|
|
 |
| Sunday, 2 June 2002 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Can a World Summit help achieve Global Sustainability? by Uchita de Zoysa Ten years ago Mr. Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary General called nations to act upon, as it was the 'last chance to save the earth.' Ten years later, neither the Secretary General of WSSD, Mr. Nitin Desai, nor the Chairman of the preparatory Meetings of WSSD, Dr. Emil Salim, nor the Executive Director of UNEP Dr. Klaus Topfer are calling the same tune. Similarly, organisations and individuals representing civil society while demanding economic, environmental and social justice, are not claiming that there we have one more chance to save the earth. It seems that everyone is simply requesting governments to keep to their financial commitments made at UNCED ten years ago. Is this adequate to achieve sustainable development? or have we really lost hope for us on Earth? If you have been left out of this global debate up to now, it is time to join in. In fact a majority of the worlds citizens are not aware that there is an effort to save our common future on earth. This is due to the fact that the future of the common people has always been decided by a few, while identifying it as the common future of the people. In this regard some efforts made by certain fractions of the civil society are significant in getting the issues and aspirations of common people out in the open and on to the debating table. Though a large number of books, journals and reports have defined and interpreted Sustainable Development for over thirty years, it still is an arguable concept. This article does not intend to redefine sustainable development, but to analyse and discuss how WSSD could succeed in making it a reality. What can WSSD achieve? Or is it going to be another bogus attempt by the United Nations to keep certain departments and programmes of its organisation alive? After a series of preparatory meetings, sub-regional meetings and dozens of related conferences, WSSD is still not being able to come up with a clear strategy and an action plan for a sustainable world. Therefore, the civil society is gravely concerned that the WSSD might now opt for a face saving attempt. Perhaps, we still could make use of WSSD as an opportunity to evolve a stronger set of global commitments to create a better world. Can we use WSSD to create a Better World? Or how can WSSD help us create a Better World? Creating a better world To start with, it is time to take stock of all treaties, conventions and agreements ratified by the world since collectively they do possess the capacity of creating a better world. It would be of interest to find out whether the world needs any further agreements to achieve global sustainability. If any more agreements to be made upon, then it certainly would become WSSD's mandate. Next, we need to identify the reasons for failure and the responsible parties. The government of United States of America under Mr. George W. Bush may not agree on this approach! They in fact may have contrasting views as to what a Better World should be and for whom. In respect of this situation, we need to rethink whether the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate global warming was a bad idea. If so, the world inclusive of the government of the USA needs to come up with suitable strategies rather than to dump the issues related to combating climate change. The world needs to recognise that bio-diversity is declining in an unprecedented rate. Research findings show that half of the tropical rainforests and mangroves have already been lost; about 75 per cent of marine fisheries have been fished to capacity; 70 per cent of coral reefs are endangered. What we are asking WSSD is to redefine the commitments of nations in achieving global sustainability. This requires a mandatory commitment towards the implementation of all agreements, without it being a mere diplomatic eyewash. New deal Second, it is time to seriously consider what was lacking at UNCED in realising global sustainability. It was obvious that UNCED was so concerned of developing nations embarking on rapid industrialisation that would compromise the long-term well being of developed nations. In this respect, it is commendable that WSSD has recognised the social and economic dimensions have to go hand in hand with the environment, if both the North and South are to achieve sustainable development. Therefore, WSSD seriously should evolve a mechanism where the South and the North live in harmony. So what should be the new mechanism? We recognise that the North still possesses accumulated wealth and technological powers while the South collectively owns a major stake in the world's natural resources reserve. This certainly requires a 'New Deal' to be bargained. The past experience had been to trade outdated technologies and development aid in order to gain control over resources in the South. Is WSSD capable in brokering this New Deal without compromising global sustainability? If this is to be achieved, this New Deal should be based on true understanding of needs and aspirations of the Southern nations. This also requires certain compromises in lifestyles in the North that are presently taxing the poor. Prevailing consumption and production pattern cannot increase the number of rich people or nations on earth. If this is to continue it will increase the number of poor in the world; meaning that eventually rich countries too may have to face the repercussions as well. According to UN reports, less than 20 per cent of the population enjoys the benefits of the present production, consumption, trade and governance systems; more than 1 billion people are without safe drinking water; twice that number lack adequate sanitation and more than 3 million people die every year from diseases caused by unsafe water. Therefore, WSSD should seriously advocate change in consumption and production patterns in the North and promote sustainable practices equally in the South and North. Good governance Third, WSSD agenda should demand Good Governance. The relationship between good governance and sustainable development needs to be clearly understood and defined, since unsustainable systems are results of bad governance. Two main obstacles to good governance are corruption and non-participatory decision-making. Corruption has spread to all levels of society and more threateningly, has become a way of life. The fact that decision-making is no longer a local or a national activity is because it has been monopolised by powerful governments, international agencies and multi-national corporations. Unfortunately, this trend continues due to weakening of the socio-economic and political structures of Southern nations. The invasion on national sovereignty and robbing of community rights has more or less completely destroyed the concepts of natural justice in the name of globalisation. Violation of Human Rights are not only when one ethnic group suppresses another. A big country invading a powerless nation by the use of military power or by blocking livelihood supplies also violates human rights. The challenge for WSSD is to commit to the ideals of sustainability at very basic level that requires communities to make their own livelihood decisions. What is proposed is that WSSD should initiate a dialogue towards evolving a Global Agreement on Good Governance. This also includes the evolving of guidelines for Good Governance and limits of interference by governments, international agencies and corporate giants. Marketing sustainability Fourth, making Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) a top priority concern on the WSSD agenda is critically important. This requires imposing of new standards and guidelines that need to be proposed with emphasis on Life Cycle Costing and Cleaner Production. Producers do over exploit natural resources in meeting consumer demand. Exploitation of labour, production leading to the pollution of the environment and engage in unfair trade practices cannot be ignored. WSSD will have to convincingly market sustainability to the business community as a concept that does not threaten corporate profitability. In fact with growing social realisation of resource and labour exploitation by companies and also with the growing awareness on product quality consumers are becoming increasingly demanding. It will be a matter of time when actual consumer power will be demonstrated. If Western European communities are becoming increasingly conscious about products that they purchase, such positive interventions should be promoted. WSSD needs to impose new standards and guidelines for the responsible conduct of Corporate Citizens and this has to be done in an equitable manner, to suit both the North and the South. The largest global survey on CSR which was conducted by The Millennium Poll says, when asked how they form their opinion of individual companies, nearly 50% mention factors related CSR such as labour practices, business ethic, environmental impact and responsibilities to society at large. Globally, over 20% of the citizens claim that they actually avoid products from a specific company or speak against the company to others, because of the view that the company does not behave responsibly. However, the regional differences in consumer awareness and reaction are very large. While over 50% of the respondent on North America have actually taken action against one or several companies the rate in Asia is a mere 14%, according to the survey. In this respect, the challenge of WSSD also includes proposing a plan of action to create aware and responsible consumers. In this regard the role of media and advertising needs to be clearly proposed by WSSD. Media and advertising are large contributors of promoting consumerist lifestyles. Global advertising expenditure has risen by 24% between 1990 and 1999 according to the report on "Advertising: Industry as a partner for sustainable development" produced for UNEP by the World Federation of Advertisers and European Association of Communications Agencies. While the increase in North America and Europe is respectively 60% and 45%, the rate in the South is rising tremendously: Asia Pacific 50%, Latin America 211%, Africa 149% and Middle East an alarming 554%. The point made is not on the cost itself, but the interest rise in promoting consumerism in the developing countries. Fair trade Fifth, WSSD should demand the creation of a fair playing field for business operation. In other words if Fair Trade is not ensured all other individual efforts towards sustainable development will fail. It is an absolute shame that none of the international monetary organisations or the trade related bodies created at international level have had the guts to challenge the monopolisation of the global economy by a few powerful governments and transactional corporations. These organizations irrespective of increasingly vocal advocacy and campaigning by Southern civil society groups and some Northern groups continue to put trade liberalisation as the mechanism for creating fair trade. Trade liberalisation is an absolute myopia that tries to convince people by telling them that it is essential for growth and development. In fact, the reality is that a few countries have gained overwhelmingly than a majority of other by trade liberalisation policies. According to Third World Network research reports only a few countries have enjoyed moderate or high growth in the last two decades while an astonishing number have actually suffered declines in living standards as measured in per capita income. According to the UNDP's Human Development Report 1999, the top fifth of the worlds people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of FDI while the bottom fifth, barely more than 01%. UNCTAD reports revealing reasons for generating wider trade deficits in developing countries due to rapid trade liberalization states "it (trade liberalisation) led to sharp increase in their import propensity, but exports failed to keep pace, particularly where liberalisation was a response to the failure to establish competitive industries behind high barriers. What needs to be understood is that if trade liberalisation is carried out in an inappropriate manner in countries that are not ready or able to cope or which face conditions that are unfavourable, it can contribute to a vicious cycle of trade and balance-of-payments deficits, financial instability, debt and recession. Therefore, WSSD has to help create a level playing field and generate an action plan to assist poor countries in preparing for trade liberalisation. Finally, there are many other individual issues that should concern WSSD that may not be directly mentioned in this article. These would also include providing an action plan that ensures providing people with good drinking water and management of water resource, promoting renewable energy generation and sustainable agriculture, biodiversity conservation and forest protection, ensuring health and education facilities, etc. Overall, the challenge for WSSD is to market convincingly to the nations that sustainability is a reality that can be achieved through a process of clear commitments. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
