WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES
OF THE WORLD SUMMIT?

"With the world's most powerful governments fully behind the corporate globalisation agenda, it was agreed even before the Summit that there would be no new mandatory agreements. Rather the focus was to be on implementation of old agreements, mainly through partnerships with the private sector. In other words, those aspects of sustainability that are convenient for private sector would be implemented." Kenny Bruno, CorpWatch ++ [ The Earth Summit's Deathblow to Sustainable Development; CorpWatch article; September 4 ]

"Compared to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, this summer's World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg was bound to be somewhat disappointing. The negotiations leading up to Johannesburg had not provided any reason to expect dramatic break-throughs, and there were none. After the meeting, many non-governmental organizations denounced the WSSD as a failure. Even seasoned U.N. officials, while relieved that the Summit had not broken down completely, were rather muted in their responses." Hilary French, Worldwatch Institute ++ [ The From Rio to Johannesburg and Beyond: Assessing the Summit ]

"We invited the leaders of the world to come here and commit themselves to sustainable development, to protecting our planet, to maintaining the essential balance and to go back home and take action. It is on the ground that we will have to test how really successful we are. But we have started off well. Johannesburg is a beginning." Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General ++ [ The Johannesburg Summit Test: What Will Change? Feature Story United Nations; September 25 ]

"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 ]

"The Earth Summit should have been about protecting the environment and fighting poverty and social destruction. Instead it has been hijacked by free market ideology, by a backward-looking US administration and by global corporations that help keep reactionary politicians in business. This is the worst political sell-out in decades." Charles Secrett, Friends of the Earth US.

"Negotiators were frantically working nights to reach consensus. Activists were busy lobbying negotiators for changes. In this flurry to agree on the right language, no one seemed to notice that the draft itself was so watered down that even if all the brackets were removed, the result would amount to next to nothing. No wonder then that the final document consists only of repackaged soft targets — sometimes even more diluted than previous agreements." Sunita Narain, Down To Earth ++ [ The World After; Down To Earth; September issue ]

As far as paper is concerned, the summit resulted in two outcome documents: a Political Declaration that expresses commitments and direction for implementing sustainable development; and a negotiated programme of action (reffered to as the Plan of Implementation) that will guide government activities. This kind of multi-lateral outcomes are usually referred to as Type-I-Outcomes. Most NGOs, who were furious at the attitude of governments led by the US, notably on the environment, criticised both the action plan and the declaration for not having real new commitments, targets and funding for implementation provided. The World Summit also resulted in so-called Partnership Initiatives, often referred to as Type-II-Outcomes. These initiatives, voluntary and non-binding, include action oriented programmes between governments, business or Civil Society. Analysts often saw these initatives as a possibility to deliver some results without really committing governments to hard action (which was also the main criticism from the NGO side).

When the World Summit ended, governments congratulated each other for the successful outcome of the summit. Civil Society described the summit as a missed opportunity to come up with a meaningful plan of concrete targets, timeframes and funding for implementation of Agenda 21. NGOs blame mostly the United States for blocking meaningful progress, with the European Union being too weak in the negotiations and the G77/China keen on getting new funding for their development. The strongest feelings were aroused by the lack of agreed targets on renewable energy, another EU priority + [ WSSD on energy -- nothing for the poor, nothing for the climate; WWF press release; September 3 ]. ++ In the final phase of the Johannesburg Summit, the European Union submitted a declaration of like-minded countries on increasing the share of renewable energies. In this declaration, the signatory states commit themselves to ambitious objectives at global, regional and national level, with clear schedules, for the increased use of renewable energies + [ The Way Forward on Renewable Energy; joint declaration by the EU, several European states and others; September 2002 -- rtf; 1 page ]. Apart from that, limited targets were agreed in the Implementation Plan on issues such as biodiversity loss, restoration of fish stocks and the use of toxic chemicals.

The outcome documents more explicitly acknowledge the links between poverty alleviation and environmental protection than the outcome documents of the Rio Earth Summit 1992. And, despite all fears, the World Summit did not sacrifice the Precautionary Principle (to act to protect the environment even if evidence of potential future damage to Earth's ecosystem is not conclusive) and the paradigm of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (all nations must try and save the planet but rich countries are expected to shoulder more of the financial burden than poor nations).

Critics argue that the summit rethorically has put poverty eradication in the forefront while advancing economic growth as the main strategy for poverty eradication. This would 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.

However, it could have been worse. At the very least, the summit did not reverse the commitments made in the Doha trade round and the Monterrey summit on finance for development; at best, it forged a greater sense of urgency to live up to commitments made at the Rio Earth Summit a decade ago. About two-thirds of the final Plan of Implementation consist of reiterations of earlier commitments. Friends of the Earth, for example, has analysed the final text and found precisely two new and specific targets in the whole Plan of Implementation: To halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation; and to eliminate destructive fishing practices by 2012. According to Friends of the Earth, in every other case "existing commitments are simply reaffirmed, watered down, or trashed altogether." ++ [ Earth Summit Betrayal; See You All in Mexico; Friends of the Earth press release; September 3 ]

Read here, what the Plan of Implementation contains.