APPENDIX 3
Memorandum From Green Globe Task Force
INTRODUCTION
The Green Globe Task Force (GGTF) was established
by Robin Cook prior to the General Election in 1997 to provide
advice on international environmental issues. After the election,
the Task Force was funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
It has since worked increasingly with Ministers and senior officials
from other government departments including the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Department of Trade and Industry,
Department for International Development, and the Prime Minister's
Office. The Task Force's mission is to help Government achieve
international objectives for sustainable development through providing
advice and information, and through developing proposals for new
policy initiatives. The members of the Task Force are experts
on international environmental and development issues. They include
representatives from environment groups, business and academia.
However, Task Force members work with the GGTF in a personal capacity
and do not represent their organisational position on the issues
discussed.
GGTF was involved with preparations for the
World Summit on Sustainable Development for almost two years.
It was instrumental in the development of the Prime Minister's
five business initiatives which were an important part of the
package of measures and proposals that the UK took to Johannesburg.
The Green Globe Task Force strongly welcomes
this inquiry, recognising that the EAC can play an important role
in maintaining momentum following WSSD.
(a) 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
The Government deserves credit for playing a
key role in both the formal and informal processes connected with
the summit. It was commendable that the UK showed strong political
leadership, starting with the Prime Minister's early commitment
to attend. This leadership was very significant both domestically
and internationally. Contrary to the media reporting at the time,
it was absolutely right that so many ministers and their respective
departments were involved. The sustainable development agenda
cuts across every part of Government and is dependent on the sort
of joined-up working which was demonstrated very effectively by
the UK.
The Government went to a great deal of effort
to engage business and NGOs, and this was reflected in the wide
participation by such groups, both on the UK delegation and independently.
The Government's commitment to the partnership approach espoused
by the summit was important, and its support for the five business
initiatives was particularly welcome. As a result the UK was consistently
a leader on this new model for engagement by government with non-governmental
players.
NGOs at the summit were impressed with the daily
"outreach" meetings held by the UK delegation. These
were very successful, and far better than comparable efforts by
other major parties. However, NGOs were disappointed by the lack
of opportunity to contribute directly to the summit, a problem
exacerbated by the location of the main WSSD sites and the logistics
of travelling between them.
The overall summit process was not designed
well and worked against the securing of worthwhile outcomes—though
the UK Government was not itself responsible. Nonetheless, active
engagement with multilateral processes of this type under the
UN is essential, and there were many valuable outcomes above and
beyond the Plan of Implementation and other texts.
(b) How far the UK Government capitalised
on the Summit to raise awareness of sustainable development issues
at home
This was less positive than (a), although awareness
was higher here than in many other countries. Public engagement
on the important themes that lie at the heart of sustainable development
could have been much deeper. There is an ongoing need for sustainable
development to climb higher in both public and political consciousness,
and WSSD was not as useful as it might have been. This can in
part be explained by DEFRA's engagement being under-resourced
and starting late. A high-profile public campaign along the lines
of the successful "Are You Doing Your Bit" campaign
could have done much to generate positive awareness.
The DEFRA-sponsored schools initiative was valuable,
but we question whether the summit could have been used to get
sustainable development being discussed more widely across the
curriculum.
It was unfortunate that media coverage tended
to focus solely on the negative aspects of the summit. The Government
did not appear to be handling the media particularly well before,
during or after the summit.
(c) How the commitments made at the summit
could/should reshape existing UK policies/strategies or act as
the catalyst for new initiatives
The summit outcomes provide mandates and opportunities
for many different initiatives, both domestic and international.
The key international issues are on water and sanitation, and
energy (despite the formal agreements on the latter being weak).
These initiatives must be adequately resourced if they are to
be delivered.
In the course of negotiations on a global renewables
target, despite the disappointing final outcome, the UK developed
very promising relationships with Brazil, Indonesia and a number
of other countries. Many of these are emerging economy countries
that are (rightly) not high in DFID's priorities, yet we need
to ensure that there are adequate resources to support initiatives
on sustainable energy, particularly the UK's Renewable Energy
Partnership (REEEP).
The UK Type II partnerships will also need to
be adequately resourced if they are going to deliver their objectives.
This does not necessarily mean large amounts of programme funding,
but the partnership processes themselves do need strong support
at this early stage. The Sustainable Tourism Initiative, one of
the five business initiatives set up by the Government, provides
a good model for the successful implementation of the partnership
process, both with domestic stakeholders and developing country
partners. There was extensive consultation with all actors, a
focussed consensus on action and long-term commitment from across
the sector.
Many heads of state including Tony Blair, emphasised
the need to ensure that the benefits of globalisation reaches
the poorest. It is not clear that the package of measures agreed
at the summit is enough to achieve this. Recent announcements
on agriculture and fisheries by the EU call into question its
commitment to reforming the terms of world trade. The EU must
get its own house in order if we are to succeed in the ambitions
set out for the Doha WTO round.
On domestic policy, the key areas in our view
are energy, sustainable production and consumption and transport
policy.
Energy—if the UK is going to maintain
its credibility on international energy policy it must be seen
to be delivering at home. The forthcoming energy white paper is
a key opportunity to demonstrate long-term leadership that must
not be missed.
WSSD provides an ideal opportunity to re-invigorate
the UK Government's policies on sustainable production and consumption.
Key areas include waste policy, where the UK is a notably poor
performer, and the recommendations of the PIU's Resource Productivity
report, published in November 2001 but not widely implemented
since then.
The recent OECD report states that developing
a sustainable transport system remains a major challenge for the
UK. The rise in transport volumes and increasing pressure for
additional transport infrastructure cuts across several WSSD-related
themes, most notable the issues of sustainable consumption, climate
change, biodiversity and health. The innovations, both policy
and technical, required to tackle the current unsustainable trends
in transport would be of great importance both domestically and
internationally.
The issues covered by the summit are clearly
linked to many current government initiatives and will rightly
be integrated into existing policy. However there is a danger
that the momentum generated by the summit will be dissipated if
all the commitments are simply absorbed in this way. A ministerial
group should be set up to review progress and track implementation
of the UK goals.
One additional difficulty facing the government
is that an enormous wealth of personal experience is being lost
as officials who worked on the summit move on. It is important
that effort is made to ensure that positive benefits of the knowledge
and good relationships built up over the past two years are not
lost.
(d) How far the Government has maintained
stakeholder dialogue post-Johannesburg to inform its implementation
of Summit commitments
It is too early to judge at this stage. The
Government set up an effective communication process prior to
the summit and while this cannot be continued indefinitely, the
Government should continue to maintain good communication with
a wide range of external stakeholders. It is particularly important
that the Government develops a robust monitoring mechanism for
the UK Type II agreements.
(e) 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
The task force does not have detailed comments
to make on this. However, we have observed that the UK has a tendency
to try to be an influential player on almost every front, and
is sometimes less effective than it could be as a result. Those
member states that adopt a more focussed approach can sometimes
exert greater influence by becoming key players in a particular
strategically-chosen policy area—the Scandinavians on chemicals
policy for example. Given the inevitable pressure on resources,
it may well be worth picking just two or three important issues
to press in the EU.
Options include:
— how the EU spends development aid;
— monitoring the EU Type II initiatives
and ensuring they are financed adequately—water and energy
in particular;
— pushing the EU 10-year sustainable
production and consumption plan;
— reform of the Common Agriculture
Policy, especially its most damaging features—tariff barriers
and dumping;
— reform of the Common Fisheries Policy—looking
at its effects both within EU waters and internationally; and
— preparation for the WTO Ministerial
in Cancun next year.
In addition to the points raised under (a) to
(e) above, GGTF would like to submit comments on one further issue,
which is international follow-up to WSSD. It is crucial to maintain
momentum internationally, particularly on reform of the UN Commission
on Sustainable Development (CSD). The CSD can play two key roles—following
up multilateral commitments made under the WEHAB framework, and
following up all of the Type II partnerships that have come out
of WSSD. The CSD in its current form is ill-equipped to deliver
either of these well, and needs to become a much more innovative
organisation, catalysing the efforts of a wide range of stakeholders.
The UK should be putting considerable thought into how make best
use of the mandates for change that exist in the Johannesburg
texts, and putting diplomatic effort into influencing this process
ahead of the next CSD meeting in April 2003.
November 2002
| 
