 WSSD Impressions
By Susan Burns and Mathis Wackernagel
September 15, 2002
Reflecting on our experience attending the
World Summit on Sustainable Development, the WSSD left us more knowledgeable
about the state of the world, more sober about the ability of government to
move us forward, more connected with sustainability advocates, and more
clear about the necessary path forward. Here are our thoughts:
The weakness of the final WSSD implementation plan, mirrors the current
state of our government institutions. While the original intention of
the WSSD was to develop a plan for implementing prior agreements, in
reality, the focus was on defending former agreements from being wiped out.
It proved impossible to reach a consensus, without significantly weakening
the document and as a result, the implementation plan lacks the vision and
the teeth it needs to ensure meaningful progress. The often-cited monetary
commitment by the US was actually previously allocated money under a new
label and new goals were often restated older ones. The official text
swerved away from measurable commitments, a result ‘inspired’ by the
tireless US government delegation. While the US delegation strongly promoted
the idea of partnerships, it demonstrated great reluctance in establishing
any kind of accountability to check whether these partnerships would
actually produce the outcomes to which nations had committed.
Given the great challenge facing the world, and the performance of
governments at the WSSD, it’s clear that our government institutions
currently don’t have what it takes to move us forward quickly. Many people
at WSSD raised the question – What new kinds of institutions (or
institutional reforms) are necessary to help us face the challenge of
sustainability?
The WSSD acknowledged the link between people and the environment, but
failed to acknowledge other critical issues. The conference adopted the
term ‘sustainable development,’ thereby moving beyond the terms ‘environment
and development’ used in the past, which at long last acknowledges the link
between people and the environment. There is clear recognition of the need
for poverty alleviation in the document, and indeed, if the few targets and
timetables associated with poverty and access to water and sanitation (which
were a reflection of the previous Monterrey agreements), were actually met,
this would be a significant achievement. However, the overall thrust of the
document reflected a traditional World Bank agenda. For example, the unmet
needs of the poor were not put in to the context of the global economy, its
stark inequities, the over consumption of the North, nor the limited ability
of the Earth to process the increased material throughput that has come with
economic development.
Kyoto was strengthened. The WSSD also had many positive aspects. One
was the unintended consequence of US opposition to Kyoto, which
paradoxically helped the agreement move forward. As announced in Jo’burg,
Russia and Canada will ratify Kyoto shortly, which will put Kyoto
fully into force.
US NGO presence at the summit was strong. Possibly due to the not so
impressive support for sustainability from the Bush Administration, there
was a strong US presence in Jo’burg through the NGO community. This
indicates the high level of interest sustainability still has, even in the
US.
There was a significant corporate presence in Jo’burg. Corporations
showed a willingness to engage in a very constructive way (including a press
conference on the importance of preventing climate change, together with
Greenpeace). But it is also clear that they will not become a significant
force for sustainability until there are incentive systems in place that do
not punish those taking a more sustainable course (now, unsustainability is
subsidized). Helping progressive corporations make that point to the larger
business community may be one of the more strategic intervention points.
The World is ready for Footprint thinking. The idea that the
biological capacity of the Earth is limited and that consumption is part of
the problem, was present throughout the event as a whole, although it was
not reflected in the official implementation document. The Ecological
Footprint was a popular topic of conversation and was often referred to by
speakers (especially local government representatives). Our 6,000 footprint
brochures were eagerly received. In addition, we received media attention
leading up to and during the WSSD. For example, BBC Internet service ran a
WSSD story ‘disposable planet?,’ which featured the ecological footprint
quiz and the PNAS article very prominently (PNAS, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, recently published a footprint paper focusing
on overshoot). Time magazine and The Economist, in their special issues on
the WSSD had a prominent reference to the PNAS paper. The ‘Neue Zürcher
Zeitung’, the conservative voice in the Swiss press, mentioned ecological
deficit and the footprint (with specific numbers for Switzerland)
prominently its editorial for the WSSD and Jacques Chirac told the French,
on their national day, that we would need 3 planets if everybody lived like
the French.
Civil society is powerful, but not organized and aligned. Civil
society, in all of its diversity, was present in very large numbers and its
enormous untapped power was palpable. Civil society is developing powerful
concepts like “ecological debt” (what the rich countries owe the poor for
the use of natural resources), “global apartheid,” “global commons,” ethical
norms as expressed in the Earth Charter, and much more. However, there is a
real chance that this power may not be channelled constructively because of
a lack of platforms, processes, and democratic frameworks that allow NGOs,
and the people they represent, to unify and collaborate more effectively.
Without effective facilitation support, and processes that help gather
strength and build consensus, civil society’s voice will remain weak.
Economic growth has short-term benefits, but long-term problems. In
spite of its major drawbacks, we haven’t developed viable alternatives. The
biggest knowledge gap we identified in Jo’burg is the ability to envision a
productive and secure steady-state economy. At the WSSD (which is a
reflection of the world as a whole) most solutions to environmental and
human problems have economic expansion at their heart. But we know that the
Earth has a limited capacity for the resource throughput that accompanies
traditional economic growth. While it is easy to criticize the constant
focus on economic growth, the criticism is not productive unless people can
propose an alternative. We therefore, need investments to develop workable
models for sustainable economies. This requires dialogue about what a secure
steady-state economy would look like.
The topic of family planning was absent at the summit. The unmet
demand for safe, effective and affordable family planning remains a
non-topic thanks to forces like Bush’s religious supporters and the Vatican.
Unfortunately, addressing the topic of population is sometimes mistakenly
confused with blaming the poor. But meeting this unmet need is an effective
contribution to a more humane world, especially in view of the HIV/AIDS
epidemic, and should not be seen as ignoring the over-consumption of the
rich. Southern participants want solutions that bring tangible and immediate
benefits to those in need and access to family planning brings these
benefits to the poor in North as well as the South. In fact, if we want to
invest in a more humane world, providing access to family planning may be
among the most cost effective investments we can make.
Partnerships with business have great potential, but need the complement
of strong, democratic institutions. There was a lot of scepticism among
the environmental community about the role of business in so-called “Type 2
Partnerships.” At the same time, since business is such an influential
sector, many believe that mobilizing the resources of the private sector is
critical to achieving sustainability. Are the claims of the environmental
movement true, that corporate sustainability initiatives are just a form of
greenwashing? Not if you ask the business people present at WSSD. It is
clear that virtually all of the business people present were sincerely moved
by the possibility of making a difference. But the discomfort experienced by
the environmental and social justice communities is real, and stems from
structural limitations inherent in business.
In our experience, businesses engage in sustainability when a “business
case” can be made; when business strategy and sustainability initiatives
overlap and complement one another. Business people, while often motivated
by a personal commitment to making difference, still need to be able to
convince others in their organizations that sustainability will serve the
interests of the company. As a result, corporate sustainability initiatives
have limitations because not all needs of society fall into the category of
“good for business.” Corporate sustainability initiatives can suffer from
the “when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail” phenomenon.
Therefore, when undertaking partnerships, there needs to be a strong role
for government in making sure that the needs of people, of local
communities, and of the global environment are served by these partnerships.
This issue underscores the importance of active, democratic governments. The
United States, of course, is no exception. During our meetings with US
representatives (including the EPA, State Department, Council on
Environmental Security, and USAID), the US expressed a laisser-faire
attitude toward partnership: “We’ll put them together, and if they work,
they work, if they don’t, well… we can’t control the partners…” We need
performance standards for these partnerships so that we can hold our
governments accountable to meeting the needs of the people the partnerships
purport to serve.
To read the full text of the presidential speeches and the implementation
agreement, go to:
http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/
A good summary of the final agreements made at the summary can be found at:
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/features/feature_template.cfm?ID=840
For a more personal account of what it was like to be at the Summit read
“Postcards from Johannesburg” by Susan Burns at this link:
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/features/feature_template.cfm?ID=839
To reach us:
Susan Burns
burns@naturalstrategies.com
Mathis Wackernagel
wackernagel@rprogress.org
Copyright Susan Burns and Mathis Wackernagel.
Please feel free to forward this article to other interested parties. If you
want to publish any or all of it, please contact us for permission. |
