PRESS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Press Briefing
PRESS CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
19970425
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
Representatives of a coalition of 300 environment, social justice and economic development non-governmental organizations this morning expressed extreme disappointment over the state of negotiations after 13 days of meetings by the Commission on Sustainable Development. In a Headquarters press briefing, they also criticized the overall lack of government progress in implementing Agenda 21 and in preparing for the June special session of the General Assembly. Trade liberalization and multinational corporate power were singled out as enormous threats to environmental efforts.
In the press briefing, moderated by Lowell Flanders of the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, the non-governmental organizations were represented by Clifton Curtis, of Greenpeace International; Barbara Bramble, of the National Wildlife Federation (United States); Bella Abzug, of the Women's Environment and Development Organization; Devasish Roy, of the Indigenous and Hill Peoples Association (Bangladesh); and Vandana Shiva, of the Third World Network. Mr. Curtis, of Greenpeace International, opened the briefing by saying that "we feel we are going backward not forward in addressing sustainable development". Considering the urgency of the situation, far too little was being done. Governments had failed to deliver in the negotiations in the Commission on Sustainable Development on a programme of action text to be adopted by the special session. He focused particularly on fisheries and climate change. On fisheries and climate change, the text ignored the need to set specific targets. Issues such as subsidies for fossil fuels were being swept under the table. What had happened thus far in the Commission "sets the stage for a failure at the end of June", he added.
Ms. Bramble, of the National Wildlife Federation, said the basic problem contributing to the lack of progress in the negotiations involved the fundamental topics of financial resources and mechanisms necessary for the transition to sustainable development. No progress had been made in that regard since 1992. They were still fighting over whether official development assistance should be considered a "commitment" or an "objective".
The biggest conflict was taking place over the role of private capital flows in the sustainable development scenario, she said. Such flows were moving into only a few countries and excluding large numbers of developing countries. The countries of the North in the last five years should have been providing a better model of development, while slowly raising the amounts of development assistance for the transition to sustainable development. Instead, such assistance had been diminishing.
Mr. Roy, of the Indigenous and Hill Peoples Association, said little had been done in the last five years for indigenous peoples regarding sustainable development. Incursions of unsustainable practices by transnational corporations had continued in indigenous territories. Government prejudicial views of indigenous communities had interfered with recognition of the role of indigenous people in implementing Agenda 21. There should be a speedy adoption of the draft declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, and a permanent forum for indigenous peoples should be established within the United Nations system.
According to Ms. Shiva, of the Third World Network, the programme of trade liberalization -- the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) -- had been the undoing of the Rio Earth Summit. The industrialized countries continually claimed that trade treaties were about law, while Agenda 21 represented only commitments and principles. Trade liberalization was now the biggest threat to sustainable development. The claim that foreign direct investment was the financial mechanism for sustainable development in the third world was a myth. It was, instead, a means of making money from the poor peoples of the world. The States were being hijacked in the name of corporate protectionism. Globalization and trade liberalization were a frontline issue for environmental protection. As long as the countries of the North treated trade as sacred and the environment and people as sacrificial zones, the crisis would only deepen.
Ms. Abzug, of the Women's Environment and Development Organization, said the non-governmental organizations had carried out a dialogue with governments on where the special session should go, and those views were being attached to the actual document being submitted to the special session. The failure to mention gender in any significant fashion in the Commission Chairman's report was astonishing and not permissible. Agenda 21 said that women had a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation was, therefore, essential. A general effort by governments had been made to diminish that statement, she continued. That was an appalling development, not only in light of Rio, but of the other conferences which had occurred since then. The substitution of the idea of "objectives" to replace "commitments" was completely unacceptable. Only commitments by governments could bring about real change. The growing privatization of such resources as water could be disastrous. If water was privatized, the next major war could be fought over that very resource, she said.
Responding to a question about an indigenous people in Bangladesh, Mr. Roy said a lot of unsustainable development had taken place in that indigenous territory, which had led to dissatisfaction and unrest. An insurgency among those people had existed since 1975. Negotiations over land rights had been taking place with the Government. Development decisions had been reached without input from the indigenous inhabitants of the region.
Briefing on Sustainable Development - 3 - 25 April 1997
Asked about the new strategy of the non-governmental organizations, Ms. Shiva said people on the ground were still active in protecting the environment. If the United Nations left a vacuum in the protection, civil society would have to find other processes. It would be a tragedy if the only international agenda concerned trade and there was no international system for environmental protection. Mr. Curtis added that non-governmental organizations, prior to 23 June, would continue to lobby for bold action by government leaders. Ms. Abzug said non-governmental organizations would hold governments to their commitments and mobilize the relevant constituencies.
Was the breakdown in negotiations within the Commission considered a victory for Republicans in the United States Congress? asked a correspondent. Ms. Abzug said the antediluvian representation in Congress had been wanting to see failures rather than success in the United Nations to justify the continued refusal to pay dues. The full story, however, involved backtracking by governments, which had been taken over by corporate and national interests. The effort to backtrack reflected the takeover by multinational corporations. If the gap between rich and poor continued to grow and the environment continued to deteriorate, then the resulting breakdown in civil society would spare no one, including those corporations.
Ms. Shiva added that some governments were already owned by multinationals, and others were on the way. It was a kind of totalitarianism, which left people and States with no rights.
To a question on forests, Mr. Curtis said there had been agreement on a text concerning implementation of a number of areas. Discussions on the mechanism to implement those recommendations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests had reached a deadlock. Ms. Bramble said non-governmental organizations wanted to see sensible steps towards implementation of those recommendations. If progress were made on those steps, then talk could move forward on the idea of Convention on Forests.
Mr. Curtis and Ms. Shiva responded to a question on shrimp farming by citing specific examples of how the pursuit of profits had eclipsed environmental interests and created enormous problems.
* *** *