PRESS BRIEFING BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

PRESS BRIEFING BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Representatives of four non-governmental organizations addressed the issue of whether the United Nations was still relevant, and whether multilateralism and sustainable development could survive in a “one super-power world”, at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon, sponsored by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

The press conference was being held on the sidelines of the eleventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, currently meeting at Headquarters.  During the two-week session, to conclude on 9 May, the Commission is focusing on its own future work in translating into reality the commitments made -– and the goals and targets agreed upon -- at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002).

In opening remarks, David Hales of the Stakeholder Forum, said that while the current session of the Commission was characterized by strong ministerial statements and a strong leadership, it had not been all that different in rhetoric from past sessions.  As the session entered into the negotiating phase, there were opportunities and concerns.  One of the things that made the Commission remarkable was its openness to participation from the full range of those who had interest in the outcomes of the session.  That participation, however, needed to be expanded.

Representing Greenpeace International, Marcelo Furtado said that one of the concerns at the beginning of the Johannesburg Summit had been that multilateralism was at stake, given that one or more States had threatened not to negotiate.  Yet, the Summit had been able to achieve an outcome because the other States present had decided not to be held hostage by that threat.  This year, another threat to multilateralism was the war in Iraq, which threatened the United Nations as a whole.

The big question now concerned the role of multilateralism, he continued.  Some countries were saying that multilateralism could be saved with money, through the World Trade Organization (WTO), while others said that it should be saved through reinforcing and strengthening the United Nations.  The latter approach would be the more balanced one.  People on the street did not see the United Nations as just the Security Council, but as the organization that changed lives and addressed injustice.  The challenge for the Organization was either to answer the people in the street by changing the multilateral system into a system that was more equitable to all, or “throw the towel in the ring” and “rubberstamp” every outcome of the WTO.

Since 1992, there had been three gaps in the Commission, noted Saradha Iyer of the Third World Network.  The first one was a credibility gap.  The session had paid scant attention to the principles of Agenda 21, implementation of which was the Commission’s mandate.  Also, the Millennium Development Goals were something of a “coup” as the outcomes of the international conferences and summits had selectively been put into eight goals.  The partnerships, called for in the Johannesburg outcome, were folded into existing structures in the United

Nations, which was actually a recipe for undermining the Organization.  There should be criteria to guide partnerships, including transparency, accountability and liability.

The Commission was also suffering from a coherence gap, she continued.  The economic pillar of sustainable development had been sacrificed in the session.  That was a glaring omission.  There had been a lot of talk about good governance, but good governance of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WTO had not been addressed.  There was also a financing gap.  If there were no means, the Millennium Development Goals could not be implemented.  The halving of poverty alone required a doubling of aid.

Tzila Katzel, representing The World Conservation Union (IUCN), said that while partnerships had taken off, they should not be a substitute for multilateral agreement.  The “Bali-guidelines” on the principles of partnership should be revisited as they did not allow for much movement and partnering on the local level.  There had not been much representation from the local level during the Commission’s session.

Responding to a question, Mr. Furtado said that what was expected from the Commission was for it to implement the Johannesburg outcome.  Political will was needed, and the question was whether that political will was going to be driven by the United Nations or individual countries.  There was a trend towards privatization of the role of the United Nations, which was the biggest challenge now.  The protest of millions against the war in Iraq on 15 December showed that civil society had become more organized and that people’s tolerance to inaction was being tested.  Issues such as corporate accountability needed to be translated from the “twilight zone of meeting rooms into the reality of the street”.

Ms. Iyer hoped for some policy directions to come out of the Commission’s session, she said.  Would development perspectives be injected into trade policies, or would it be the other way around, she asked.  Was there going to be people-centred development, based on a human rights approach?

Ms. Katzel added that specific local needs needed to be included in the development perspective.  There had been enough discussion, and the Commission had to focus on implementation on the ground.  How that could be done was missing from the discussion.  The focus had been lost.

The Commission had a strong mandate, added Mr. Hales.  It could be the agent of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council for promoting sustainable development within the United Nations system and for advocating it outside the Organization.  It could also be an agent of change.  The Commission had not come close to realizing the potential of its mandate.

Asked how close the Bush administration was to walking away from the United Nations, Mr. Furtado replied by asking why that should matter.  The same situation existed in Johannesburg, where there was a fear that the United States would not come.  The United States had a huge economy and influence.  But the discussion in the United Nations was about changing the reality of people on the ground, not the individual will of individual countries.  If one country did not want to play the game, should all other countries go home? 

One way of showing greater political will, he added, was if the other countries that believed in the multilateral system would request from the Secretary-General an emergency meeting of the United Nations on how to strengthen and re-enforce the multilateral system.

Mr. Hale added that the important thing was to make sure that governments lived up to their rhetoric.  If the ministers were taken at their word, there was real promise.  Ms. Iyer said the lesson learned from the way the United States treated the United Nations was what not to do.  One could not preach the rule of law and break international law.  One could not ask for global governance and disrespect international governance.  The multilateral system must be strengthened with or without the United States.

Asked about the effect the war in Iraq had on the climate of the Commission’s meetings, Mr. Furtado said the erosion of the political will to address environmental and social issues had already started before the Johannesburg Summit.  The war had just strengthened it.  However, the war had also stimulated people to take individual action, which might be the most important consequence.  There was a revolution going on in civil society.  Today, people believed there was a role for them in making history.  Apathy was disappearing.

Mr. Hale felt that the credibility of the United States in the Commission was becoming increasingly suspect.  Many countries were now conscious of how the United States had behaved in other forums.  It was easy to focus on the acute, such as terror and war.  The Commission must focus on the chronic.  A mother watching her child die from diarrhoea, caused by polluted drinking water, was as terrorized as someone was by a bomb attack.  The Commission could make an impact on the daily terror of not having access to energy, water or health care.  That was what sustainability was about.

Ms. Iyer added that the Commission’s current session was different from previous ones, as the spirit in the meetings was affected by such rhetoric as “pre-emption” and “regime change”, which were seen as looming threats.  It had had the effect of completely splitting the “Group of 77” developing countries and China.

* *** *