Giant leap or feeble stumble?

Giant leap or feeble stumble
What did the Earth Summit achieve?

The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg started with big expectations about saving the planet and ending poverty. But in the aftermath, the media and protest groups have been quick to label it a failure and a missed opportunity. Are the critics right? Or have there been real achievements?

One environmental group has labelled the WSSD a "World Summit for Shameful Deals". Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called it "a dialogue of the deaf", and Russian Deputy Trade Minister Mukhamed Tsaikanov said it was "a completely meaningless waste of money". I hope the organisers weren't expecting universal popularity.

At the other end of the scale, one earnest reporter wrote, "The Johannesburg Plan of Action will be remembered long after Baghdad has been bombed into dust", in a bizarre reference to US and UK plans to bomb Iraq. He compared the document to the remarkably successful "Marshall Plan" that helped rebuild Europe after WWII.

Summit Secretary-General Nitin Desai claims the gathering "succeeded in generating a sense of urgency, commitments for action, and partnerships to achieve measurable results". As usual, the truth is probably a less-than-sensational happy balance.

You may not get excited about long-drop toilets, but...

While there were certainly disappointments for environmentalists and poverty campaigners, (See the "Highlights and Lowlights" section below) there were one or two hopeful signs. Perhaps the most important in the long term will be a new initiative to halve the number of people who don't currently have access to adequate sanitation facilities.

You may not think that long-drop toilets and septic tanks are something to get excited about. But when you consider that a lack of clean water and sanitation causes three-quarters of diseases, and 6000 children die every day due to diarrhoea, cholera, and dysentery, you realise this will be a real achievement if it actually happens.

These commitments were backed up by a United States announcement of an investment of US$970 million in water projects over the next three years, providing some hope that the commitment is real. A number of other new partnerships between governments, private sector companies, and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have also been announced, that could result in some serious progress.

World Vision also chipped in with its two cents worth (actually, about US$41 million worth), in a partnership called the West Africa Water Initiative, which will reduce illness and poverty for many people in that region.

The five year initiative will be co-ordinated by World Vision, but is a partnership with several other NGOs, governments, communities, and foundations such as the Conrad Hilton Foundation. The end result will be increased access to sustainable water resources for hundreds of thousands of West Africans.

So was the summit a success?

Personally, I think that's up to people like us. The Summit can be made a success if decision-makers can turn the momentum it has created into action. You can help to do that by encouraging our Government to act on its commitments, especially on water and sanitation.

Write to Marian Hobbs or Helen Clark

Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs and PM Helen Clark were the politicians who represented New Zealand at the conference, and presumably they will be influential in working out how New Zealand will respond to the Summit's Action Plan.

Some pointers:
1. Start with something positive
Congratulate New Zealand on its positive contribution to the conference, or perhaps its support of the Kyoto protocol. Perhaps mention how valuable the attention to water and sanitation is, and your hope that this will prompt action from New Zealand.

2. Keep the tone of your letter formal and polite
No matter how strongly you feel, it pays to think about what you want your letter to achieve. Anything angry or abusive will just be placed in the circular file in the corner. Anything too confrontational will be written off as "lunatic fringe" and probably won't achieve anything.

3. Ask some pointed questions, for example:
What new resources will be made available to help achieve the targets on water and sanitation? Which developing countries will New Zealand be helping to achieve the Millennium Goals? Will New Zealand set itself some benchmarks for success? What monitoring system will be put in place to ensure that New Zealand is acting on its commitments? For some background on New Zealand's current position try these sites:

NZ's approach to sustainable development
Helen Clark's speech to the WSSD:

4. They prefer "snail mail"
While email is OK, for some reason the NZ Government prefers pieces of paper. An email is unlikely to get any more than a generic response, whereas a hard copy letter should receive a reply from the appropriate minister.

5. Let us know!
I'd be really interested to know if you've written, or to see a copy of your letter. I'm just a bit nosy like that...

6. More on writing to Ministers...
by email
by letter:

Other highlights and lowlights
Apart from the commitments on sanitation, the Political Declaration from Johannesburg looks a bit like "two steps forward, one step back":

1. Millennium goals:
There is a renewed commitment to the time-bound the Millennium Goals for reducing poverty, but a lack of benchmarks for assessing progress.

2. Energy:
There is no target set for phasing in renewable energy, but countries did commit to phasing out subsidies for non-sustainable energy sources like power plants that burn fossil fuels. The EU announced a $700 million partnership initiative on energy and the US announced investments of up to $43 million for energy in 2003.

3. Global Warming:
Mixed results on the Kyoto Protocol on "greenhouse gases" that contribute to climate change. Opponents of Kyoto like the US and Australia blocked efforts to use the Summit to reinforce the protocol, but an announcement from Russia of their support will see the Protocol take effect anyway.

4. Increasing Aid Budgets:
A clause on increasing aid budgets to "agreed levels" stops short of naming the target of 0.7% of GDP set nearly 30 years ago, leaving a loop-hole for countries such as New Zealand (0.25%) and the US (0.11%) who fall well short.

5. International Debt:
A clause stating that debt is a barrier to achieving sustainable development for any of the world's poorest countries doesn't condemn the failure of debt relief initiatives or chart a new way forward.

6. Trade:
One clause about trade is written in such a way that it can be interpreted as either support for the WTO, or a call for reform, depending on the pre-disposition of the reader.

World Vision's wish list:
World Vision's representatives at the conference were disappointed that the WSSD didn't deliver...

• More attention to the impact of HIV/AIDS and other diseases on poorer people and countries. It's hard to achieve any sort of development, let alone sustainable development, when 35% of your productive workforce is HIV positive.
• More careful reassessment of the complex issues surrounding the privatisation of sectors that meet basic human needs, like water.
• More of a real commitment to reducing agricultural subsidies in developed countries and removing tariffs on goods such as textiles. Such measures would have a huge impact on poverty, by opening up lucrative markets for developing country exports.
• 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.