stand alone programme, rather than as just a part of UN Development Programme’s Core Programme; and a substantial budget must be agreed for it.
10. In addition, a specific protocol should be developed to focus on establishing specific means of financing the full implementation of the Programme of Action. Again, this should drive the on-going Financing for Development process.
11. Full access to world markets is required for developing countries, rather than just better access; and a complete phase out and elimination of trade distorting subsidies is in order.
12. Gender equity and parity must be included as essential elements of both the Political and Implementation Documents along with rights-based ownership and sustainable livelihood statutes.
13. Any references to globalisation must emphasize first and foremost that the benefits and costs of globalisation are very unevenly distributed. This language must be retained in the Political Declaration along with the reference to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. In committing to making globalisation equitable and inclusive, full reform and democratisation of the Bretton Woods Institutions is required. Similarly these institutions must be subservient to UN processes and agreements in the areas of social and environmental sustainability and not the other way round.
14. The Department of Economic and Social Activity Task Group Recommendations on Water, Energy, Agriculture, Health, and Biodiversity should be fully considered by all countries, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society in terms of their activities for implementation. In addition, they should be integrated into specific programmes of action and then reviewed through the Commission on Sustainable Development.
15. Education is one of the most powerful ways for making people aware of the potential outcomes and opportunities of sustainable development. It allows people to develop alternative ways of thinking which are the key to sustainable development. Governments must include sustainable development in education curricula and courses at all levels, appropriate to the respective society, culture, and community. We call on all governments, at all levels, to support the development of and participate in Agenda 21 processes, integrating education for sustainability in all areas of community life.
16. Every precaution must be taken to ensure that the Type II Partnership Initiatives do not lead to further privatisation of public services and that significant funding is given to ensure that they are fully implemented. Support and assistance must also be given for civil society leadership in developing and participating in partnership initiatives.
17. Finally, corporate accountability must be required rather than merely encouraged and a convention to address this matter must be held.

Individual sessions of this working group

1. State of Preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
2. Population and Sustainable Development: Impact of Demographics Changes on the Environment, including Food Security
3. Energy and Waste Management
4. Sustainable Management and Protection of Forests and Biodiversity
5. Impact of International Trade on Sustainable Development and Inclusion of the Environment in Trade policy
6. Impact of international trade on human development and poverty alleviation
7. The role of indigenous peoples and civil society organizations to implement sustainable development, both at the Local and International Levels
8. Wrap-up Session

See also

• Panel on Religion, Spirituality and the Environment
• Information Session on Organic and Sustainable Agriculture
• Youth Forum recommendations on these issues

Presenters

Juanita Castaño, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Bernard Geier, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM); Daniel Alexander, Institute for Integrated Rural development (India), Beward Geir (International Federation of Organic Agriculture); Lawrance Woodword (ELM Farm Research Center); Angelina Briones (University of Binos of Philippines); Rolf Steppacher, Graduate Institute for Development Studies; Alphonse Macdonald, United Nations Population Fund; Urs Thomas, University of Geneva; Benoit Lambelet, World Watch; Joseph Puig, Greenmap; Elizabeth Türk, Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Switzerland; Cecilia Oh, Third World Network, Switzerland; José Maria Cabeiro, World Rural Forum, Spain; Hugo Cameron, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Switzerland; Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Tebtebba Foundation, the Philippines; Patricia Borraz, Almaciga, Spain; Thomas Rwanbuhengo, Consultant; Simon Rietbergen, IUCN Forest Programme; Eugenio Poma-Anaguaya, Secretary for Indigenous People Issues, World Council of Churches; Gonzalo Oviedo, World Commission on Protected Areas - Task Force on Non-Material Values of Protected Areas; Diane Williams, The Temple of Understanding; Rudolf Schneider, Institute for Planetary Synthesis; Alfredo Sfeir-Younis, Special Representative of the World Bank Group to the UN and the WTO; Astrid Stuckelberger, Spiritual Caucus at the UN.