PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
THE ACTION PLAN

"The Plan of Action is not much of a plan, and it contains almost no action. We've spent the last year and half doing damage control. We now have to move forward with a 'coalition of the willing,' those countries, communities, organisations, and people who want to deliver a sustainable energy future." Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace Climate Policy Director ++ [ Exxon buys summit, planet; Greenpeace press release; September 3 ]

Building on a process that began at the country and regional levels, and after dialogues among all the major groups at the global level, Preparatory Committee Chairman Emil Salim of Indonesia issued a summary identifying key topics to be addressed in Johannesburg. The so-called Chairman's Paper, summarised the outcomes of PrepComm II, served as a basis for negotiation at PrepComm III (where it became unreadably filled up with brackets and unresolved disagreements) and PrepComm IV. In addition to the Chairman's Paper, national delegations had consultations on an institutional framework for sustainable development, the results of which were compiled in the discussion paper "Sustainable Development Governance at the International, Regional and National Levels". Merging with the latter, the Chairman's Paper turned into the Draft Plan for Implementation, that was negotiated at the World Summit itself.

The Plan of Implementation is the second of the two multi-lateral outcome documents of the World Summit. Whereas the Political Declaration mainly is a wordy set of general political commitments, reaffirming principles of the Rio Declaration and so forth, the Plan of Implementation is the more action oriented document (although it contains little concrete action commitments, as NGOs heavily criticise). Both documents are referred to as Type-I-Outcome documents in contrast to Type-II-Outcomes, non-binding partnership agreements between different stakeholdres such as business, governments or Civil Society.

From the very beginning, the paper output of the preparatory process of the World Summit received lots of critiques from civil society, with some providing chapter by chapter recommendations for text changes and additions. These critiques targeted the negotiations at PrepComm III and PrepComm IV, but also for the World Summit. Some of them can be downloaded to the right.

In general, the Plan of Implementation is divided into several chapters, covering the various aspects of sustainable development, such as poverty eradication, patterns of consumption and production, natural resources, health and the underpinning need to make globalisation work to promote sustainable development. For each broad topic, there are several dozen recommendations:

From a TRADE perspective, it is considered unlikely for the World Summit to have a significant impact on the WTO negotiations. The outcome documents merely repeat commitments made at the last WTO ministerial meeting in Doha. By recognising trade as a means of implementing sustainable development, the World Summit sent a strong political signal to WTO negotiators to integrate sustainable development paradigms in the current round of trade negotiations. The outcome documents also reaffirmes the willingness of rich countries to lower trade-distorting subsidies and to reach an agreement by 2005 within the WTO for "substantial improvements in market access" for food exports from developing countries. The text was revised to say that nations will "continue to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development," omitting a clause which added "while ensuring WTO consistency". This is seen as a victory for environmental groups who feared that deals such as the Kyoto Protocol could be undermined by WTO rules. At the same time, the Plan of Implementation acknowledges that globalisation has both good and bad sides. While it offers great opportunities for growth of the world economy and better living standards, poor countries face special challenges. Corporate accountability and the role of big business was a major issue at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. In the end governments reached an agreement that opened the door to binding corporate accountability, but did not actually commit themselves to it.

Governments agreed to establish a solidarity fund (from voluntary contributions) to wipe out POVERTY, "the greatest global challenge facing the world today". Developed countries acknowledge the need for substantial increase in development aid for poor countries to meet the agreed development goals (e.g. those agreed at the UN Millennium Summit). The Plan of Implementation urges rich countries to make "concrete efforts" to dedicate 0.7 percent of their national income to development aid -- a level that was first set in 1970 and reached only by five countries. The plan contains a reaffirmation of the UN Millennium Summit goals such as cutting by half by 2015 the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day and launching an action programme to reduce the number of people who lack access to modern energy services.

On ENERGY, however, governments failed to agree on specific targets to boost the share of global energy produced from renewable "green" sources such as solar or wind power. The European Union wanted targets but the United States and some other oil-producing countries opposed them. Therefore, the action plan only calls on countries to "substantially increase" the global share of renewable energy. (It has to be noted that the goal proposed by EU was a 15% share of renewables in the global energy supply by 2015, including ecologically and socially problematic large dams as well as biomass projects. According to the International Energy Agency, this share already reaches almost 14% -- the EU proposal would have meant a 1% increase.) The Kyoto Protocol to fight CLIMATE CHANGE got new swing when Russia announced that it would ratify the treaty. Russia's backing means that enough big producers of greenhouse gases have signed up to bring the treaty into effect. The plan says that "change in the earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind," and that states that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming urge states that have not ratified to do so "in a timely manner."

On WATER and SANITATION, governments agreed to halve the number of people lacking clean drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015. The deal was opposed by the United States but welcomed by development charities as an important step towards preventing millions of deaths from preventable diseases. Around the world, about 1.1 billion people lack access to adequate drinking water, according to the United Nations. The deal, however, did not clarify, where the water and the infrastructure to distribute it is supposed to come from. Particularly in the water sector, governments emphasised the role of the private sector, supporting demands of World Bank and IMF to privatise water services in developing countries.

On NATURAL RESOURCES and BIODIVESITY: Governments agreed to cut significantly by 2010 the rate at which rare animals and plants are becoming extinct. (although that is weaker than what had been agreed already at the 2002 The Hague biodiversity talks, where governments decided to develop instruments that would halt and reverse the global biodiversity losses). Apart from restoring depleted fish stocks by 2015, ("where possible", as included into the text after intervention from the US) no more specific target have been given, but countries agreed to initiate strategies to preserve resources for future generations by 2005. Although no times and targets were given, the Plan of Implementation calls for elimination of subsidies that contribute to the depletion of fish stocks.

On HEALTH, the results hardly moved beyond earlier agreements. The text repeats the Doha WTO meeting that international property rights would not prevent governments to protect public health and access to medication. It was also agreed that from 2020, chemicals should be produced in such a way that negative effects on health and environment would be minimised.

On AGRICULTURE, the text repeats the goal already agreed upon at the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome, to halve the number of people suffering from hunger. It acknowledges the link between agriculture and poverty reduction, but fails to name concrete steps towards food security. Positive language about ecological farming and fair trade that had been in the draft texts, was deleted in Johannesburg, and no progress has been made e.g. on EU trade-distoring subsidies in the agriculture sector.

The summit plan emphasises the need for GOOD GOVERNANCE, i.e. to fight corruption and promote democracy, gender equality and the rule of law and also recognises that access to healthcare should be consistent with basic human rights and "cultural and religious values" - a point that had been hotly debated. Also on health, governments agreed that a WTO accord on patents should not prevent poor countries providing medicines for all, a key issue as they often cannot afford AIDS drugs.

CONSUMPTION and PRODUCTION: The plan says that "fundamental changes" are needed in the way societies produce and consume, and that developed countries should take the lead to ensure that the cycle of consumption and production is sustainable. Calls governments to improve resource efficiency, develop and use indicators for measuring progress, apply the polluter-pays principle, develop awareness raising programmes, enhance corporate social and environmental responsibility.