HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY NGO ADVOCACY GROUP

Representatives of the Non-Governmental Organization Advocacy Group this afternoon called for the world's governments to ensure that their promises of increased development assistance, announced last month in Monterrey, Mexico, would result in greater emphasis on the socio-economic and environmental needs of people -- and not in even more uncontrollable globalization.

At a press conference sponsored by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs early this afternoon, representatives of the NGO Advocacy Group also discussed the impact of the recently concluded Conference on Financing For Development (Monterrey, Mexico, 18 - 22 March) on the upcoming World Summit on Social Development (to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 26 August -

4 September).  

Speakers at this afternoon's press conference were:  Lene Schumacher, World Federation of United Nations Associations; Paul Tennassee, World Confederation of Labor; Sander van Bennekom, Northern Alliance for Sustainability; Craig Bennett, Friends of the Earth; and Marcelo Furtado, Greenpeace International.

Ms. Schumacher said that initially, NGOs saw the financing for development process as a great opportunity to participate and were very optimistic about it.  But an NGO forum was held prior to the United Nations meeting, and the main message to come out of that forum was that NGOs did not see the “Monterrey Consensus” as a consensus.  They did not feel part of it, even though they had been identified as stakeholders.

Mr. Tennassee said "Before we went to Monterrey the emphasis was on terrorism.  Before 11 September the emphasis was increasingly on poverty reduction."  One of the good things about Monterrey was that it had shifted the world's focus back to the question of poverty, the Monterrey Consensus had offered nothing really in terms of deliverables.  At the last minute, deliverables came from the United States and Europe in terms of money or the promise of it. 

Mr. Tennassee said that in Monterrey there was also an emphasis on partnership, ownership and participation.  That was more or less a recognition that the existing partnership that was responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly of the world –- the transnational corporations, the Group of Seven Industrialized Countries and the multilaterals -– had neutralized the capacity of developing countries to own their own development plans and to participate actively in development processes.

In the present preparatory conference for Johannesburg, continued

Mr. Tennassee, while there was emphasis on ownership, there was a lot of talk about the private sector.  In the financing for development process a lot of issues had been put on the agenda that were new, with many of them system-based. The emphasis in the present conference however, continued to focus more on the private sector.  In light of the money that had been promised at Monterrey, many NGOs had hoped that the current preparatory conference would focus more on an action plan that had targets, identified the institutions which would deliver the

money, specified a delivery time-frame and articulated how the plan would be developed.  "We are very disappointed that up until now this has not been happening in the World Summit for Sustainable Development group," he said.

Mr. van Bennekom said he had hoped that the Monterrey Consensus would have been the starting point for the WSSD Conference.  But two weeks after the closing of the Monterrey Conference, countries were already beginning to fall back.  In other words, Monterrey had not been taken as a starting point but as a ceiling.  Nor was any respect being paid to the outcome of the Monterrey Conference.  The principle of common but different shared responsibilities was essential if any success was to come out of Johannesburg.

Mr. Bennett said the situation vis-à-vis sustainable development was at a pivotal moment right now.  What happened over the next few months, and what happened in Johannesburg, would give a very clear indication as to whether governments were really moving in the right direction or not.  Over the years governments had put enormous efforts into developing multilateral environmental agreements.  But time and again "We are told that such agreements have to come second to the World Trade Organization (WTO)," he said.

The second area of concern, continued Mr. Bennett, was that more and more opportunities were going to corporations.  In the text that was being negotiated this week in the preparatory conference of the WSSD, the phrase "private/public partnerships" constantly occurred.  "We are essentially seeing that opportunities are being given to corporations to actually deliver the implementation of sustainable development.  Yet when the duty of corporations is to return profits to shareholders we would question whether they really have the interests of sustainable development at heart."  If governments were prepared to give more and more contracts to corporations, they had to be prepared to impose more responsibilities, more duties and more binding standards on corporations.

Mr. Furtado said what was being witnessed today was the absolute disconnect between the reality of the world and the reality of the meeting room.  The road to Johannesburg ought to be a bridge between the reality of life and the meeting rooms in New York.  If that disconnect was not corrected and reality was not brought into the discussion, "we should then think if we should have Johannesburg at all," he said.  "Otherwise what are we delivering, what are giving to the public, and what are governments assuming as responsibilities?" he asked.  While the road to Johannesburg could be a major opportunity for the environment it could also be a failure.

Mr. van Bennekom said the political dynamic at play in all of this went beyond North and South.  It was about those who had and those who did not.  When one looked at the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, for example, there was a clear split between the oil-producing States and the non-oil-producing ones. The major trend was linking the issue of sustainability and poverty.  "We engage in complex discussions about trade, but every time you put the words trade and environment together, we tend to forget the words social and environment and keep the word trade very much alive," he said.  There was no clear-cut choice for rich and poor countries.  The fundamental question centred on governments, which wanted to take the responsibility for sustainable development, and those that wanted to achieve development at no cost.

* *** *