Johannesburg:
and what now?
Domingo Jiménez Beltrán.
Ex-Director of the European Environmental Agency, currently Advisor in
the European Commission Services "Premio Doce Estrellas para el Medio
Ambiente 2002" [2002 Twelve Star Award for the Environment].
The third United
Nations summit dedicated to the environment should be analysed within
the international context of the past thirty years, as well as within
the framework of Community environmental policy and the evolution of the
concept of sustainable development. Over these decades, the environment
has gone from being on the fringe -something with longed-for romantic
overtones following the accelerated industrialization that occurred after
World War II, especially in Europe- to becoming an important factor on
international policy agendas. Johannesburg has become another step forward
in this process.
The first summit on
the environment organized by the United Nations, the Stockholm summit
of 1972, was coined as that of "human development". The objective
was to overcome the then-prevailing idea that the environment was a burden
or limitation to development. It was a determining factor in bringing
forth the Community Environmental policy that began with the European
Summit in Paris that same year, without which construction of the European
Community could not have been imagined. Since that date in 1972, the two
processes -the Global or United Nations Summit process, and that of the
Community or advances in environmental and Sustainable Development policies-
cannot be understood separately.
The Rio Summit in
1992 hosted the greatest concentration ever seen of Heads of State and
of Government (more than 140). No one wanted to miss it, from President
Bush, Sr. to Fidel Castro, who gave a passionate, highly applauded anthropocentric
speech lasting less than two minutes, without forgetting President González,
who promised that Spain, over the following decade (now ended), would
triple the volume of its help for development (live and learn!). Just
in case, they were all there to talk about development and the environment.
The Rio Summit -held
five years after the publication of the so-called Brundtland Commission
report (named for the woman who headed it, the ex-Prime Minister of Norway)
of the United Nations The Future in Our Hands, that presented the idea
of sustainable development ("ensuring that the needs of present generations
are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own")- was presented as the Summit on Development and the Environment
in the hopes of integrating them. Now the Johannesburg Summit has been
shamelessly qualified as that of Sustainable Development.
Without yet entering
into the specific results of the Summit held in Johannesburg between August
24th and September 4th, and if we weren't immersed in the so-called information
society -that of technological change and accelerated consumption, which
is not given to putting progress in perspective- we could conclude that
the situation prior to the Summit wasn't bad, considering -at least in
conceptual terms- that in just 30 years and in environmental matters,
it went from being a limitation to development to being something to integrate
into development and, finally, to being able to become the system or development
itself. This was achieved by introducing the concept of sustainable development,
which has also provided a future context for environmental policy by embedding
it, without detracting from it, in the centre of this model of development.
As a qualitative leap,
this wouldn't be too bad, if only from the perspective of intent, and
even if the final aspiration were a real step forward in the process toward
more sustainable development.
What is sustainable development all about in practical terms? How is it
being applied in the EU? What does it have to do with me as a citizen
and consumer? Above all, what has the Johannesburg Summit contributed
to progress toward development for the future, one that is more sustainable
than the current one? And, finally, what are the major challenges pending
in the consolidation of this conceptual and instrumental framework, at
EU level, that allows for the creation of the conditions making change
towards a more Sustainable Development possible?
The concept and
its practical interpretation
Varied interpretations
from the original have been given and continue to be given for the concept
of sustainable development, and very few of them improve it, although
most adapt their nuances to the interests of the groups orchestrating
them.
For the most economics-minded,
this would consist in "living off interests and not capital"
or rather, using resources without depleting them. For the business-minded,
this would be "the economy of permanence", or how to adapt business
to the conditions of the environment in order to continue doing more,
although different, business.
For most mortals,
even if it were a dream, it could be "how to improve the quality
of life for all of us now and in the future", and in doing so use
effectively and efficiently all types of available resources. This has
been translated into the impressive paradigm of what was originally "factor
4", or how to double development with half the resources, becoming
"factor 10", which would attempt to solve the North-South disparity
by allowing the former to continue developing at double the rate, but
with one fifth of the resources, and the South to multiply by ten, or
up to twenty, its development in the same period, but with just half its
current resources. This would reduce the current unequal distribution,
with less than 20% of the population using over 80% of total resources.
It's funny that these
paradigms that sounded so utopic outside ecologist or environmentalist
coteries only five or six years ago have entered not only into Public
Administrations, but also and especially into non-speculative business
circles. It has gathered force in the latter, following the recent financial
and management scandals that are behind the famous "triple bottom
line" that attends to and understands the economic, social and environmental
dimensions of sustainable or lasting business, and which would make unthinkable
what Greenpeace calls the "corporate crimes" that destroy the
third world.
In practical terms,
sustainable development consists in using available resources more effectively
and equitably, or in separate socio-economic development from the use
and degradation of resources and from the loss of environmental quality.
It is no more than
living better in a true sense, in terms of improving quality of life and
satisfying our real needs, not those that are imposed or created, which
is what leads to growing alienation and frustration. This must be done
by producing less waste, releasing fewer pollutants into the atmosphere,
water and our food chain (so that the air we breathe, the water we drink
and the food we eat are more healthy and not just less contaminated),
consuming fewer non-renewable or limited resources (such as fossil fuels
formed over millions of years, as well as the soil, coasts, etc.) and
fewer resources that are renewable but have limited use in order to permit
their renewal (such as water, forests, etc.), and not affecting the basic
operational processes of the planet (such as climate, ozone layer or nutrient
cycles).
Okay, so who doesn't
want that? It seems we all want that, but not necessarily now and not
exactly me; rather, let someone else start and then pass the buck down
the line because, as Groucho Marx said in one of his movies: "The
future? What has the future ever done for me?" Perhaps it is in this
perception of the concept as mere solidarity with the future where the
barrier may lie in putting this paradigm into practice which, in any case,
seems unavoidable. As a well-known progressive Spanish politician recently
pointed out to me "all this sustainable development doesn't sell,
especially the part about solidarity with the future, it doesn't get people
excited" especially when they are the end doers, the consumers and
local corporations and business people who are responsible for the changes
in the models of consumption and production.
It is here, in this
diatribe, in how to translate the concept of sustainable development into
something specific and immediate as well, where recent Community experiences
become interesting because of the actions initiated as well as the obvious
deficiencies. They can be carried over to a global level when we try to
analyse the perspectives at this time, with the Johannesburg Summit still
recent, and while waiting to put it into practice, especially at Community
level, so that what happened with Rio is not repeated.
If we make abstract
what has happened since September 11, there is no doubt that on both a
global level and in particular within the EU, important conceptual and
perceptive changes have come about in regard to the environment, particularly
in its integration in development as part of the term sustainable development.
Where we fail is in putting this process into practice. We did not rise
to the occasion of the agreements of Rio, and the question now is still
not just the analysis of the Johannesburg agreements, but if in any case
we will make good on them, and even if we willimprove
them in practice, particularly in the EU.
Construction of
a strategy in the EU
At a Community level,
over the last few years -obviating the parenthesis of the Spanish presidency
(also affected by the proximity of September 11th), there has been a series
of developments that I would call converging, and which arrived at the
launching in June 2001, at the European Summit of Gothenburg, of a Community
Strategy for Sustainable Development, with its specific principles and
objectives, some of which were ambitious and some surpassed by Johannesburg,
as we will see. This strategy, together with the so-called Socio-Economic
Agenda of Lisbon, was a serious political commitment at the highest level
(Heads of State and Government) to together and indissolubly take on the
three dimensions of true development -social, economic and environmental-
in other words, sustainable development.
More importantly,
heads of state and government have forced a revision of progress in general
and of pertinent policies in particular (in Agriculture, Energy, Transport...
within the integrating process called Cardiff, due to the summit that
was approved in 1998) based on a broad package of "structural"
indicators that would make up the so-called yearly "Synthesis Report"
to be discussed at each spring summit. The first of these, in Barcelona,
may have failed because it was the first one, but it also may have been
due to the low priority given the subject by the presidency.
The general references generated in Rio, specifically Agenda 21 and the
Declaration, became the pretext permitting progression of the concept
of "sustainable development". As a concept, it was at first
taunted and ridiculed as a theorizing extraction from ecologists; however,
we have finally seen it imposed on the EU.
First, formally, by
establishing it as a goal of the EU in the Treaty of Amsterdam, before
which the policies of the Single Market, as well as economic policies
and those of the Monetary Union itself would be instrumental.
Second, politically,
by starting up, at the Gothenburg Summit in June 2001, a true Community
Strategy for sustainable
development, or rather, for a more sustainable development.
Third, practically, by the European Council itself -the highest Community
authority- taking on execution of the strategy. This includes annual reviews,
at each spring summit, based on the so-called Synthesis Reports which,
using about 40 indicators covering the social, economic and environmental
dimensions of sustainable development, or simply desirable developmental,
are intended to be a scale for measuring the true progress in achieving
greater quality of life for everyone (principle of fairness) with less
use and degradation of natural resources (principles of effectiveness
and efficiency).
To this practical
introduction of the concept, a decisive contribution was made by the fact
that many active civic groups, such as local groups and more advanced
business associations -who can identify themselves as doers, because they
are the ones who end up executing the policies- have taken "sustainable
development" as a mid-term programming and management tool. Municipalities,
through Local Agenda 21, have even encouraged competition among cities.
Businesses -with reference to the "triple bottom line", or the
triple social, economic and environmental dimension that businesses aspiring
to being long-lasting and sustainable have- have already achieved the
goal of having those that enter the Dow Jones Index of Sustainability
provide more profits in the market than the rest.
The EU in an advantageous
position
And just what are
these converging circumstances that create the line of argument or the
logic of Community intervention in this matter? This holds interest in
the area of the Member States as well as the Community and possibly globally.
Although it served to support a certain leadership of the EU in Johannesburg,
even though it was only in this case to save what little it could, it
could still become the basis for the EU to "show the way" towards
more sustainable development, thereby legitimising its future proposals
and creating a Global drag effect that may even reach the USA. These circumstances
are as follows.
1-The European Environmental
Agency has continuously shown, from its first report in 1995, that despite
the unquestionable success of the Community Environmental Policy (no country,
not even Denmark, would have done it better outside the EU) there was
not sufficient general improvement in environmental quality, and this
could only be attained by means of changes in economic and sector policies.
These should be reviewed in any case, since their evolution is not just
inadmissible, or unsustainable, and not just in environmental terms, but
even in socio-economic terms, because their uncontrolled expansion -not
integrated in the rest of the socio-economic context, puts its own objectives
at risk (too much traffic creates traffic jams, reducing accessibility
and mobility; too much tourism destroys tourism and its quality; abusive
growth in energy requirements generates blackouts and critical restrictions...)
by eroding the bases sustaining them, as well as violating other similar
policies. The reference to sustainability strengthens the selfsame socio-economic
ends of economic and sector policies.
2-The exercise of
analysing and reviewing economic and sector policies -as was carried out
within the process of integration or of the Cardiff Process, in order
to analyse how these policies responded to or were consistent with environmental
policy, and now more recently with the goal of sustainable development
(Art. 2 and 6 of the Treaty)- showed something very interesting. These
policies were, furthermore, incoherent among themselves, or in other words,
the policy of transportation violated that of energy (the increase in
energy dependence and insecurity in supply is basically due to the unsustainable
increase in traffic and road transportation, which is much higher than
that of the economy). The same was done by many intense agricultural practices.
The reference to sustainability permits synergies to be strengthened among
different policies by creating common, shared or in any case convergent
objectives.
3-The basic idea,
at a Community level, would be not just to make more policy (and not just
more market as the US proclaimed) but especially to establish new ways
of making policy by following the principles of so-called Governability.
This includes, together with the instrumental ones of transparency, control
and public participation, those of effectiveness and coherence. It also
translates into strengthening the indicated mechanisms of annual open
review of the progress made in all economic and sector policies, including
redirection of them in order to get closer to the medium- and long-term
objectives agreed upon in the Strategy for Sustainable Development (and
its external dimension or dimension of participation in global sustainability)
and in the socio-economic Agenda.
Consequently, the
paradigm of sustainable development at a Community level is identified
as an operative concept of immediate application in order to improve the
situation right now in the short and medium term, and not just in the
future. In other words, we could call it solidarity with the present and
with ourselves, or even pure self-centeredness in the good sense. This
would respond to the challenge set by President Prodi of making the EU's
economy the most competitive, based on knowledge, because this and just
this is what sustainable development is: development based on knowledge
and not on ignorance as to its consequences, even when they are immediate
and of a socio-economic nature, and not just environmental.
Along these lines
of argument, the EU has progressed since December 1997, when the Swedish
Prime Minister Goran Persson proposed establishing mechanisms to review
all Community policies with an eye to integration and/or sustainability.
Progress has been made, slowly but surely, in the various European Summits,
especially in creating expectation in civic society, including the most
active NGOs in the Community. They were a little frustrated, however,
precisely during the key period of preparing for Johannesburg, in the
first semester of this year during the Spanish presidency, in that it
was not present in the priorities which were also possibly influenced
by the effects of September 11, which affected the political Agenda.
What follows below
is an analysis with a perspective on the future that takes advantage and
tries to make good of the perhaps abundant results of Johannesburg. It
is set out using the basic idea of having the EU lead the way for developed
countries, in an opportunistic sense as well, or one of harnessing. To
do so necessarily means making use of innovation and, specifically, legitimising
it globally in order to lead a more Sustainable Globalisation.
The different context
of Johannesburg
In sizing up Johannesburg, it must not be forgotten that the model is
different from that of Rio, due as much to the different geopolitical
situation as to the context or the multilateral environmental framework.
Rio was reached in the midst of economic and political euphoria, of "PROMISING
CHANGES", with economic progress, the fall of the Berlin wall and
the East opening up, with a hopeful sense of globalisation being beneficial
to everyone. Johannesburg, however, and in part as a result of September
11th, was reached in the midst of "HARSH REALITIES", with continued
acknowledgement of the differences between North and South, unstoppable
growth of forced immigration and discouragement in eradicating poverty,
terrorism on the rise and globalisation benefiting those it always does…
Furthermore, in Rio
it was all yet to be done in terms of multilateralism in the environment.
There were three large Agreements on the table and juicy proposals in
conceptual terms and terms of principles contained in the Declaration
and Agenda 21. In Johannesburg, they all seemed old hat, when in fact
they had yet to be put into practice.
Nor should we forget
the situation immediately prior to the Summit in the EU as well as globally,
which was made clear in the last preparatory meeting of the Summit in
Bali, where the anticipated miracle did not take place. Apart from confirming
that the matters that the developing countries, or G77, were concerned
about were considered already closed, what was done was to confirm some
specific objectives regarding the priority given to matters of drinking
water supply, urban sanitation, access to energy and reinforcing the need
to make progress toward new models of production and consumption, leaving
the Agenda wide open in the remaining topics.
At a Community level,
no miracle occurred at the European Summit of Seville either, which was
the last opportunity following the dead stop produced at the Summit of
Barcelona. Four years of progress in developing a Community Strategy were
supposed to have their climax in Barcelona, as a result of the final push
given it in Gothenburg (which ended up naming the strategy). Yet in Seville,
the ambitions of the EU were confirmed, as was the fact that the agreements
of Doha as well as Monterrey would not be reopened, although their fulfilment
would be required, and they were even quoted as the basis for the famous
Global Deal that had created such expectations prior to 11 September.
The need for a positive Agenda for Globalisation was also emphasised,
along with strengthening the Governability at a national level and on
the specific priorities agreed upon in Bali (water, sanitation, energy).
Added to these were Health and the Initiative for Africa, and insisting
on the need to translate priorities into goals and specific schedules.
In short, we arrived
at Johannesburg with greater challenges, while at the same time with less
expectation, abilities and preparation, as well as the burden of 11 September.
As if that weren't enough, the main topics for developed countries, or
for the G77, including access to the Market and financing development,
were considered closed, for many of the G77 falsely, in the previous conferences
of Doha and Monterrey respectively. Finally, given the push towards multilateralism
or global environmental cooperation in Rio, Johannesburg was reached with
practically only the European Union strongly backing it in this sense,
with all the baggage from KYOTO, backing agreements and commitments that
had specific timeframes, and even in areas, such as energy, in which the
EU was not legitimised by practical progress.
So in opposition to
what has been said, that the expectations in Johannesburg were perhaps
somewhat high, the truth is that they were too low. That is why the results
should be taken, in any case, as minimum results that require strict compliance.
Then they should be used, as far as possible, to build upon them or make
advances from them.
Consequently, expectations for Johannesburg included having a large presence
of heads of state, approval of an Action Plan, with specific actions being
the responsibility of the Governments (type I) and having deadlines for
fulfilment in order to go a little beyond Rio. This finally included what
were called the five priorities of Kofi Annan.
What has Johannesburg
achieved in practical tems?
As occurred with the
Rio Summit -which was a success in itself in regard to the qualitative
leap it gave the Policy Agenda, but which we did not follow through on
in regard to fulfilment- the value of Johannesburg will be demonstrated
in our ability or inability to make good on what was achieved there, be
it great or small. That is why the following analysis is offered from
two points of view, the first being the results achieved in regard to
how it has affected or not affected the EU's specific policy Agenda. The
second perspective is whether or not this time we act accordingly and,
instead of taking the results of the Summit as a ceiling or maximum aspiration,
which is what happened with Rio, we take them as a basis upon which to
build or as the lowest common denominator for our aspirations.
Johannesburg achieved
the following:
A Declaration which
confirms the Principles of Rio, some of which beg being repeated because
of their importance and their difficulty in being respected. These include
shared but differentiated global responsibility (basis for the different
obligations of countries in the Kyoto Protocol), for prevention and precaution
and caution (basis for differentiated intervention in the Market of the
EU and US, because the EU applies the principle of taking measures without
full evidence when risks are serious), and for internalising costs (basis
for so-called fair pricing). Furthermore, it consolidated as an essential
requirement changes in the models of production and consumption, as well
as fighting for reconstruction of human solidarity, eradication of the
most unsustainable conditions, like famine, and for establishing mid-term
policies that permit participation in forming and executing policies and
in decision-making in general, as long as they are accompanied by monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms to ensure public control and political accounting
for actions. And a novelty following the recent corporate scandals is
the fight to reinforce corporate responsibility.
An Action Plan that
includes some obligatory results, in regard to specific goals to be attained
by certain deadlines, although some are just trends or earmarked for improvement.
It also includes obligatory means that are considered essential or elements
that condition progress.
Highlighted among
specific objectives are the following: Before 2015, reduce by half the
population that has no access to drinking water and basic sanitation,
which means an ambitious task of giving this service to about 1.5 billion
more human beings with enormous, almost impossible tasks in huge conurbations.
Return fishing grounds or fishing stocks to a sustainable level before
2015. The scope of this can be imagined just by learning that in areas
near the EU, the percentages that have surpassed the so-called "safe
biological limit" are greater than 70% in all our seas. Minimize
risks due to chemical substances before 2020. This is also a huge task,
given the general situation of the control of chemical substances produced
and used, with just a part of them being evaluated and few being really
controlled in end conditions. Finally, halt the loss of biodiversity,
or rather, stop the degradation of our ecosystems, before 2010, with all
that means. It would require the fishing and agriculture industries, forest
and mining operations, coastal and urban developments, hydrological plans
and infrastructures and, in general, all our territorial actions to stop
spoiling our plant and animal life and the functionality of our ecosystems.
It would mean discovering how to build our infrastructures without destroying
our highly valuable -in a socio-economic sense as well- natural infrastructures.
Qualitative or trend
goals include the following. An urgent, substantial increase (the specific
goal of 15% advocated by the EU was not accepted) in the contribution
of energies from renewable sources and the promotion of markets for ecological
products or those coming from ecological agriculture, which is of great
interest to developing countries.
Some of the obligatory
means are recovered from the Millennium Declaration of the year 2000,
such as having National Working Strategies for Sustainable Development
available before 2005. In the case of the EU, it exists, more or less,
but in the case of half the Member States -among them Spain- that should
have finalized it before Johannesburg, it is missing. Special mention
is made, because it is a key part of the strategy, and the most difficult,
of the obligatory development of a 10-year framework outline of Sustainable
Production and Consumption Programmes. This obligation had been self-imposed
in the EU before going to Johannesburg.
There were also other
non-objectifiable achievements, such as promoting and coming close to
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol by having Russia and Japan not go back the
way they came, establishing a coalition led by the EU for progress in
renewable energy and establishing a total of 200 development co-operations,
or voluntary collaborations. These include the one related to water and
that of the EU with the NIS, which joins voluntary forces (Type II actions)
among governments, businesses, NGOs and other agents of Civic Society.
Despite the fact that
Johannesburg was not as ambitious as Rio 1992 and that there were absences
by many of the leaders present at Rio, such as the US President and the
President of Spain, we must not forget that almost 65,000 people were
there. It was a great event that only the Environment seems able to attract,
and at least a Political Declaration was achieved, thereby recovering
the spirit of Rio. More importantly, a Plan was set up with certain objectives
and deadlines, in an attempt to redirect globalisation, which for now
is merely mercantile, by making it somewhat more sustainable and contributing
to a greater or sufficient quality of life for everyone now and in the
future. At least an attempt was made to respond to the five priorities
of Kofi Annan that were given by the EU: water, health, energy, agriculture
and biodiversity. A suitable balance was sought between the so-called
Type 1 actions that involve commitments from States and which were advocated
by the EU, and Type 2 actions that involve participation by the private
sector, civic society and volunteers, which seem to be the ones desired
by the US.
Assessment for
all tastes
It is clear that the
specific results were not much less than what was expected, given that
the expectations were low, although it must be admitted that the Summit,
given the assessments made, may well have been at the low level of the
circumstances. At any rate, it did not rise to the occasion of the great
challenges mentioned.
There
are varying interpretations for all tastes. They are not all equidistant,
and their analysis, as always, allows us to make a beneficial interpretation
in order to project the results toward the future, and to make good use
of what was achieved by strengthening it and, especially, by building
upon it.
For President Prodi, Johannesburg did not repudiate the need to hold these
summits, even though at the same time, the WWF qualified it, in a free
interpretation of WSSD, as the "World Summit of Shameful Deals ".
For the Director General
of the Environment of the European Committee, it was proof that multilateralism
works, while for the WWF, it was proof that Intergovernmental processes
do not work.
For President Prodi,
Johannesburg bore witness to the further deterioration of the image of
the developed world (including the EU, and not just the US). Furthermore,
President Prodi firmly pointed out that the market as an instrument to
help development (or help as a result of the market) does not work, rather,
they should go together (help for development as a goal in itself!) «
from trade to help to trade and help » in Prodi's own words. He
even stated that the reason for the failure of the EU proposal to reach
a goal of 15% for renewable energy contribution was the obvious fact that
the EU (with its timid 6% quota) was not authorized to force this agreement.
Nor was it authorized, according to Prodi, in the matter of farming subsidies,
which so badly penalized agriculture in the Third World.
For a large part of
the political stratum, Sustainable Development has been consolidated in
the political Agenda, in the words of P Cox, President of the European
Parliament, who meanwhile broached the growing gap between political agenda
aspirations and political ability to act, especially in taking the results
from the summit as a base from which to start, and not as a ceiling for
our aspirations. These assertions were confirmed with very strong words
by the President of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Bjorn Stigson, who repeated several times that the challenge is not a
technical one, but a political one due to Institutional lack of ability,
which is quite a blow!
There is also quite
a coincidence in the reinforced focus on Sustainable Production and Consumption
in the political process. This involves the unavoidable condition of having
the market start working for (sustainable) development and not vice-versa,
according to the appraisal shared by the Danish Minister of the Environment,
C. Schmidt, and by the European Bureau of the Environment (J Hontelez).
According to Commissioner
Margot Wallstrom, the Johannesburg instruments -the Declaration and the
Action Plan, together with the Doha and Monterrey conferences- form a
basis from which to set off toward global development co-operation (or
for the unachieved Global Deal) for sustainable development. However,
for the NGOs, in general in Johannesburg, the chance was lost to give
sustainable development a significant boost, what with the US still responding
to the results from Rio (!) and the EU willing but not able to tackle
the subjects of globalisation (positive), improved access to markets,
support for development and demands for business responsibility.
My personal perception would be:
That the summit almost
rose to the occasion of the low expectations generated.
That there is still a huge difference between what is said -or agreements-
and what is done -or achievements. As the children in Johannesburg said
« talk, talk, talk...ACT, ACT, ACT», or as WBCSD said"
«walking the talking».
Let's hope this will
finally, FINALLY be the time at least the agreements will be met, and
that this is continually monitored and demanded.
That we will at least
create the conditions and institutional capabilities to enable the emerging
civic society to exercise all its potential, beyond the limitations of
their own governments.
-And finally, that
although the exercise of realism has left us with a few minimal agreements,
we have not lost the future promise, at some better time, of surpassing
the Doha and Monterrey agreements and attaining positive globalisation
as the EU intended and, I assume, intends. This would mean open markets
full of possibilities for developing countries, and support for development
to indissolubly and proportionately accompany the market (and repair its
limitations or defects). It wouldn't seem possible unless some global
taxation is nurtured, as demanded by President Chirac himself in Johannesburg,
for the Global Fund for the eradication of poverty and for sustainable
development. It is the time not only for harsh realities, but also for
promises of a necessarily and mandatorily better future that does not
give up on sustainability.
And let the EU
show the way! And now what?
Pespectives for the EU to show te way towards sutainability. And benefit
from it?
Without the need for
abstracting evident short- and medium-term priorities, such as those referring
to the Economic Stability Pact as a key part of the Monetary Union and
Common Currency, and especially expansion and convection for the EU's
political and institutional development or adaptation -which will occupy
the political Agenda, along with Foreign Policy- there is no doubt that
the EU's objective is still to achieve sustainable development in accordance
with Art. 2 of the Treaty, for which most of these priorities are instrumental.
These other urgent
matters should not hinder construction of the process towards greater
sustainability guaranteeing progressive improvement in the quality of
life now and in the future for everyone, as far as possible, as well as
contributing to global sustainability or positive globalisation. This
was one of the starting points from which the EU made contributions to
Johannesburg, and it is part of the so-called external dimension of the
Community Strategy for Sustainable Development.
What follows is an attempt to analyse the starting conditions and future
determining factors for EU leadership of this change at a global level,
beginning with changes in the EU's own area.
A favourable perspective
for the EU
There are enough converging
elements to favourably position the EU in this process:
-The multilateral
Agenda broadens progressively to include the three dimensions of SD.
-Community Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) is without doubt the
most advanced (although insufficient as such) at a regional level. It
can also be qualified as mature, since it survived and even grew under
the unfavourable conditions of the last Presidencies (post Sept. 11) and
the process of Johannesburg itself.
-The SDS has strong
ties now to putting into practice the so-called Governability that is
considered to be a key part of development. A determining element in this,
as was recently acknowledged by an economic weekly that is above suspicion
in this subject, would be institutional capability, well beyond the economic
programs in themselves, and which will be hard put to progress without
a framework for cohesion and efficiency such as that offered by the SDS.
-In this sense, the
SDS has already demonstrated its usefulness as a reference point in current
reviews of agricultural and fishing policies in order to make them more
governable and sustainable.
-Finally, it all seems
to rest now on attaining sustainable production and consumption and, to
that effect, market orientation or organization, since its being to the
service of development and not the opposite would be the key element,
as well as being a significant incentive for innovation and competitiveness.
-The Council on General
Matters of the EU, of Sept. 30, as well as the Environment Council of
0ct. 17, reflected this favourable situation and the challenge for the
EU to open up the way. In its conclusions, it made the SDS connection
with the multilateral Agenda and the WTO Conferences in Doha in Nov. 2001,
with the United Nations conference in Monterrey in March, 2002, with the
FAO Food Summit in Rome and, of course, with the package of the United
Nations Johannesburg Summit, including the UN Millennium Declaration in
2000 and all the agreements reached in Rio in June 1992 and which are
still in effect and pertinent!
-In these recent meetings,
the Council has confirmed the need to review the SDS in 2003, given recent
developments, and in order to support, in its own words, the results of
Johannesburg as well as respond to other multilateral objectives. This
involves recognizing that many of them could go beyond those agreed upon
at a Community level.
Requirements and
opportunities for the EU
In this sense, it
should not be forgotten that in Johannesburg the EU obtained not just
responsibility to lead change (for which it should feel proud, but not
necessarily satisfied) but also specific commitments surpassing those
agreed upon in the still-valid SDS. These include the 10-Year Plan for
Sustainable Production and Consumption, the need to show the way to reach
the advocated goal of a 15% quota by 2015 (it is now 6%, with a goal of
12% for 2010), true advances in Farming and Fishing Policies (with 100%
of stocks recovered by 2015!) that are sustainable and not subsidized
and, of course, going beyond the Doha commitments in accessing markets
and at least complying with those of Monterrey in supporting development
(reaching the average of 0.39% GNP in ODA and a minimum of 0.33% for each
Member State). Anyone who believes that this is not ambitious, if minimums
are achieved, should look at the current situation in the recent reports
from the European Environment Agency!
So we start off from
a situation in which we have a multilateral agenda, which, while not being
ambitious, could still bring about significant changes and create conditions
for more radical changes if the agreements are taken as basic ones. This
would enable it to go even further, once the proposals have been proved
possible and even healthy in socio-economic terms and there is at least
initial policy instrumentation enabling the EU to show the way and even
reap benefits through this pioneering, and therefore innovative, attitude.
It should be added that this approach reinforces the thesis of making
the expansion an opportunity as well for matters of sustainable development
and seriously approaching sustainability as a basic goal of expansion,
making community wealth an instrument of respect and not an objective
in itself.
As was recently said
in the heat of debate on SDS by the WWF Director Tony Long, opportunities
for EU leadership are increasing, to which Danish Minister Schmidt added
that it is an occasion for action and our success depends above all on
our own ability.
Thoughts on the
future
What follows is a
personal interpretation of the situation and the perspectives opening
up before the EU if, as the Danish Minister said, we act with a certain
amount of skill in handling a consolidated political agenda. However,
it should be orchestrated on the basis of existing abilities, or abilities
to be strengthened, making sure institutional capabilities respond at
least to the expectations of civil society.
The basic idea consists
in translating the Political Agenda into a clear socio-economic purpose,
within a clarifying vision that offers cohesiveness and is accompanied
by a sense of direction. Purpose, vision and sense of direction.
Purpose
The objective of the
EU is sustainable development (Art. 2 and 6 of the Treaty), with the economy
and market as instruments.
Sharing in the intention
of President Prodi "to make the EU's economy the most competitive
based on knowledge" and in the business interpretation of the WBCSD
that SD is not doing less business but different business, the purpose
must be objectified as well in terms of solidarity with the present, and
not just with the future.
This would mean trying
to obtain better (or sufficient) real quality of life for a growing majority
through cohesion and efficiency of action. This would permit the paradigm
of SD by fusing the present and the future in a cognitive action that
introduces an atemporal dimension into rational management based on the
knowledge of our only natural capital and building on it ("building
without destroying"). The aim would be an attempt to overcome "short
termness" in the market economy that is not subject to its instrumental
nature, the symptomatic treatment of which, in addition to not permitting,
foreseeing or even managing the crisis, imposes itself on the rationality
of an approach that integrates it in time and space. It is very likely
that "pacification of the economy" and its being subjected to
the rationality of SD could be the most important achievement of positive
globalisation.
It is also very possible that this intention of techno-political extraction
needs to be completed with an in-depth study of its ethical, cultural
and even aesthetic dimensions in order to turn this process into what
the Club of Rome called the Third Industrial Revolution. If the first
two were based on accessing new raw materials and energy sources (first
coal and later petroleum), this is based on progressively abandoning them
and rationally using -and not abusing- resources. This could make it the
first worldwide revolution, but that lies outside the scope of this dissertation.
Vision
Essentially, sustainable
development would be nothing more than development based on knowledge
in addition to acting on the five principles backed by Governability (transparency,
coherence, effectiveness, control and public participation). It can be
translated into the simple vision of progressive separation or disconnection,
until absolute disconnection is achieved between improved (or sufficient)
quality of life (development until now) and use of resources and environmental
degradation.
It is important to
look for progressive exploitation of this final vision within the process
of building existing and developing community policies, and its reflection
even in the institutional process of reviewing and executing community
policies. In order to do so, there are some simple theses that are beginning
to emerge from within this simplifying vision:
-The SDS should be
considered (conveniently reinforced) as the framework concept or, in the
words of John Hontelez (EBE) "as the cornerstone and not the stone
in the corner".
- Sustainable production
and consumption are at the centre of the process.
-The (domestic) market
should work for these processes and, in general, for (sustainable) development
and not vice-versa (Min. Schmidt). We need to direct the market and not
have the market direct us (JH) because it attends more to the offer or
interests of the producers/business people than to the demands or interests
of consumers, as recently indicated by Commissioner Byrne.
-Necessary market
orientation or organization (in order to respond to the objectives of
general interest) promotes innovation (Commissioner Fischler) and, as
we see, it is the essential condition to having sector policies (farming,
fishing...) join the path of sustainability, or sometimes to continued
functioning.
-The question continues
to be how to evolve from an economy directed by offer to one attending
more to demand, and this means becoming free of the syndrome of infrastructures
that facilitate offer.
-Key points of action
in this process of progressive evolution include fair prices (internalising
costs and signals adapted to the market) proper taxation (there can be
no sustainability without good accounting that shows tax burdens or benefits
on concepts of SD effectiveness and contribution to SD), improving the
productivity of resources (competitive advantage of the EU over the US,
not yet made fully manifest), policies of quality with a distinction of
sustainable performance…
-Other points are
weaker in this necessary transformation of production and consumption
models, such as consumers, inability to find mechanisms that offer short-term
rewards (lack of fair or adjusted prices or tax breaks), sustainable consumption
(Forum ECOSOC Oct. 4) and especially limitations in institutional capability
(WBCSD, B Stigson) which would be more decisive than technical barriers
or willingness of businesses.
-Changing the conditions
of the domestic market seems inevitable.
One could even think of another new White Paper, this time to satisfy
the real needs of consumers and citizens in a sustainable way.
-Finally, this vision
must also incorporate the "waybill" for the process, the institutional
procedures for decision making and Economic and Sector policy review within
the EU (Cardiff Process), its overlapping the Socio-Economic (or Lisbon)
Agenda and environmental policy as such (the Sixth Action Program). All
this is taken in under the framework concept and the Community Strategy
for Sustainable Development (or Gothenburg Strategy) and converges in
time within the annual cycle of accounting for actions and policy revision
at each of the EU's Spring Summits. This is basic to finding out if we
are making progress or not in the right direction, beyond but also within
the increase in GDP.
Sense of direction
The key question is
not so much How good is the situation? rather Are we progressing enough
in the right direction?, in other words, towards more sustainable development.
It is in this sense that we must be helped by the package of "structural
indicators" that are being consolidated within the scope of the EU
in order to cover the social, economic and environmental dimensions of
sustainable development, and whose evolution is included in the Annual
Synthesis Report presented at each of the EU's spring summits. It is basic
to so-called Governability because it is useful in evaluating the coherence
and effectiveness of policies, as well as ensuring transparency, control,
public information and even public participation or, in any case, that
of the more active groups or stakeholders, by means of mechanisms for
consultation foreseen by the Commission, such as the so-called "Roundtable
on Sustainability". This process involves us all, in showing us whether,
for example, in environmental terms, the compass of environmental sustainability
shows progress in all key aspects or not.
Conclusion
It is undeniable
that the EU has its own agenda, before and after the summit, which is
quite different from that of the US. Therefore, making good on the results
from Johannesburg depends a great deal on the European Union and its ability
to, in the first place, legitimise itself before the Third World -through
the selfsame process already begun towards more sustainable development
(even though it is more an intention than a reality, at least it's something)
and especially, in the second place to respond, even if it also is only
intentional, to the two large claims that remain pending following Johannesburg,
from the less-developed countries. These are access to markets, respecting
and surpassing Doha concessions, and especially financing development
and reducing poverty, as was reiterated by the President of South Africa,
Thabo Mbeki, in the Summit's opening ceremony. To this end, the agreements
from Monterrey, which in fact are practically an attempt to recover the
levels of Official Aid for Development from 1992 during the Rio Summit,
are clearly insufficient. Nor do they enter into the development of stable
systems for safely providing a true World Fund, whether it is for reducing
poverty or for development. It will only take on a body and capacity if
some global taxation is considered, whether it be on the most speculative
movements of capital (similar to the so-called Tobin tax) or on the trade
of certain resources, such as energy and in particular fossil fuels, or
fuels for international traffic, such as kerosene for aviation, as was
proposed in 1997 by the EU itself.
The EU has yet another
reason for leading this process of change, and that is the opportunity
it is offered by expansion to make this accelerated process of development
for a significant part of Europe an example of sustainable development.
And that would place candidate countries at the head in many areas of
production, services and consumption, responding to a qualitative leap,
called "leap-frogging", for which they are better placed because
they will have to renew many infrastructures and productive and service
capacities, and will be able to do it with hugely innovative and sustainable
technology! That would be the definitive test for the EU's capacity for
leadership.o
|
