SECOND* MEETING OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
JANUARY 28 - FEBRUARY 8, 2002, NEW YORK

The second meeting (out of four) in preparation towards the WSSD took place place January 28 - February 8, 2002, at UN headquarters in New York. It's aim was to review the results of national and regional preparatory processes, examine the main policy report of the Secretary General, and convene a Multi Stakeholder Dialogue. The outcome was put together by the Chairman of the CSD, Emil Salim (Indonesia), as the so-called "Chairman's Paper".

The two week long PrepComm II involved reports from governments and UN agencies on their self-assessments and recommended actions meant to "re-commit" to implementing Agenda 21. The multi-stakeholder dialogues began as a cacophony of voices from every major group, pushing to get their issues mentioned. As discussion continued, an agenda for the Summit began to emerge, while NGOs hustled to focus their strategies for the next six months. As the multistakeholder dialogues of the first week wrapped up, several issues came to the fore as several major groups highlighted similar concerns. Corporate accountability, fresh water, education, subsidies, and a rights-based approach to sustainable development were a few of the more often mentioned topics. During week two, governments discussed issues and proposals from the dialogues as the chairman and secretariat began writing the official summaries.

One of the main topics of discussion at PrepComm II was on so called "Type 2 outcomes" of the summit. Type 2 outcomes are basically outcomes below the multilateral level. It can comprise any initiative started by a smaller group than the 191 UN-states and/or by any "stakeholder". As these partnerships do not rewuire approval by the member states, they to allow for at least SOME progressive results from the Summit. However, there are no clear criteria for what can count as Type 2. And there is the danger that these "partnerships" serve as "good news stories", keeping everyone busy and taking pressure from the gouvernments to negotiate "Type 1 outcomes" (i.e. normal negotiated texts). NGOs observed that the US, for example, was already speculating that presenting attractive "Type 2" initiatives could take the heat off them. The UN's compiled a list of Type 2 proposals and initiatives introduced at PrepCom 2. The idea itself is outlined in an UN paper [ D O W N L O A D Contribution of Major Groups to the Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development -- doc ].

Although many saw the developments at the PrepComm as generally positive, it has been argued by NGOs that governments have been failing to act on the real causes of global inequality and environmental degradation. As Friends of the Earth International criticised, instead of establishing clear social and environmental limits to economic globalisation, the paper governments have opted for, makes sustainable development subservient to the free trade agenda being promoted at the WTO.

Joerg Haas, our observer at the PrepComm II noted an interest by some of the governments and lobby groups to redefine Sustainable Development as sustained growth. Thus we may see the Johannesburg agenda putting rethorically poverty eradication in the forefront while advancing economic growth as the main strategy for poverty eradication. This may result in the usual recipes for economic growth being redefined as sustainable development strategies, e.g. market liberalisation, foreign direct investment as main motor and funding mechanism, public private partnerships or good national governance (to safeguard property rights), but few if any counterbalancing environmental and social rules and regulations or redistributive mechanisms.

*Four international meetings of the "Preparatory Committee" (PrepComm) prepared the summit on an international level. The first PrepComm discussed the modalities for the preparatory process as well as the Summit itself. This second meeting intended to look at issues such as the implementation of Agenda 21 and reviewing national and regional progress. The third meeting pledged but failed to come up with an outcome document. The fourth meeting re-negotiated the text from the third PrepComm and finally agreed on 80% of the draft outcome text that contains hardly any clear targets or timetables. Pressing for these is what NGOs now demand governments to prepare for in the run up to the World Summit.