APPENDIX 11
Memorandum from WWF-UK
1. SUMMARY
1.1 WWF, the global environment network's
role and activity in the run up to and during the summit, our
international presence and experience of sustainable development
in the developed and developing world make us well qualified to
comment on the impact and importance of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development and the effectiveness of the Government's strategy.
1.2 The World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) was a unique opportunity to put sustainable development
at the heart of international governance. However, whilst it achieved
some positive outcomes it did not produce the types of commitments
that WWF believe were necessary.
1.3 On the whole WWF was disappointed at
the UK's strategy to raise awareness of sustainable development
issues in the run up to the summit and believe that as a result
the Government missed a good opportunity to involve the UK public
and promote greater understanding of the issues under discussion.
1.4 WWF is looking to those Heads of State
who made promises at the Summit to turn their words into actions.
The Government must now put in place action plans and timelines
to follow up on the recommendations made. It is crucial that the
UK now take unilateral action at home and uses its leverage both
in the EU and across the Atlantic to achieve progress on issues
such as the environment and sustainable development.
1.5 On the whole WWF has been pleased with
the continued level of dialogue between Government and stakeholders.
1.6 The EU should undertake a thorough analysis
of the strengths and weaknesses of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
in order to propose to the European Council in March 2003 a comprehensive
follow-up plan for the EU, to be part of the implementation of
the European Sustainable Development Strategy (both internal and
external) which should prove to its own citizens—and also
to the rest of the world—how far the EU takes its responsibilities
for equitable, social, environmental and economic development
seriously at a global level.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 WWF is a global environmental network
with 52 offices working at both the field and policy levels in
over 90 countries around the world. WWF was represented in Johannesburg
by 50 members of the WWF network—more than half of which
were from developing countries. WWF was involved in advocacy work
at the Stockholm Summit, the Rio Summit and for the past two years
has been engaged in planning and advocacy for the Johannesburg
Summit across our network, north and south.
2.2 WWF-UK has been in close dialogue with
DEFRA, DFID, No.10 and other government departments in the lead
up to the Summit. We were also part of the UK delegation in New
York for Prepcom 3 and participated in the UK delegation in Johannesburg.
WWF-UK is also co-chair of the UK Development and Environment
Group of BOND, which facilitated information exchange between
governments and NGOs leading up to and at the Summit, and was
a key point of information dissemination between UK Government
delegation and NGOs. DEFRA provided funds for a part time secretariat
to support this work. Therefore WWF-UK is uniquely placed to comment
on the importance and impact of the Summit and the effectiveness
of the UK Government strategy.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) was a unique opportunity to put sustainable development
at the heart of international governance. However, whilst it achieved
some positive outcomes it did not produce the types of commitments
that WWF believe were necessary. The real value-added of such
a summit, which happens once in a decade, is surely to address
critical global challenges that cannot be addressed holistically
in other fora, specifically the underpinning challenges of reducing
poverty whilst ensuring environmental integrity, and addressing
conflict between economic and environmental governance systems.
3.2 WWF was disappointed that:
— Both the political declaration and
the plan of implementation were significantly weakened by lack
of political agreement, and obstruction by key countries which
resulted in the lowest common denominator.
— The agreed Plan of Implementation
failed to ensure access to clean energy for 2 billion of the world's
poor as the OPEC block, USA, Japan, Canada and Australia joined
forces to avert a new target on renewables.
— Whilst global targets now exist on
water and sanitation access, governments failed to agree targets
to protect or manage the origins of that water.
— On trade, the Summit failed to recognise
that the WTO-driven agenda for globalisation does not necessarily
work in favour of the poor and natural environment.
3.3 Positive Outcomes:
— A definite will to move forward on
renewable energy targets among a number of like-minded countries,
despite the disappointing Summit plan.
— A target agreed to halve the proportion
of people living without sanitation to complement the MDG of halving
the number of people without access to fresh water.
— Agreement to establish a framework
of programmes for sustainable production and consumption.
— Target for replenishment of depleted
fish stocks, the elimination of harmful subsidies in the fisheries
sector, and the establishment of new marine protected areas.
— Positive language on the need to
ratify Kyoto as soon as possible and announcements by Canada,
Russia and China that they were moving forward on ratification.
— Replenishment of funds for the Global
Environment Facility plus additional voluntary contributions by
the UK and some other EU states.
— Some commitments to increase ODA
to take donor countries further towards the agreed 0.7 target
providing additional funding for the Millennium Development Goals,
and in particular, Africa.
— Initiatives such as the EU Water
Initiative which aims to go beyond agreement at the summit and
work with African and NIS states to provide water and sanitation
and to address transboundary river basis management.
— Commitment by Tony Blair to promote
the renewable energy sector within the Export Credit Guarantee
Department.
4. 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
4.1 The UK Government, working with the
EU, maintained strong support for targets as Summit outcomes in
the face of considerable opposition from some other governments.
In particular, the achievement of a target on sanitation to complement
the Millennium Development Goal on access to water, was a high
UK priority. The UK Government also stood firm on other issues
such as not losing ground on the Rio Principles, reproductive
health and a target on producing national sustainable development
strategies.
4.2 UK government officials worked long
hours and were very committed to delivering results. Negative
press in the UK which concentrated more on "menus and junketing"
than the real purpose of the Summit, was frustrating to them and
no doubt undermining.
4.3 To their credit, the UK Government delegation
held daily hour-long briefings for UK NGOs and other UK stakeholders
in Johannesburg, ensuring that there were relevant officials present
to answer questions. On many occasions a Minister was present
as well. The daily briefings were very well attended and the time
spent on this information sharing and outreach was appreciated
by the participants. Officials were often accessible at other
times as well, and helped to set up meetings with Ministers on
request.
4.4 A number of non-official members were
invited onto the UK delegation including NGO representatives (including
WWF). Devolved administrations, parliamentarians, overseas territories
and business were also part of the delegation. Efforts were made
to keep everyone briefed—both on the Government's basic
position beforehand and as negotiations progressed, by dissemination
of papers, daily updates, and daily delegation meetings. Non-official
members were also invited to participate in the multi-stakeholder
dialogues in plenaries and encouraged to provide their views.
4.5 Whereas the degree of involvement of
non-governmental stakeholders was high and to be commended, it
is more difficult to judge the degree of influence at the Summit
itself. Given that the majority of policy positions were decided
before the Summit, and had to be co-ordinated through the EU,
it is really in the months leading up to the Summit that NGOs
and others had the best opportunities to influence the outcomes.
For example the work on Corporate Accountability and Sanitation
are two clear instances where NGOs had an influence on the outcomes,
as well as the joint lobbying by NGOs for an increase in ODA.
However, we believe that the Government were late to plan for
consultation of NGOs and as a result it was difficult for NGOs
to know when and where to input into the process. It was also
difficult for NGOs to access information about the debates being
held on the Summit within the Government.
4.6 At the Summit itself, we were concerned
that when NGO's did want to exert influence over negotiations,
the UK Government on one occasion in particular chose to discourage
them. For example, on the chapter on globalisation: wording was
removed, due to interventions by Norway and Ethiopia, that would
have had major implications for the integrity of multilateral
environmental agreements vis-a"-vis World Trade Organisation
rules. UK ministers and officials tried to assure NGOs earlier
in the day that the wording did not imply supremacy of WTO and
that it would not be wise to risk unravelling the text of the
whole chapter. We believe this demonstrated a fundamental lack
of understanding as to the full meaning of the wording and its
implications.
4.7 Therefore whilst we were generally pleased
with the UK's strategy to involve NGOs, we felt that forward planning,
and greater trust in NGO advice could be improved.
5. HOW FAR
THE UK GOVERNMENT
CAPITALISED ON
THE SUMMIT
TO RAISE
AWARENESS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES AT
HOME
5.1 WWF was delighted that the Prime Minister
was the first Head of State to commit to attending the Summit
and had looked forward to the UK Government playing a key role
in raising awareness of sustainable development issues at home.
However, we believe that the UK Government categorically failed
to capitalise on the Summit, and subsequently missed a vital and
unique opportunity to build up a head of steam during the preparatory
meetings and before the Summit itself.
5.2 The UK Government's communications strategy,
led by DEFRA, was initiated late in the day, possibly due to a
lack of dedicated funds within DEFRA to undertake wide communications
work.
5.3 The exception to this was the Our World
Project. In partnership with WWF, DEFRA supported a youth project
which involved a number of schools taking part in discussions
around WSSD and culminating in a competition to decide on UK schools'
representatives to meet with the UK Government and attend the
Summit in Johannesburg. This was successful in terms of youth
involvement—involving four students from the four devolved
countries of UK, their media activities, and the accompanying
internet debates.
5.4 DFID undertook a number of public policy
forums around the country in the first half of 2002 at which WSSD
was a theme. Whilst this was a useful exercise to consult interested
stakeholders, it did little to raise awareness amongst the general
public.
5.6 In Wales, the Welsh Assembly took a
more pro-active role in public outreach and supported a public
conference; Wales and the World, co-hosted by WWF, and attended
by over 450 delegates. The conference made newspapers and had
its own dedicated website.
5.7 On the whole WWF was disappointed by
the UK's strategy to raise awareness of sustainable development
issues in the run up to the summit and we believe missed a good
opportunity to involve the UK public and promote greater understanding
of the issues under discussion.
6. HOW THE
COMMITMENTS MADE
AT THE
SUMMIT COULD/SHOULD
RESHAPE EXISTING
UK POLICIES/STRATEGIES
OR ACT
AS A
CATALYST FOR
FUTURE INITIATIVES
6.1 WWF is looking to those Heads of State
who made promises at the Summit to turn their words into actions.
We urge Government to put in place action plans and timelines
to follow up on the recommendations made. It is crucial that the
UK now take unilateral action at home and uses its leverage both
in the EU and across the Atlantic to achieve progress on issues
such as the environment and sustainable development.
6.2 We have identified below key areas where
action must be taken:
Energy
WWF believes that the energy section of the
Plan of Implementation delivers nothing to provide energy services
for the 2 billion people world-wide who have no access to modern
energy services and fails to curb global warming. It has no targets
or timetables of any kind to increase the share of renewable energy,
and delivers nothing on reducing the massive subsidies to the
fossil fuel industry, which continue to prop up its dominance
of the global energy mix. It merely reiterates agreements made
over the past several years.
Given the failure of the Summit to take action,
WWF believes that the UK government must ensure that its renewable
electricity target for 2010 will be achieved and targets set beyond
this. The UK government-led partnership on renewable energy and
energy efficiency has the potential to go beyond the Summit outcomes
and work with partner countries, stakeholders, business to deliver
sustainable energy.
Fresh Water and Sanitation
WWF welcomes the sanitation target that aims
to halve the proportion of people living without access to sanitation
by 2015. This is an essential complement to the Millennium Summit's
target to halve the number of people without access to clean water
by 2015. However, there is no mention of river basin management
or sustainable development. It is vital to put in place sustainable
solutions when facilitating access to drinking water, in order
to ensure the continuity of supply—without healthy river
basin ecosystems the ability to provide water for sustenance and
development cannot be achieved. For instance, the EU Water Initiative
goes further than the Plan of Implementation, incorporating not
just a sanitation target but one for integrated river basin management,
and has the potential to utilise political and financial investment
to achieve co-operative, equitable and sustainable management
of rivers.
This year, the worst flooding in central Europe
in living memory killed more than 100 people and saw flooding
of the Danube on an unprecedented scale. Whilst climate changes
may well be implicated in these heavy unseasonal rainfalls, there
is no doubt that poor land management and river basin management
practices exacerbated the impacts. Global development targets
are still weak on environmental management and the critical role
of freshwater ecosystems in providing water for life must be recognised.
The UK Government should continue to play a
role in the development of the EU Water Initiative and ensure
that it considers sustainable solutions based on integrated river
basin management. It should also work for the adoption of the
World Commission on Dams guidelines when considering water and
energy development programmes.
Marine Environment
The text agreed on marine issues includes a
call for the establishment of marine protected areas, halting
the loss of marine biodiversity and the application of the ecosystem
approach which are to be applauded. It also has a target for replenishment
of depleted fish stocks by 2015 and on elimination of harmful
subsidies. It therefore reinforces WWF's call for a reform of
subsidies and the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, and thus offers
the European Union the opportunity to be the first region to meet
the target. (However, the text refers to the outdated concept
of Maximum Sustainable Yield in terms of fish stocks which is
discredited as a mechanism for fisheries management and is not
in line with the commitment to ecosystem-based management, nor
with the precautionary principle).
At home the outcomes of WSSD should be embodied
in the work that the Government is currently carrying out via
its review of marine nature conservation and through its stakeholder
dialogue as part of the follow up to its Marine Stewardship report.
The UK Government should also move ahead with the planned new
marine legislation to ensure an integrated approach to ocean and
coastal management.
Biodiversity
The Summit confirmed the decisions made at the
last Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity
(CBD) on the target to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity
by 2010. While the language is weaker than that from a Ministerial
Declaration issued in The Hague earlier this year, this is an
important global target to which the UK government can make contributions
both through action to protect biodiversity at home, and through
overseas development programmes, the Global Environment Facility
and the Darwin Initiative. It should also be remembered that biodiversity
loss will also be impacted by the UK's footprint in its use of
resources and in its own contribution to climate change.
Forests
The UK government has taken a lead in sustainable
forest management in the UK and in public procurement. It has
also taken steps on illegal logging—such as the development
of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Indonesia
on forest law enforcement. Further bilateral agreements of this
kind could be taken forward, as well as further support for producer
groups in developing countries who are working towards sustainable
forest management.
Chemicals
On chemical management, negotiators have agreed
to compromise language on all of the outstanding issues, with
the exception of text on the precautionary approach. As a result
of the compromises made, the agreement reached in Johannesburg
is weaker than existing commitments made in other international
fora including the POPs Treaty and the UNEP Global Ministerial
Environment Forum in Cartagena, Colombia in February 2002.
The UK Government should expedite ratification
with the EU of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs).
The UK Government also has a an important role
to play in strengthening the forthcoming EU Chemicals legislation—a
once in a lifetime opportunity to deliver a more progressive,
precautionary and science-based chemicals policy which could inform
the development of a more environmentally sound global approach.
The legislation should include the phase out of persistent or
bioaccumulative chemicals, a requirement to substitute less safe
chemicals with safer alternatives, a commitment to stop all releases
to the environment of hazardous chemicals by 2020, a deadline
by which all chemicals on the market must have had their safety
independently assessed and should include the principle of the
consumer's right to know what chemicals are present in products.
Sustainable Production and Consumption
The WSSD commitment to encourage and promote
the development of a 10-year framework of programmes to accelerate
the shift towards sustainable production and consumption is a
key opportunity for the UK Government. Tony Blair's speech in
Mozambique on 1 September 2002 emphasised "The rich nations
especially need to use resources much more efficiently, and reduce
their production of waste. We cannot continue to live our lifestyles
without making our environmental footprint smaller in this way—by
doing more with less".
The UK government should respond to the Policy
and Innovation Unit Report on Resource Productivity. Consumer
information and awareness along with tax incentives and disincentives
are needed to change behaviour. Public procurement can set examples,
for example, the UK government commitment to source timber products
from sustainably managed sources. Support for WWF's campaign for
a million sustainable homes in the UK would give a very clear
signal that the UK government is taking steps at home towards
sustainable development.
Trade and globalisation
The summit's action plan on trade and globalisation
fails to realise that the WTO driven agenda for globalisation
doesn't necessarily work in favour of the poor and the natural
environment. It fails to restate the Precautionary Principle—a
crucial tenet of the Rio Declaration, and it fails to ensure that
international environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol
are safe from challenge under WTO rules on free trade.
The Johannesburg Summit provided a stark demonstration
of the failure by political leaders to put the needs of sustainable
development at the heart of sustainable development. WWF will
be continuing to press for a positive outcome on WTO negotiations
on trade and environment. However, the WTO should not become the
forum for discussion for the many related issues which should
have been addressed in Johannesburg.
Institutional framework for sustainable development
The WSSD Plan of Implementation calls for the
adoption of new measures to strengthen institutional arrangements
for sustainable development at international, regional and national
levels.
A sustainable development unit should be established
in the Cabinet Office to ensure that sustainable development is
core to Government planning and thinking across all departments.
The current experiments with integrated policy appraisal should
become mainstream and instituted in all departmental policy planning.
The revision of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy—A
Better Quality of Life—will be a key opportunity to look
at the Johannesburg outcomes and develop a strong strategy which
recognises the UK's impact on sustainable development overseas
as much as at home.
7. HOW FAR
THE GOVERNMENT
HAS MAINTAINED
STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
POST-JOHANNESBURG
TO INFORM
ITS IMPLEMENTATION
OF SUMMIT
COMMITMENTS
7.1 DEFRA (Environment Policy International)
has continued to hold meetings with the UK Development and Environment
Group of BOND following the Summit to discuss outcomes and implementation,
to which other representatives from other government departments
have been invited. A list of departmental contacts for WSSD follow
up has also been provided for NGOs although many of the government
officials who were working on WSSD having now moved on. DFID (Environment
Policy Department) has also met with the UK Development and Environment
Group since the Summit, provided materials for circulation to
a wider audience and also invited a representative of the UK DEG
to participate in the annual EPD conference at which WSSD follow
up was discussed.
7.2 Margaret Beckett held a meeting with
a range of NGOs, including WWF, business representatives and the
Sustainable Development Commission to discuss specific UK policy
implications on business and sustainability, energy and sustainable
production and consumption. We now await the outcomes from that
meeting.
7.3 The Sustainable Development Unit within
DEFRA held a brief consultation on the forthcoming annual report
of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. A critical opportunity
for further NGO/stakeholder dialogue will be the review of the
Sustainable Development Strategy. This will be a key time to look
at the SDS in view of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation,
and in particular to ensure that a more comprehensive approach
to the international dimension of UK sustainable development and
relevant indicators is addressed.
7.4 On the whole WWF has been pleased with
the continued level of dialogue between Government and stakeholders.
8. 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
8.1 It is imperative for the implementation
of sustainable development globally that the EU pro-actively promotes
and implements policies that go well beyond the compromises reached
in Johannesburg. As recognised in the European Treaty requirement
that the Union shall achieve "a balanced and sustainable
development" and the requirements of the Cardiff and Lisbon
summits that there should be integration of EU internal and external
policies towards the goal of sustainable development. The EU should
undertake a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses
of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation in order to propose
to the European Council in March 2003 a comprehensive follow-up
plan for the EU, to be part of the implementation of the European
Sustainable Development Strategy (both internal and external)
which should prove to its own citizens—and also to the rest
of the world—how far the EU takes its responsibilities for
equitable, social, environmental and economic development seriously
at a global level. In particular, the UK government should press
the EU to:
— Further develop the EU Water Initiative
in a way to ensure that it engages African and NIS countries and
allows them to feel ownership of the proposed activities. The
Initiative must include all relevant and interested stakeholders.
Further, the initiative must adopt an integrated approach to water
management, complementing its focus on the provision of clean
water and sanitation with the equally important need to manage
the water resources sustainably in order that they can continue
to provide the necessary water. The initiative must therefore
have a clear focus on integrated river basin management and transboundary
co-operation. Finally, given the fact that regions of the world
suffering from water scarcity can provide the poor with access
to water, and sustain the environment, only by using their limited
water supplies more efficiently, the Initiative must also deal
with the issue of efficiency of water use. For instance, irrigation
and urban water supply systems can easily be made much more efficient.
— Further develop the EU Energy Initiative
in a credible and transparent way under inclusion of all stakeholders.
In addition, any EU Energy Initiative in the context of Sustainable
Development and Poverty Eradication must focus on the various
aspects of providing energy to those urban and rural poor communities
in developing countries that have no or erratic access to energy
services. In order to garner support from broad sectors of the
society, the technological focus shall be on all forms of improvements
of energy efficiency, clean and "new" renewable energy
sources ("new" renewable energy excludes large hydro>10
MW and unsustainable biomass). A particular focus in that Initiative
shall be set on improving conditions in a sustainable way for
those communities that rely on biomass, mainly fuel wood and dung
for cooking and heating.
— Further explore and develop the idea
of establishing a group of like-minded countries to promote "new"
renewable energy on the basis of clear targets. This would imply
seeking dialogue with interested countries, developing a proposal
for the modalities and contents of the work of the group, and
hosting meetings of the interested countries to make sure that
the group gets operational. In particular, the "REEEP"
partnership, introduced by the UK government in Johannesburg,
may provide a good model which is open to all stakeholders in
the field of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
— Further clarify the relationship
between multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) (such as the
Kyoto Protocol) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Although
there are aspects of this relationship which will be discussed
under the current WTO negotiations, the most important dimensions
lie outside the mandate of the WTO Doha Declaration. In particular,
the WTO negotiations will do nothing to address the issue of disputes
brought to the WTO by non-Parties to MEAs, although this is the
scenario which is most likely to be encountered in practice. WWF
has reason to believe that DG-Trade is pressing for the WTO mandate
to be broadened such that these issues could be addressed through
the WTO negotiations—risking leaving MEAs such as the Kyoto
Protocol floundering under WTO oversight. The WTO is not an environmental
policy making body, and is the wrong forum for deciding upon such
relationships. However, as the main demandeur of negotiations
on the WTO-MEA relationship at Doha, the Commission must now work
with Member States to propose concrete suggestions as to how these
issues—which were left unresolved by the WSSD process—can
now be addressed.
— Increase the financial support to
the sustainable management of natural resources in EU partner
developing countries in order to substantially contribute to poverty
alleviation and to meet the Millennium Development Goals, which
were clearly confirmed by the Johannesburg Summit, and to which
the EU is also committed.
— Develop a concrete proposal for how
the EU and its member states can develop specific activities for
sustainable production and consumption, which could fit into and
help develop the global framework of programmes agreed in Johannesburg.
— Propose a reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy, which lives up to the clear decisions in Johannesburg
to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity" and "on
an urgent basis and where possible by 2015, maintain or restore
depleted fish stocks".
— Present a proposal for the EU Chemicals
policy that makes the EU the global leader in implementing the
decision from Johannesburg to "achieve by 2020 that chemicals
are used and produced in ways that lead to minimisation of significant
adverse effects on human health and the environment".
— The EU's sustainable development
strategy should be based on a strong definition of sustainable
development ie, WWF/UNEP/IUCN "Caring for the Earth"
definition of "improving the quality of human life while
living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems".
In line with this definition, any sustainability strategy must
be based on the concept of conserving and enhancing natural capital
(establishing the minimum requirements for ecological sustainability).
This will support the MDG of environmental sustainability and
contribute towards the maintenance of the natural resource base
on which we all, and particularly in the immediate term, the poor,
depend.
— A credible strategy should have as
a target the reduction of the ecological footprint or natural
resources consumption in a global target—concentrating on
the responsibility of the EU which imports from outside no less
than one-third of the total resources it consumes, a trend that
is increasing year on year. In order to keep within the Earth's
carrying capacity, we must reduce the overconsumption of the developed
countries and give developing countries space to grow. Targets
should be quantifiable and therefore measurable.
— The EU SDS should also have as its
goal (as referred to above) an equitable share of natural capital
among people. This will mean tackling head on the relationship
between poverty and environmental degradation which was a key
talking point at WSSD.
— The sustainability strategy should
develop the evaluation of full economic value of natural resources
and ecological processes and use them in cost-benefit analysis
and programme planning. This would include the development of
sustainability standards for the use of natural resources.
— The elimination of environmentally
harmful subsidies, including in the spheres of agriculture, fisheries
and energy. This was one of the key sticking points in the WSSD
preparatory meetings and in Johannesburg. The EU seems to waver
on these issues—but UK government should strongly push,
as it has said publicly, for the reduction of subsidies and the
reform of CAP and CFP.
— As per the previous International
Development Target and reaffirmed within the Johannesburg Declaration,
member states should strive towards 0.7% of GNI for overseas development
assistance. The UK government has reaffirmed its intention to
move towards this—although has not set a timetable—and
has taken a stance within EU to encourage some of the laggard
EU governments. UK is still lagging behind some of the other EU
members plus Norway. The recent CSR did take UK government forward
on this towards 0.4% by 2006 but in view of the expected cost
of achieving the MDGs this is still too little.
— The Commission should apply sustainability
impact assessments to external as well as internal impacts of
EU policy proposals.
— Further work is needed on defining
and monitoring sustainable development indicators to capture the
impacts of EU policies outside its borders.
— The process for developing the Sustainable
Development Strategy should be based on widespread and meaningful
consultation of relevant stakeholders, including the European
Parliament, national parliaments, and, importantly, all those
affected by EU policies which therefore includes countries to
which EU is a donor or with which it has trading or other agreements.
This would be essential in terms of the EU's own proclaimed interest
on access to information, public participation and access to justice.
This would also be in accord with the UK government's support
for the Access Initiative.
— All of these should be considered
within the context of the forthcoming EU enlargement process.
November 2002
| 
