The WSSD in Johannesburg was to mark the progress ten years from Rio where representatives of peoples from around the world had gathered to sincerely attempt to talk about sustainability, environmental destruction, increasing inequalities in the world, etc. A question of this kind posed after the UNCED in Rio (1992) would have given us answers such as: Adoption of Rio Principles; Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action for every area of human impact on the environment; and initiatives which gave rise to conventions such as UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity, the two most important treaties dealing with sustainability. While real progress on abiding by the principles outlined or in implementing the conference goals has been slow, Rio was an outstanding success in terms of putting environmental issues on the global agenda. The Johannesburg conference failed to make significant progress since then. Reports published in Europe have claimed an increasing distance between funding agencies in Europe and the USA and peoples groups and NGOs in the south. Various initiatives for sustainability, most notably the Kyoto Agreement, have fallen through.

The UN-organized WSSD was touted as a conference on action. It was to come up with ‘a plan of implementation’ for protecting the environment while improving the lives of people living in poverty.

Instead, what we now have is a set of expressions of intent – to reverse the trend in bio-diversity loss, to phase out energy subsidy where appropriate, to increase access to modern energy services, to increase energy efficiency, to increase the use of renewable energy, to enhance co-operation to reduce air pollution, to support phasing out of export subsidies (without reference to any obligation on the part of EU to reduce subsidy given to its farmers). We have expressions of intent without any clear targets, timetables or strategies for action.

We also have a few deadlines, such as halving the number of people who live on less than a dollar a day or halving the people who do not have access to water supply and sanitation. (The unfortunate part is that targets on renewable energy had to be compromised to reach an agreement on sanitation target - How these two could be seen as one or the other escapes me; in fact, the use of fossil fuels and hydropower aggravates the water crisis). Another agreement was to restore depleted fisheries by 2015.

But even where there are deadlines, there has been no clear multilateral agreement to commit funds for these new agreements. What is being played out is the reluctance on the part of developed country governments to establish multilateral funding mechanisms, for any action in the interest of sustainable development at global level. In off-the-record conversations both EU and US delegation members said, effectively: ‘why would our government fund an initiative where we will not have complete control?’

The funding, it has been decided, will come from “innovative partnerships”. What are these?

World Summit on Shameful Deals (W$$D)

`Innovative partnerships’ are in keeping with the developments in the UN system, where business is being seen as partners in sustainable development – not necessarily in ensuring that they comply to all sustainability parameters, but in promising to bring in much needed money for UN. On 4th September, Kofi Annan said that “the conference marked "a major leap forward" in teaming up the public sector, ….businesses and other key actors”. That is indeed the case. According to the UN report on the announcement of partnerships, ‘in a sharp departure from traditional conference practice, these partnerships represent an innovative mechanism for moving from paper commitments to joint action on the ground’. While UN has sanctioned these partnerships, it has not developed multilaterally-agreed upon guidelines on partnerships.

The recent corporate scams have opened our eyes to the kind of unethical practices big businesses are capable of. In light of this, such partnerships are troublesome. `Innovative partnerships’ are often Northern-driven. They allow the fund provider to form consortiums with like-minded international institutions, and choose or promote other partners such as private firms in their countries. They allow control of resources by these consortiums without any commitment to work within guidelines for sustainable change. Perhaps in keeping with colonial and neo colonial legacies, EU announced water partnerships for Africa and Central Asia (whereby European water multinationals like Suez, Vivendi and Thames Water secure contracts in these regions, and European water professionals get consultancies and ‘aid’ to work there). The US announced $970 million for those countries meeting standards such as good governance and sound fiscal policies (i.e., private sector participation and other policies conducive to US interests). A majority of the partnership initiatives have direct involvement of companies such as BP, Proctor and Gamble, and Escom – which is polluting water in South Africa itself.

World Bank along with Proctor and Gamble announced an “innovative (sanitation) partnership” to improve the health standards of children of Kerala, where I grew up, my parents live. The irony is that Kerala has the highest health and sanitation indicators in India, at par with developed countries. The only difference is that use of plant extracts are quite prevalent even today in this state for cleaning one’s body, clothes, and utensils. With its high literacy it can be a large market indeed and this is perhaps the reason for such a venture in Kerala.

It is in response to the development of such partnerships that there was a civil society campaign for an international framework on ‘enforceable corporate accountability and liability’ initiated by Friends of the Earth International and supported by almost all major groups - except business. The proposal for an international framework on corporate accountability and liability was almost killed in the pre-WSSD meeting at Bali. But due to the efforts of civil society groups, it made a comeback in WSSD, though in a more diluted form. The final implementation text of WSSD calls for “commitment to actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability”. This text at least leaves the door open for the civil society to campaign for a strong treaty on corporate accountability.

At the beginning of this article, I asked a question: What will WSSD do for those living in the shadow of nuclear plants, those being displaced by large infrastructure projects, those affected by food insecurity? Precious little. If anything, there may be many more joining their ranks. For WSSD did not have the political will to commit funds for renewable energy, or for achieving sustainable consumption and production in agriculture or industry. It did not think it necessary to rein in the trade and economic agenda promoted by the neo-liberal forces to ensure that social and environmental justice issues are addressed.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) had turned out to be a 10-day "dialogue of the deaf". Transparency was not a feature of either the WSSD decision-making or the processes leading up to it. Powerful countries held sway, and poorer developing-country government delegations were at a disadvantage.

- Shiney Varghese