The Daily Summit - Instant news and comments from the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Reaction Archives

David Steven | 10:53 AM | |

September 10, 2002

Is the New Statesman's cynicism "corrosive"? Read today's updated post on water and sanitation, and make your own mind up...

David Steven | 02:27 PM | |

"If we underestimate what we have achieved," writes John Prescott, UK Deputy Prime Minister, "then criticism becomes corrosive rather than constructive."

Mr Prescott accuses some NGOs of sniping from the sidelines (he has Friends of the Earth in his sights). Change simply won’t happen, he argues, if governments have to fight cynical opposition as well as vested interests.

David Steven | 12:22 PM | |

September 9, 2002

Also in the New Scientist, Fred Pearce publishes results of his investigation of 172 Type 2 partnership project proposals.

"Only a handful even mention community groups in developing countries as partners," he writes. In addition "fewer than a dozen are directed at chnaging consumption patterns in rich countries, which the summit supposedly regards as just as important to the planet's future as action in the poor world."

He also notes that no framework has been agreed for UN oversight of partnership proposals and that the UN is prepared only to accept scrutiny from Congress for any partnerships it is involved in.

David Steven | 10:53 AM | |

The New Scientist gives a downbeat assessment of the summit. The major success, it believes (not online yet), was the excision of text giving the WTO the final say over multilateral environment agreements.

"This vote," it says excitedly, "could just be the start of a fight-back against the blind faith in free trade that has disfigured our world over the past decade, while giving little to the poor."

It calls for "a tough new body - let's call it the World Environment Organisation" that could "fine countries or companies that wreck rainforests, send noxious clouds across borders or renege on Kyoto commitments."

This is not a new suggestion, of course...

David Steven | 10:41 AM | |

September 8, 2002

The political declaration, first draft, spoke of the "global apartheid" dividing rich and poor (a concept introduced to the summit by President Mbeki).

For Nick Schulz, the analogy is spot-on, but the problem is the "trade barriers and technology restrictions that block markets for poor people around the world."

These are defended by environmental organisations and it is they, he argues, that are responsible for keeping the poor poor.

David Steven | 05:17 PM | |

The Independent's Geoffrey Lean believes it "hard to overestimate the damage done internationally by the cursory treatment of the summit by the absent President Bush and the transient Mr Blair."

Indeed, the summit produced only one hero - Ethiopia's Tewolde Egziabher, who has been at the forefront of campaigns against the use of genetic engineering in Africa...

David Steven | 05:04 PM | |

September 7, 2002

The Economist thinks the summit was "good in parts." It is most excited by the "unglamorous" water and sanitation target, but believes the summit achieved a "modest success" on a number of issues that fall at the intersection of poverty and the environment.

"It might seem odd to have set a target for water and sanitation, but not for energy - but this was probably right," it argues. "Digging boreholes or building lavatories pose no great technological challenges: political will is the real barrier to progress on these issues. Energy poverty, in contrast is more difficult. The technology is evolving rapidly. Forcing expensive, complicated and soon-to-be-outdated methods on poor villagers has little to recommend it."

The magazine is also predictably pleased with the focus on partnerships. "Some will no doubt prove to be public relations stunts," it says, but it expects the successful ones "to have more impact than all the fine words spewed at the Rio talks."

David Steven | 04:25 PM | |

September 6, 2002

Ronald Bailey seems fairly happy with summit outcomes, largely because he thinks the greens did so badly...

David Steven | 04:21 PM | |

Daily Summit implied that the indigenous people's lobby was very pleased with the summit outcome. Not so fast - Tom Goldtooth, the national director of the U.S. Indigenous Environmental Network, says that "it's appalling, appalling. There has been no progress at all."

Mr Goldtooth is especially cross about global energy policies which he believes are "a form of cultural and ethnic genocide against our people."

As a result, Mr Goldtooth sees dire consequences for humanity. "Our Mother Earth is going to be taking actions on her own to straighten things and balance things out," he says. "Unfortunately it's the human beings who will be the weakest of all of the creatures who will feel the devastation. The earth is out of balance and she is going to put her own self to rights."

David Steven | 03:47 PM | |

September 3, 2002

While we're on polls, there's another one here. "Help the environment, take this poll," it says, rather obnoxiously (also via Matt).

David Steven | 11:47 PM | |

"So the rush is on to denounce the summit as a failure," writes Bryan Lipscombe, a Daily Summit reader. "Rio was denounced as a failure, and now is often held up as a success, but isn't that missing the point? All conferences are a usually a mix of steps forward and lost opportunities ..and this is a summit of many conferences! The real success or failure is what happens next, whether people and groups think and act differently and what actually gets done as a result."

"Speaking as a 'local' Agenda 21 practitioner whose job is a direct consequence of the Rio Summit, there has already been a real benefit from the publicity and exposure...Formal agreements are nearly always a compromise down so denounce the agreement by all means. However if pressure groups simply denounce the summit itself as failure, they may help put in jeopardy future summits and with them the opportunity they present to inform, inspire and empower by raising our horizons."

Hit the comments to let us know what you think...

David Steven | 05:03 PM | |

September 2, 2002

"If you're an environment NGO, you could measure the amount of air time environment was given at this summit and be disappointed," Valli Moosa, South African environment minister told Daily Summit, when we showed him Friends of the Earth's reaction to the summit (reported below).

"However, I think the summit has been phenomenally successful," he continued. "Most importantly, at a crucial time, it has given a major boost to multilateralism - which is a concept that has been questioned over the last two years. We now have a high level global commitment to sustainable development, at a time when we face massive environmental challenges."

The summit had exposed the dangers of globalisation, which could be "cold and heartless," and exacerbate the differences between the rich and poor, he added. It had given the message that global initiative could improve the lives of people, while shifting the focus to action and the delivery of well-defined targets.

"I have lived with this summit for 18 months," Mr Moosa said. "It has been much more successful than I thought I it would be. There was an understandable cynicism at the beginning - but everyone's spirits are lifted right now."

David Steven | 04:20 PM | |

The World Development Movement lambasts Tony Blair for delivering "a speech full of rhetoric" to the summit this morning.

Seeing as rhetoric can be defined as "the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively" - Daily Summit wonders why any speaker would want to avoid this sin...

David Steven | 02:50 PM | |

The World Development Movement has joined the NGO chorus denouncing the summit as a failure.

It claims that the UN is now subordinated to the WTO, despite last night's "breakthrough" on this issue. It is also cross about lack of progress on issues not even on the table in Joburg - such as action on climate change over and above Kyoto commitments.

David Steven | 02:33 PM | |

South African environment minister, Valli Moosa told Daily Summit that the World Summit has been "a phenomenal success" while Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth UK, explains his group's analysis of summit outcomes. More on this soon...

David Steven | 01:37 PM | |

Friends of the Earth have rushed out their interpretation of the summit - and it is overwhelmingly negative.

Their corporate accountability success rates 5/10; energy and climate change, water and sanitation, and biodiversity 3/10; trade and globalisation, consumption and production, and the Rio Principles 2/10; aid and debt, and subsidies 1/10; and ecoloigical debt 0/10.

It is becoming clear that NGOs are prepared to speak as one voice and declare the summit a failure - the FoE total mark is 22/100, and the headline "not satisfactory: must do better."

David Steven | 11:26 AM | |

The summit has failed, according to unnamed environmental groups in Alex Kirkby's review of the summit so far.

"Environmental groups are already saying that the compromises made to reach agreement represent a step backwards for the planet and for the poor," he writes.

We are now entering a critical stage, where groups compete to "tell the story" of what has happened over the past week. Daily Summit will be tracking the conflicting interpretations over the next few days…

David Steven | 10:22 AM | |

August 31, 2002

Daily Summit has not been following the summit process closely today - we were taking a walk in Alex.

However, Jeffrey Lean's breathless piece (if the summit fails, the international system collapses - but a weak agreement would be worse. Does Blair realise this is the biggest challenge of his premiership?) in the Sindie provides a point of departure for a catch-up.

Lean gives marks out of ten the chances of success in each critical area (where 10/10 involves the text adopting the most environment correspondent-friendly language).

Water and sanitation. Lean says 9/10 and Daily Summit thinks he's right. The US was always going to fold on this, we reckon, but had been holding on to increase its bargaining power (an alternative view here, though).

Energy. Lean says 2/10. Daily Summit has long said the target on renewable energy was dead, but is amazed that Lean has heard the programme for access to energy for the poor is "buried." The EU was always going to trade renewables for access - but we find it hard to believe they've lost both. (Background to this here.)

Agriculture. Lean says 4/10. We think there's lots of noise on subsidies, but this issue will be fairly easily resolved by reference to the Doha trade round. Biodiversity. Lean says 3/10 and Daily Summit has very little info - sorry. Over-consumption: Lean says 4/10, because the US wants voluntary agreements in this area which it will then ignore. Daily Summit expects the EU to press ahead, claiming that resource efficiency will be a source of competitive advantage in the future.

Corporate accountability. Lean is surprised how far this has gone and so is Daily Summit (more on this here). He gives 5/10, we're still think the US will hold out and go for 4/10. This evening's news is that Ambassador Ashe - him again - has proposed a compromise text that is nearly identical to the FoE text, and the EU is close to coming on board. (If FoE wins on this, let no-one utter the words: "civil society was ignored" or "corporate takeover" in respect of this summit.)

Climate change. Lean ignores this, but we hear a text was agreed today in which states who have ratified Kyoto urge others to do the same in a "timely fashion." Pretty anodine - but NGOs have been making lurid claims that the US was going to "gut" the treaty of all reference to Kyoto.

More on all this tomorrow (please just gloss over if it's too technical or boring!)...

David Steven | 11:59 PM | |

August 27, 2002

"The environmentalist goal of "protecting livelihoods" is a recipe for keeping hundreds of millions of poor people down on hardscrabble and environmentally dubious farms," says Reason's Ronald Bailey.

"Individual opportunities and wealth creation arise through the destruction of obsolete livelihoods. Candlemakers were put out of business by electric light bulb manufacturers. Stables closed because of automobiles, foot messengers lost their jobs because telephones were invented. Most of those people moved on to better opportunities. In fact, something like eighty percent of the 'livelihoods' that support people in the rich developed world simply didn't exist a century ago."

An interesting point. Daily Summit remembers one speaker at a recent conference talking about "preserving sustainable lifestyles" - it would be only reasonable for us to point out that the majority of the audience was less than impressed by the idea!

Update: strange coincidence: as I published this post and found myself introducing myself to Ronald Bailey...

David Steven | 02:55 PM | |

Democracy is threatened by populism, says Shahida Jamal, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, in an interview with Daily Summit.

"We suffer from each leader and each leaves his problems behind," she says. "Debts mount and misappropriation adds to debt. Poverty increases and the environment becomes degraded."

Read the full interview here.

David Steven | 01:08 AM | |

It's late and it may just be me, but isn't there something disturbing about this para from the National Geographic site?

"Several delegation sources said the talks were taking place in a 'friendly and cordial atmosphere with people talking to each other who would not normally be talking to each other—which could move the process forward.'"

I mean, is this reporter stuck in some kind of Groundhog Day nightmare - with different delegations approaching him/her to give exactly the same quote?

David Steven | 12:15 AM | |

August 26, 2002

Jane Goodall is a star. Her books about chimpanzees are bestsellers across the world. Her long, patient, and pioneering studies have changed the way we think about primates and perhaps about ourselves.

Her foundation has now won international respect, while Roots and Shoots, her programme for youth, now has groups in over 50 countries across the world.

Dr Goodall is the best known of the high-level advisory panel Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, appointed to advise him on sustainable development - and she will be courted here in Joburg by some of the summit's biggest names.

She is a much quieter force than the Naomi Kleins or Michael Dorseys of this world.

"Confrontation can be counter productive," she says "Change happens by listening and then starting a dialogue with the people who are doing something you don't believe is right."

However, the change she is calling for is far from uncontroversial. In an interview with Daily Summit - her first in Joburg - she advocates considerably lower standards of living for the rich, so the poor can consume more.

Neither is she a summit fan.

"It's horrifying to think of the waste the summit will cause," she says. "All these delegates having huge and fancy meals while so many people all around are starving. It just doesn't make sense. But I have to be here. Kofi Annan put me on his panel advising on sustainable development. So I can't avoid being here."

You can read the full interview with Dr Goodall here.

David Steven | 01:34 AM | |

August 24, 2002

The UN seems taken aback by the scale of opposition it is seeing to Type II partnerships (Mike Dorsey describes them as "partnerships with criminals" in a Daily Summit interview).

"Partnerships are not a substitute for government action or responsibilities," says Nitin Desai, Summit Secretary General. "Too often, international conferences end with just a document. Even when we have a strong document, we usually don't have a way to translate the words of the text into real action.

"The partnership initiatives provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to bring together the people who can bring clean water, electricity and health services to communities that lack them."

"I don't know why people think that partnerships are just about corporations," he adds. "They are not."

David Steven | 06:09 PM | |

The Economist is quite warm to sustainable development these days, at least if it comes with a pro-free trade flavour.

"In many eyes," it writes, "the events of September 11th last year reinforced the perceived importance of making global economic development an inclusive process."

You can read its slightly lacklustre backgrounder here.

David Steven | 01:13 AM | |

August 20, 2002

Dr. Adil Najam, a Boston University professor, has had the excellent idea of systematically asking policy makers and activists about their hopes for the summit.

Headline findings: while poverty alleviation is the key priority for rich countries, atmosphere and climate change is more important to rich countries.

Most respondents see Rio as a "monumental" or "very significant" event, but only 6% think "significant" progress has been made since then.

Only 13% of respondents expect Johannesburg to be "very significant," however.

"It is evident that the media and some academics immediately will declare that the WSSD was a failure once it's over," said one respondent.

You can see a full report with lots more detail here (pdf).

Jane Frewer | 09:13 PM | |

More floods please, says George Monbiot in the Guardian.

"While the powerful people who wish to acquire for themselves the common property of humankind have always to be flattered and appeased," he argues, "the long-term survival of humanity is in no politician's immediate interest; until, that is, the environment bites back.

"Perhaps the only hope we have is that nature, as she has done in Germany, casts her vote much sooner than the politicians guessed."

David Steven | 11:30 AM | |

August 19, 2002

UNEP Chief Klaus Toepfer has come across all optimistic.

"I have come to the conclusion that there will be a very good and concrete outcome," Klaus Toepfer, the head of the U.N. Environment Program, told Reuters today.

David Steven | 07:54 PM | |

July 26, 2002

Summit debate Head to opendemocracy.org for a debate about whether summits work for poor people.

In the yes corner, Maria Adebowale, of Capacity Global, which works "as a catalyst empowering people to find solutions to poverty that enhance social justice and support a healthy environment." In the no corner, Roger Scruton, philosopher and ex-FT columnist.

Roger: "You have to be very careful about what goes in to international treaties, because the latter by their nature are a threat to national sovereignty and therefore a limitation on the democratic decision-making process. This causes resentment, and a desire among those affected to withdraw from the process altogether, rather than subject themselves to any further diminution of sovereignty."

Maria: "You questioned earlier the value of international treaties. As a lawyer, I agree that sometimes treaties can be just words on paper. But I have worked with community groups in the UK and the rest of Europe, and treaties that are part of both national and international law have been incredibly important for them – they can use these laws within a democratic system to secure advances that in a previous era were impossible."

David Steven | 11:12 AM | |