KEY ISSUES EMERGE FROM GREEN WEEK

-          THE OVERALL IMPORTANCE OF A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT and the role of  CLIMATE CHANGE

-          For Engineers, GREEN PROCUREMENT  comes under debate

PREPARING FOR THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN JOHANNESBURG 

“Rio + 10” -   26th AUGUST – 4^th SEPTEMBER 2002

 The ‘Millennium objectives’ are to reduce poverty by half by the year 2015.  Ten years after the Rio Conference the disparities between north and south have widened, a fact referred to by some of the speakers at the Climate Change Conference held as part of the European Commission’s ‘Green Week’ to promote Europe’s environmental policies and actions.  Green Week events took place in the ‘Charlemagne’ Building, adjacent to the landmark Berlaymont building, whose refurbishment appears to be in its final stages.   The atmosphere was lively as school groups from around Europe, representatives of NGOs, regional authorities and agencies, and a smaller number of business representatives jostled their way to a series of plenary sessions, workshops and events spread out across three floors of the Charlemagne Building.  Glass security doors separate conference activity from the day-to-day workings of officials in the building which also houses Commissioners Lamy and Patten.

A key theme recurring throughout the day’s main sessions and workshop outcomes was the need for practical proposals and implementation.

A report from the Climate Change Sessions of Green Week – 18^th April 2002

Whilst a key theme of Green Week was ‘nature’, the one-day series of sessions on climate change was perhaps the most important part of the week’s activity.  The morning’s plenary session was chaired by Jean-Francois Verstrynge, Acting Director-General for D G Environment.  Many representatives were present from non-governmental organisations, but fewer were there from business, a fact which was commented on in the closing round up of the day’s specialist workshops.

Opening speaker, Spain’s Environment Minister, Jaime Matas emphasised the participative nature of the process.  Many studies have been carried out by bi- and multi-lateral organisations, yet poverty reduction is occurring in only a handful of countries he said.  It is one of the most important facets of the summit.  Environment and poverty go hand-in-hand, providing the basic workables of life. 

Mr Matas emphasised the desire to make sure globalisation supports sustainable development – creating an economic growth effect.  The EU continues to believe that economic growth is key to international strategies to reduce poverty.  There is a need to ensure appropriate economic, social, cultural, and environmental protection.  For global development to work there must be better access to the market for developing countries.  There is a need to change consumption patters – this is probably the second major issues of the summit, he declared, otherwise species survival will not be guaranteed, even survival of the human species.  He raised the issue of decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation.  A 10-year work programme on sustainable consumption is envisaged, with developed countries taking leadership.  Developed countries are at the head and so they should make a clear political commitment, this, he believes is the signal developing countries expect of Europe.  There is a need to encourage inclusion of environmental and social concerns at all levels of the decision-making process.

The role of the consumer has its part to play – one can decide what products to consume – more information will be made available to assist in this process.  Protection and management of resources is the premise for economic and environmental development.  EU themes are bio-diversity, soil erosion and conservation, eco-systems – fresh water oceans, woodlands, mountainous areas and bio-diversity.  What are the effects on food safety?   A networking of protected areas is encouraged.

A key theme of his speech was the concept of a shared-benefits mechanism, the need to strengthen governance.  The EU recognises that there is a clear link between both kinds of governance – which is a relatively new idea internationally.  The EU has been working flat out, he said, to define content in joint analyses with civil societies.  This concern is not shared by all multilateral organisations.  There is a need to involve Bretton Woods, UN, WTO.  There is a lack of co-ordination and the EU must provide balance.  There is a need for an international action plan on governance and clear definition of the role of governance.  There is a need to guarantee full participation of civil society, plus access to justice.  These are key components in good governance internationally.  There is a need to strengthen institutions at local level and the EU has lent its full support to the UN system to help attain objectives.

Following him on the podium was Greek MEP Mihail Papayannakis who stressed the failure of the Rio Summit in 1992 – things have worsened since then.  The EU’s commitment to tropical forests has not been fulfilled and they have not prevented its destruction.  There is a need to draw up a balance sheet.  There is talk of a planetary “New Deal” and whilst he was critical of pompous declarations made by governments and officials, he believed that the agenda for Johannesburg was more promising.

 Five main points: (i) Poverty – trade not aid, non-tariff obstacles, poor countries are strangled by debt;

(ii) Poverty indicators.  Looking at the aims for aid to provide a fixed percentage of GDP he pointed out that Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have reached the objective of 0.39%, half of the objective set 30 years ago;

(iii) Globalisation – there is a need for political leadership, not treaties.  This should be multi-lateral leadership, not solely American.  There is a need, he said, to re-invent the United Nations.

(iv) Bio-diversity – he commented that  if regulations are legally beneath the level of WTO regulations, they will be worth nothing.

(v) There is a need for sustainable models of production to be changed, one can not do so by law but there are policies to be applied – fiscal and pricing policy.  In fact a very energetic fiscal policy is required.

Mr Papayannakis wondered exactly what ‘governance’ meant and if it would change things – how would you live in a world not speaking about  global governance, he inquired.  Internal co-ordination between the IMF and WTO is not enough – what decisions will they take he asked, regarding Argentina?  It is imperative to facilitate the access of the poor to natural resources.  However, if this means giving land to peasants, this would mean a totally different policy for the World Bank.

The final speaker of the opening session was Klaus Toepfer, Director of UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme.  Mr Toepfer reminded participants that UNEP would be 30 years old in June – marking 30 years since the first environmental summit in Stockholm.  The programme was linked directly with UN HQ and the UN Assembly.  The decision to headquarter it in Nairobi meant it was the only UN programme to be headquartered in the development world and he considered that twenty years later the relevance of this decision was that Rio was not a conference on the environment, but the UN Conference on Environment and Development.  He emphasised the need for externalisation of costs – our prices do not reflect the costs.  He quoted Weizsaecker who said that prices will tell the ecological truth.  Although conventions have been made such as the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean to bring common standards it became clear in Rio that developing countries were not convinced by being asked not to do what developed countries used to do.  The argument of ‘let’s be rich first and clean up later’ is a common one – German Chancellor Willi Brandt did not ask for a blue sky until after economic development.  Using CFCs destroys the ozone layer and so exports costs.  One can not phase out CFCs without substitutes – this was the reasoning behind the Montreal Fund amounting to USD 1.2/1.3 billion.

Looking at the percentage of GNP going to development aid he said that Germany is now at 0.27% - the EU is now at 0.33% and has decided to go to 0.39% - this is still far from 0.7% but the trend seems to be going around and others will follow.  This is not a charity but a global deal.  Both sides have to offer and integrate.

It is interesting to note that the poorer a country, the higher its bio-diversity.  The last century was the century of chemist and he believes the new century is the century of biology. Developments are occurring, such as at the 6^th Conference of COP at the Hague where a group of like-minded developing countries got together – Mexico (leading), China and Costa Rica.  The guidelines from the Bonn meeting on benefit-sharing are a huge step to access in Johannesburg he believed.  Developing countries offer the greatest benefit in human capital .  However, there is a need for an intensive fight against corruption – where someone is bribed, someone is bribing.  Rule of law and reliable administration are required.  The European industrialisation process started with the invention of the machine but also the invention of independent administration.

Johannesburg must make an honest assessment.  In contrast with the previous speaker, Mr Topefer felt that Rio was a huge endeavour and a ‘huge’ success as it gave the feeling of a new dimension, hoping on a peace dividend to invest after the Cold War.  Agenda 21 is a local process success story.  He hoped that the Kyoto Protocol would be ratified.  There is also a negotiated protocol on biological safety. 

Expressing the crux of many participants’ views Mr Toepfer stated that the problem is a wonderful Declaration – wonderful programmes, but they are not time-bound, not quantifiable, there are not set targets and one must go back to accountability.  There must be a time table and practical targets such as leaded petrol out by 2007.  There must be responsible prosperity.  In face of the poverty of the majority there must be a change in consumption of the minority.  He was happy that the Doha meeting outcome was integrated eco-labelling – but what are we doing?  Is Green taxation not possible?  How can one change technology by stimulating life-cycle economics?   Take back for cars, take-back for electronic items are not just about handing in waste but the need to change products – sustainable responsible prosperity for all.

The EU has made vital steps but must act in a practical way.  His speech ended on the plea – “No new declaration please, concentrate on implementation”.

This final speech marked the end of the opening plenary session and the beginning of a series of specialist workshops which were reviewed at the end of the afternoon.  The day’s session concluded with a presentation by the three European Commissioners who are working together on EU preparation for the Johannesburg Conference.

Next Page >>>>>>>

Back to News Page