WORLD SUMMIT: All talk, no action

The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) could have been a giant step forward for a fairer world, but in the end it was more of a stumble.

There have been unexpected advances, such as an agreement on the targets for water, but such advances have usually been shaped in general language. For example the renewable energy agreement has neither clear targets nor timetables for implementation.

The WSSD Plan of Implementation will rely on good will because of the lack of political will here in Johannesburg. World Vision is concerned that national self-interest got in the way and lessened the impact WSSD could have had in actually helping the poor and marginalised. Rhetoric, afterall, is cheaper than commitments.

Despite this there did seem to be positive outcomes in several areas of WSSD. The attention given to water and sanitation, and the impact of both on the well-being of the poor, especially women and children, was a highlight.

The Water Dome, one of the several conference venues, was devoted entirely to sharing lessons in this sector. World Vision participated in a working session on a new $41m West Africa Water Initiative that will help end illness and poverty for many people in three countries of that region. WSSD confirmed the UN Millennium targets of halving the number of people who have no access to safe water and sanitation by 2015. Whist World Vision applauds such goals, again there were no agreed milestones of action by which one could tell if we were succeeding in the implementation of laudable goals Or will we reach 2015 unfulfilled and say “at least the idea was good.”

With regard to biodiversity World Vision believes that the rate of species loss should be halted and reversed by 2015. The WSSD agreement did not go far enough in this regard. The ecosystem approach, as defined in the Convention on Biodiversity, is vital for sustainable development since it is a holistic strategy of managing land, water and resources in an equitable manner. World Vision believes measures need to be taken to ensure that local communities benefit from the sustainable use of genetic resources obtained from their ecosystems.

The Women’s Caucus at WSSD noted that in the decade since Rio women gained significant commitments to gender equality at key UN conferences. It was concerned that such gains are now being reversed. World Vision applauds its call for governments to set measurable goals and timetables to achieve 50/50 gender representation in decision-making processes by 2005; to use disaggregated data and indicators so that the impact of policies can be traced by gender; and to narrow the gender gap in primary and secondary education by 2005 and to achieve primary education for all children by 2015.

However, there were several other aspects of WSSD that could have done with improvement, including:

• More attention on the impact of sustainable development on children and poorer people. Side-products of poverty include deforestation for firewood, disease from pollution, species extinction, and the spread of abuse and disease that requires expensive remedies later on. Sustainable development requires poverty alleviation.
  
• More attention on how sustainability would impact the landless, and how it would protect the livelihoods and knowledge-base of indigenous peoples.
  
• More attention to the impact of HIV/AIDS and other diseases on poorer people and countries. This was only a sidebar at WSSD, and yet countries with 35% HIV prevalence midst their productive workforce will struggle in planting, harvesting and industry. Sustainable development will be difficult if not impossible.
  
• More careful reassessment of the complex issues surrounding the privatisation of sectors that meet basic human needs.
  
• More of a real commitment to reducing agricultural subsidies in developed countries and removing tariffs on goods such as textiles. Such measures would have greatest impact on poverty.
  
• More acceptance that one-off debt relief to poorer countries will enable them to relieve poverty within their borders and begin the journey to sustainable development.

Difficult commitments also require collaboration from all actors – governments, private sector, agencies and civil society. However, the physical setting of the conference in Johannesburg has not helped that collaboration, as each sector tended to meet in different venues that were long bus rides apart.

World Vision endorses the UN Secretary General’s remarks that WSSD’s hopes are embodied in the word “responsibility” – for each other and for the planet.

The problem is not just “out there,” we are all part of the solution in the quest for a sustainable life on Earth. One motto on the walls at WSSD embraced that responsibility: “could the rich live more simply, so that moor poor children can simply live.”

World Vision believes WSSD was only one more stumbling step along that road. We have not yet reached the end.