Memorandum from Friends of the Earth
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Friends of the Earth welcomes the invitation
to provide evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry
reviewing UK Government activities at and around the World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD). Friends of the Earth treated
the WSSD as a major priority for our national and international
activities in 2002. The following takes each question posed by
the Committee and offers our views and evidence on the topic.
1.2 This evidence has been prepared by Duncan
McLaren , with inputs from Tony Juniper, Claire Wilton, Matt Phillips
and Frederic Thoma.
2. THE OVERALL
PERFORMANCE AND
STRATEGY OF
THE UK DELEGATION
AT THE
SUMMIT AND
THE DEGREE
OF INVOLVEMENT
AND INFLUENCE
OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL
STAKEHOLDERS AT
THE EVENT
2.1 The British Government was a constructive
and progressive player in various specific environmental and development
discussions but lacked vision in setting out its overall approach
to sustainable development. Some Ministers sought to portray the
quest for environmental protection and the fight against poverty
as distinct aims—thus missing the central message of sustainable
development, which holds that both causes must be addressed simultaneously,
otherwise neither will be achieved. For example. Ms Short made
various statements to the effect that the WSSD was not an environmental
summit and suggested that environmentalists were anti-poor—a
claim roundly rejected by NGOs, including developing country members
of Friends of the Earth International. Despite this, the UK delegation
was supportive of more progressive positions on conventional environmental
issues where they emerged, and argued in favour of targets and
timetables.
2.2 The UK delegation failed to take a clear
view on a centrally important issue at the Summit, that of corporate
accountability. NGOs from across the world sought to gain a commitment
from the WSSD to ensure the forces of globalisation could be harnessed
for sustainable development by ensuring that corporations are
more accountable to the people they affect. The UK didn't take
a clear view on this vitally important matter. Whilst Michael
Meacher was influential in reducing EU opposition to text on corporate
accountability, overall the UK was not a positive force on this
issue, and more generally appeared to take a view closely aligned
to that of the large transnational corporations who maintain that
voluntary efforts are sufficient to ensure that business behaves
responsibly and in the interests of society as a whole, despite
the inability of voluntary measures to capture externalities imposed
on society and the environment by business activities.
2.3 Similarly, many were disappointed with
the UK's approach to a widespread critique about the sustainable
development impacts of neoliberal economic policies. There is
broad based concern that the apparent prioritisation of liberalisation
is undermining efforts to protect the environment, attain food
security and end poverty. There was a sense that the UK did not
wish to enter this debate with an open mind. For example, there
was a proposal in the draft implementation plan from WSSD that
would have required international environmental treaties to be
consistent with world trade rules. Many saw this as a means to
weaken the already inadequate provisions of existing treaties
(such as the Biosafety Protocol and Kyoto Protocol) so that the
rules operated by the World Trade Organisation would take precedence
in future disputes. The UK disappointingly appeared to say nothing
public on this subject.
2.4 On partnerships, the UK did not succumb
to the worst hysteria of promoting partnerships in place of any
form of government action, targets and timetables. And amongst
the specific partnerships it supported, the value is mixed. Although
the forests action plan is broadly sound, it is too limited, whilst
the London Principles for Sustainable Finance continue to seek
voluntary improvements in a sector where it is clear that many
signatories to voluntary agreements don't meet the objectives
and it will require changes in company law for there to be significant
pressure from institutional investors to make companies more accountable
for their environmental and social impacts.
2.5 Overall, the UK failed to use its position
in the EU and the Commonwealth, nor its special relationship with
the US to effectively promote progressive measures for sustainable
development. The performance of the UK compares poorly with that
of Norway, for example, which was influential in promoting text
on corporate accountability.
2.6 Non-governmental organisations were
very active at the Summit both outside, and within a number of
delegations. They used many different approaches and covered many
areas of policy. UK ministers appear, however, to mainly have
seen only the benefit of organisations taking a non-confrontational
approach. This is disappointing given how change towards sustainable
development is often stimulated by more radical approaches and
ideas bringing issues to public attention and then resolution.
Friends of the Earth alone generated several hundred media mentions
for the WSSD in the UK press, particularly through our advocacy
for a Convention on Corporate Accountability.
3. HOW FAR
THE UK GOVERNMENT
CAPITALISED ON
THE SUMMIT
TO RAISE
AWARENESS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES AT
HOME
3.1 The UK took the opportunity to speak
to the media and made efforts to put across its views to the public.
UK support for the Summit was quite good at a political level
(eg Prescott going to Brazil meeting). However, the Prime Minister
made no major speech on issues on the Summit agenda, nor did he
publicly use his leverage to promote the agenda at home or overseas
(for example, in the Commonwealth). This contrasts disappointingly
to his activities before Doha Ministerial when he travelled around
the World drumming up interest in free trade.
3.2 Somewhat ironically, the proposal not
to take Mr Meacher, the Environment Minister, to the Summit in
the weeks before the WSSD helped to generate headlines in the
UK and to raise awareness about the importance of the meeting.
But irrespective of the Government's endeavours, it appears that
the UK media did cover the Summit in more depth than the media
from many other countries. To that extent, UK Ministers had more
opportunity than government representatives from many other nations.
3.3 In terms of the messages put across
by Ministers, Friends of the Earth felt these to be either quite
negative and unhelpful or overly optimistic. In respect of negative
comments made, we have already mentioned Ms Short's apparently
deliberate attempts to make the Summit appear as having little
to do with the environment. In respect of an overly optimistic
tone, we have been dismayed to hear Ministers repeatedly describe
the Summit as a great success. Given the scale of the challenges
now facing the planet, and the dire warnings issued by (for example)
the United Nations Environment Programme before the WSSD, it is
difficult to see how any government could regard the Summit as
anything other than a disappointment. There are few new targets
(those that are there are very welcome but insufficient), there
were no new institutional arrangements and there were no new legal
frameworks. Given how the legally-binding Rio agreements have
not been implemented, we find it hard to see the WSSD as a success.
4. HOW THE
COMMITMENTS MADE
AT THE
SUMMIT COULD/SHOULD
RESHAPE EXISTING
UK POLICIES/STRATEGIES
OR ACT
AS THE
CATALYST FOR
NEW INITIATIVES
4.1 There are a great many initiatives that
could flow from the WSSD, these are, however, mainly vague, not
timebound and are non-specific in terms of the outcomes that might
be anticipated. With this in mind the UK should stage a stakeholder
forum in the UK within the next nine months to ensure that some
clear direction and momentum can be taken from the WSSD. There
should be full integration between any new approaches and those
already in motion. Some areas that are largely moribund (eg Local
Agenda 21 and the national Sustainable Development Strategy) should
be reinvigorated as part of any forward process. There should
be a process of setting targets and timetables, an important aspect
absent in Johannesburg. Within such a process FOE wishes to highlight
two priorities at this stage: corporate accountability and responsibility,
and a sustainable development duty for regional assemblies.
Corporate accountability
4.2 At the UK level Friends of the Earth
believes that the measures promoted by the Corporate Responsibility
Bill promoted by Linda Perham MP and supported by over 250 MPs
of all parties—for mandatory social and environmental reporting,
directors duties and accountability for social and environmental
impacts, a standards board to oversee reporting standards, and
stakeholder consultation on major projects—should be incorporated
by the Government into its forthcoming Companies Bill.[2]
4.3 However, this would only be a step towards
implementation of paragraph 45(ter). We further advocate an open
process—perhaps facilitated at Chatham House—to explore
how the UK Government could best respond at interdepartmental
and intergovernmental levels. Friends of the Earth continues to
believe that binding international measures will be needed, and
notes that these cannot be pursued through the World Trade Organisation
which has neither the remit nor the expertise to deal with the
challenges of this agenda in a balanced way.
Regional duties for sustainable development
4.4 The UK Government has recently published
its white Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" on establishing
elected assemblies in the English regions which want them. Friends
of the Earth sees this as a critical opportunity to enshrine sustainable
development considerations into decision making at this regional
level.
4.5 Any elected assemblies should have a
statutory duty to promote sustainable development: writing an
over-arching strategy to replace Regional Sustainable Development
Frameworks is not enough. The duty should set out how each assembly
should promote sustainable development in the region which improves
the quality of life of all people while respecting environmental
limits and the ability of future generations to enjoy a similar
quality of life. In order to uphold this aim, the duty should
be expressed through all regional policies and the policies should
enshrine the objectives of social justice, inter-generational
equity, environmental protection and resource conservation.
4.6 The National Assembly for Wales has
a commitment to sustainable development, enshrined in the Government
of Wales Act. The Assembly is obligated to report annually on
sustainable development, and this has kept the issue at the forefront
of Ministers' minds. Positive steps taken as a result include
setting a target for organic farming; high investment in recycling;
encouragement for renewable energy projects; opposing GM crops
trials; investment in public transport in excluded communities;
and defending the planning system.
4.7 Enshrining a sustainable development
duty in law in the English regions would support the following
commitments made at the World Summit:
— Encourage relevant authorities at
all levels to take sustainable development considerations into
account in decision-making, including on national and local development
planning (section 18), increasing brownfield re-development (38m),
implementing transport strategies for sustainable development
(20a) and developing waste management systems, with highest priorities
placed on waste prevention and minimisation, reuse and recycling
(21a).
— Accelerate a shift towards sustainable
consumption and production, delinking economic growth and environmental
degradation (14).
— Enhance the role and capacity of
local authorities in implementing Agenda 21 and the outcomes of
the Summit (149).
4.8 In addition, the World Summit called
for public participation, including the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders, to achieve the shared goals of sustainable development
(146, 147) and for enhanced partnerships between governmental
and non-governmental actors (150). Therefore, key stakeholders,
including voluntary and environmental groups, should be involved
fully in the decision making process at English regional level,
both advising on policy and scrutinising decisions, to ensure
that sustainable development objectives are upheld. Their participation
has already brought many benefits at the regional level. A formal
and funded role for regional stakeholders should be built into
forthcoming legislation on elected assemblies.
5. HOW FAR
THE GOVERNMENT
HAS MAINTAINED
STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
POST-JOHANNESBURG
TO INFORM
ITS IMPLEMENTATION
OF SUMMIT
COMMITMENTS
5.1 We are not aware of any formal process.
We have had one or two helpful informal exchanges with Ministers
but most post-WSSD analysis seems to have been run by various
non-governmental bodies.
6. THE PARTICULAR
CHANGES TO
THE EU STRATEGY
FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT WHICH
THE UK GOVERNMENT
SHOULD BE
ADVOCATING WHEN
THE STRATEGY
IS REVIEWED
AT THE
SPRING EUROPEAN
COUNCIL IN
2003
6.1 The European strategy for sustainable
development was adopted to complement the social and economic
aspects which had been already dealt with in the "Lisbon
process". Despite reservations, FOE welcomed the strategy
and the fact that progress regarding the environment was to be
evaluated during the Spring Councils on the basis of headline
indicators in synthesis reports, alongside economic and social
aspects.
6.2 Unfortunately, the attention given to
the SDS by the Council lacked continuity. The Belgian Presidency
made some progress on the selection of headline indicators, but
the following Spanish presidency more ore less ignored the whole
process. In particular, the Strategy still lacks an effective
external dimension.
The external dimension
6.3 The SDS is focused primarily on the
internal dimension, and largely ignored the impact of the EU policies
outside of Europe. Aware of this weakness, the Heads of State
asked the Commission to produce a Communication on this issue
as part of the EU's preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development. This Communication (3), was prepared without any
consultation and was not credible as a sound strategy to promote
sustainability. Most of the proposed actions are not measurable
commitments, and, in particular, it promotes the so-called "Doha
Development Agenda" under the WTO as the path to global sustainable
development. The EU maintained this view during the negotiations
at the WSSD. This undermined their own efforts to achieve positive
outcomes in other fields because it triggered a loss of confidence
in the EU by many developing countries.
6.4 A meaningful external dimension to the
strategy would be based on an understanding of global inequalities
in access to environmental resources, and seek to repay the ecological
debt owed by rich countries to their ex-colonies and other developing
countries whose resources have helped support development in Europe.
Headline indicators
6.5 The SDS also still lacks a relevant indicator
set. In December 2001, at the Laeken Council, the EU ministers
adopted seven environmental indicators, to complement the social
and economical dimension, intended for use at the European Council
in Barcelona 2002 (5). The relatively small number (seven out
of 42) reflects the ongoing marginalisation of the environmental
aspects on the EU's understanding of sustainable development,
and resulted in the omission of important issues, such as water
and soil quality, biodiversity, and resource use from the synthesis
report process.
6.6 The Synthesis Report prepared for the
Spring Council 2002 was widely criticised for its failure to integrate
the environmental dimension. But the Commission proposal for the
list of indicators to be used for the Spring Report 2003 (6),
is largely unchanged. Only the indicator on greenhouse gas emissions
has been modified by including the policy targets set by the Kyoto
protocol and the EU Burden Sharing Agreement. An indicator of
resource use and productivity is urgently needed, as called for
(amongst others) by the Environment Council (8).
Integration and sustainable production and consumption
6.7 In its conclusions from 30 September
2002, the General Affairs Council (GAC) provided a first assessment
of the outcomes and outlined follow-up of the WSSD outcomes at
national and international levels (7). The GAC agreed to seek
the urgent development of an international framework of programmes
on sustainable consumption and production patterns. This must
be effectively incorporated into the SDS.
6.8 The GAC also called on the other sectoral
Councils to "review the commitments from WSSD within their
respective competencies, with a view to the next Spring Summit
and the SDS and Cardiff processes, to indicate how to take them
forward and report back prior to its November meeting". At
that same meeting the GAC was to review the preliminary wok done
in other councils on the implementation of the external SDS. This
process requires active engagement by the UK especially to promote
effective integration. The Environment Council has already invited
the Commission to introduce an annual stock take of the Cardiff
process and include it in the Synthesis reports, if possible starting
from 2003 (8).
6.9 A central step in effective integration
would be to work to deliver on the promise of paragraph 45(ter)
at the European scale. The ongoing European Commission initiative
on corporate social responsibility (the Multi-Stakeholder Forum)
is far from adequate in this respect, as it addresses only the
voluntary dimensions of corporate responsibility, over and above
legislative requirements, whilst the legislative framework at
the European level lags behind several of its member states on
issues such as mandatory reporting of environmental and social
impacts. It particularly falls far short of the proposals of many
NGOs summarised in the draft corporate accountability convention
advocated at the WSSD[3].
November 2002
2 See Annex A Back
3
See Annex B Back
| 
