Is the World Summit on Sustainable Development too big? Will it produce only vague and watered-down agreements that most governments will do their best to neglect? Many are frustrated with the lack of progress since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. However, there are several signs that the world leaders are finally going from words to action. It is important to avoid short-term solutions to fighting poverty and increasing food production. Solutions must rely on sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystems.


South African President Thabo Mbeki speaking at the welcoming ceremony, Ubuntu Village, Johannesburg, 25 August.


From August 26 to September 4 the world comes together in Johannesburg, South Africa at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), with more than 60,000 participants the largest meeting ever organised by the UN. Among the participants in Johannesburg are heads of state, government officials, national delegates and representatives from the businesses, scientific and technological communities as well as nearly 200 non-governmental organisations (NGOs). A Civil Society Global Forum is also held parallel to the Summit from 19 August to 4 September.
     The relationship between environment, poverty and development is the central theme of the Summit. It is about shaping the future of a planet with a growing population and satisfying ever-increasing demands for food, water, energy, shelter, sanitation, health services and economic security – without ruining the natural environment. "It will be a crucial test of the world's ability and its enthusiasm for tackling the very pressing problems facing people and the planet today," explained Klaus Toepfer, UNEP's Executive Director.

Is the world becoming more sustainable?

The 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm is acknowledged as the landmark event that put environmental issues on the international political agenda. In the 1980's the UN World Commission on Environment and Development produced the Brundtland Report: "Our Common Future". This document framed discussions at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and includes the most commonly used definition of sustainable development: "development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
     Though the 1972 and 1992 summits focused world attention on environmental problems, many are frustrated with the lack of progress since the 1992 adoption of Agenda 21, a global action plan for sustainable development. It is now time to evaluate what has really happened since Rio, focus future goals, and agree on how to implement Agenda 21.
     Sustainable development means different things to different people. Scientists and world leaders cannot even agree on its definition, but all agree that it must be clearly defined. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "It is far from being as abstract as it sounds. It is a life-or-death issue for millions upon millions of people and potentially the whole human race." To help clarify goals for sustainable development, the UN has outlined three priorities: 1) combating poverty and promoting sustainable livelihoods, 2) sustainable consumption and production and 3) protecting the integrity of life-support ecosystems.

Focus on natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity

One main target of the Summit is the Millennium Development Goal, to decrease the world population living in poverty by half by 2015. Some fear, however, that the Summit will encourage short-term approaches to fighting poverty and increasing food production, at the expense of natural resources and ecosystems. In fact, sustainable management of local and global ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is key to poverty reduction, food security, and insurance against the effects of natural disasters. Therefore, the Millennium Development Goals can only be reached if biodiversity is better managed and the benefits of its use are distributed more equitably.
     A huge international project dealing with how to manage ecosystems so that they can provide human benefits over the long run is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)(see SDU 1/2001). It was launched in 2001 to assess the impact of factors such as shifts in land use and loss of biodiversity on ecosystems capacity to provide the goods and services that sustain development. The MA-project is represented at one of the parallel events at the Summit.

Sweden's contributions

Swedish contributions to the Summit will include a national pavilion highlighting Swedish expertise, innovation and activities in the water sector. This pavilion will be located at the WaterDome, organised parallel to the Summit to raise awareness of water as critical to sustainable development. An additional exhibition on Local Swedish Agenda 21 initiatives will be arranged at the Nordic Pavilion in the "Ubuntu Village".
     The Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida) will exhibit projects focusing on poverty alleviation and sustainable development around Lake Victoria and in South Africa. Sida has also produced a brochure describing Sweden's development cooperation and work for sustainable development, "Consideration of the Environment Essential for Sustainable Development". Mats Segnestam, head of the Environment Policy Division at Sida, says it is important not only to focus on the poor countries, but also talk more about the rich countries impact on the environment. Countries in the North must support the South in their strive for sustainable development, but the Summit must not become a conference about charity from North to South, says Mats Segnestam.
     In conjunction with the Summit, the South African Government and a number of international partners organise a parallel event: "Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development". The first session, "Harnessing Science for Sustainable Development", includes a presentation by Dr. Johan Rockström, Sweden of a report from the Resilience Alliance (described in an earlier issue of this newsletter, SDU 3/2002). Another "Swedish" session at the Forum is "Decoupling economic growth and environmental impact" organised by the Swedish Environmental Advisory Council and ICSU (International Council for Science), see also this issue's "sustainability school".
     In addition, a number of representatives are in Johannesburg from the Swedish network Alert 2002, established in 2001 to co-ordinate the Swedish NGO preparations for the Summit.

From words to action

NGOs claim that governments pay "lip service" to issues of environmental protection, but continue to support economic growth above all else. Many therefore fear that the Summit will only result in a watered-down plan with few or no commitments to change "business-as-usual". It has been difficult to reach consensus on critical issues regarding financing, human rights, globalisation and trade in the four preparatory committee meetings before the Summit (Prepcom).
     But why consider the Summit a failure before it has even started? There are signs that the international community is willing to implement new sustainable policies. Since 1992 more than 6,000 municipalities around the world have addressed issues of sustainable development within Local Agenda 21 processes. Recently, thirty-two governments agreed to a US$ 2.9 billion replenishment of the Global Environment Facility over the next four years, the highest replenishment ever for the GEF. Earlier this year, richer nations met in Monterrey, Mexico, and promised to increase foreign aid significantly. Secretary General Kofi Annan has identified five key areas for sustainability where concrete results can be obtained with available knowledge and resources (see SDU 3/2002).
     We know enough to make real action feasible using existing financial resources. After all, governments set the rules that even powerful multinational companies must obey. Therefore, the Summit can become a success if world leaders find the political and moral will to make it so.

More at:

Decoupling is about finding ways of decoupling economic growth from environmental impact. Producing goods and services using fewer raw materials and energy has also been labelled eco-efficiency. Research indicates that even ambitious goals for a four or ten-fold increase in the efficiency with which we use energy, natural resources and other materials are feasible (the Factor 4 and 10 objectives).
     Economic growth is often achieved using increased use of energy and materials, with subsequent emissions and pressure on ecosystems. Continued economic growth in developed countries and accelerated growth in many developing countries will therefore lead to enormous problems unless policies can stimulate more decoupling.
     Resource use is often measured in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) growth. For instance, the use of plastics and aluminium has increased faster than GDP for several decades, while paper use has increased at more or less the same rate as GDP and iron and steel use has increased more slowly. However, this indicator can be deceiving; though energy use and emissions of carbon dioxid have had a tendency to decrease per unit of GDP, the total use of primary energy and absolute emissions of carbon dioxid have increased in most countries. Moreover, the GDP itself does not reveal if economic growth is a result of overexploiting the natural resources and ecosystems.

More at:

A recent report on decoupling can be found at the website of The Swedish Environmental Advisory Council.
The Wuppertal Institute has worked on factor four.
Factor Ten Institute

Can coffee fight poverty and save the rainforest?

Your cup of coffee can help save the rainforest. Fair-traded organic coffee does not leave the sour aftertaste of poor living standards for farmers and destroyed nature in your mouth, reports the World Watch Institute.

Sources:

Roubik, D. W. "The value of bees to the coffee harvest." Nature, 417, 708, (2002).

Nature Science Update on "The value of bees to the coffee harvest".

"Shade-Grown Coffee—A Winning Fix." World Watch, May/June 2002

[1]Shade coffee works for some bird species and not for others, according to an article in Ecological Applications, 2000, Vol. 10, pages: 1414-1425.

New insights into sustainable food production

The future of food production is the theme of the latest Nature Insight from the science journal Nature.

The Insight is free online and provides a selection of recently published material relating to sustainable food production. In short, it is about the most crucial issue of our time: how to increase food production in a world where resources are finite and the population continues to grow. Sustainable food production is about finding ways to feed the growing population without compromising the integrity of natural ecosystems and the services they provide.
     Take a look at the science behind the headlines about genetically modified crops, antibiotics and hormones in animal feed, and climate change. The Insight includes articles dealing with many different aspects of food production: aquaculture, fisheries, water availability, land use patterns, biodiversity, waste management, climate change and the future food needs of the developing world.
     It is important to note that Syngenta, probably the world’s largest developer of genetically modified (GM) crops, has provided financial support for the Insight. And it does contain "GM-crop sympathetic" articles. Still, Nature bears responsibility for the editorial content and scientific scrutiny, and the Insight highlights both pros and cons with GM crops and other options to increase yields.

More at:

August's Nature Insight on Future of Food is free online.

See also the new FAO-report: World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030

2002 Volvo Environment Prize honours welfare index creators

Indian Professor Partha Dasgupta and Swedish Professor Karl-Göran Mäler have been awarded the thirteenth Volvo Environment Prize. They receive SEK 1.5 million for making "contributions of enormous consequence for understanding the relationship between development, environment and poverty". Karl-Göran Mäler is Professor in Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics and Director of the Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics. Partha Dasgupta is a professor in Economics at the University of Cambridge, England.
     In SDU 1, 2001, we described one of their contributions to environmental economics: a new welfare index. It shows that many poor countries now develop at the cost of the environment - although they seem to be performing well according to traditional indices such as GNP or the UN Human Development Index.

More at:

www.environment-prize.com/home.html

Article by Prof. Dasgupta 'The Economics of the Environment'. Copyright © The British Academy, 1996 Printed in Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 90, pp. 165-221

Pollution can alter weather patterns

Northern pollution might have contributed to African droughts. And a hazy brown pollution cloud over South Asia seems to alter the winter monsoon.

Can air pollution from North America and Europe have contributed to the droughts that killed millions of people in the Sahel region of Africa? A new global climate model produced by scientists from Australia and Canada appears to link the two phenomena. The 40-year dry spell from Senegal to Ethiopia in the Sahel region is among the most severe ever recorded and many scientists have tried to find its source.
     According to the new model, particles of sulphur dioxide emitted from for example factories and power plants tend to alter the formation of clouds so that they reflect more sunlight back into space than natural clouds. In the computer simulations, the resulting cooling of the land below reduced the effects of the African monsoon and lead to the droughts in the Sahel region.
     Other scientists have been more reluctant to claim such a causal link, saying that these are complicated indirect effects difficult to quantify. The authors of the current study also admit that northern pollution was probably just one of several factors that lead to the drought. Other possible causes include El Niño and overgrazing.
     A similar pollution problem has recently produced a huge hazy brown cloud over South Asia. This three kilometer thick blanket of soot, particles, aerosols and other pollutants seems to alter the winter monsoon. This in turn leads to reduced rainfall over Northwestern Asia and increased rainfall along Asia’s eastern coast. These effects are damaging agriculture and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the region are at risk, according to a new United Nations study.

More at:

IGBP NewsLetter No 49 page 10.

Environment News Service

Organic farming can be more economical and energy efficient

In terms of energy use, effects on animal and plant diversity, and carbon dioxide emissions, organic farming is better than conventional farming, say Swiss researchers. Their 21-year comparison of organic and conventional farming adds to a growing list of studies showing the benefits of an organic approach.
     Organic farming may never be able to compete with intensive conventional farming in terms of short-term yields, but according to several estimates organic farming would actually be more economical in the long run if conventional farmers had to pay for the environmental side effects of their farming activities. Although using fertilisers and pesticides in the so called "green revolution" has had some short term success in feeding the world's growing population, there are alternatives that are likely to be more successful in the long term.
     In the study, organic fields had healthier soil with higher diversity and number of organisms, such as wild plants, earthworms, and beneficial fungi. However, yields were around 40% less for potatoes, and 10% for wheat and grass compared to fields where fertilisers and pesticides were added.
    Organic farming is often a more viable option for the poor who cannot afford chemicals and pesticides. Many poor farmers are engaged in multi-crop farming which provides "insurance" against changes in environmental conditions and disturbances as drought, insect outbreaks and storms.

Source:

Mader, P. and others. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 1694 - 1697, (2002).

More at:

Nature science update where you also find references to two other recent scientific articles from Nature.

Abating climate change will not bankrupt the world economy, even if one accepts the conventional economic models. Stabilising levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at levels thought necessary to halt global warming would cost 1 to 8 trillion USD. The economic impact of such an investment is negligible according to Swedish energy economist Christian Azar and US climate scientist Stephen Schneider. With this investment the world would have to wait two more years to be ten times richer than today, reaching that level in 2102 instead of in 2100 assuming a growth rate of two percent per year. Likewise, the cost to implement the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries would be twenty percent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010, according to the new findings.
     Another interesting, yet controversial, comparison is the cost versus the benefits of abating climate change. No one knows the total cost of climate change, but most estimates are that it is considerably higher - and more uncertain - than the cost of abating it. Still, most calculations underestimate the costs of inaction as they do not capture values that cannot easily be measured in monetary term—such as human lives lost, species lost, and distributional effects.
     And it seems to be time to act. Central Europe and Asia are currently experiencing extreme weather and flooding, which may be a consequence of global warming. Moreover, the British Meteorological Office recently reported that the first six months of this year have been the warmest ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, and the second warmest globally.

Louise Hård af Segerstad

More at:

Christian Azar and Stephen H. Schneider. 2002. "Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive?" Ecological Economics Vol. 42, Issue 1-2, 73 – 80

Fred Pearce. 2002. "Two years to save the world." New Scientist

The Brittish Meteorological Office pressrelease.

Nature reserves are excellent investments

Nature reserves are excellent investments, according to a new study. According to report estimates a global network of nature reserves would cost about USD 45 billion a year, whereas the reserve system would ensure the delivery of ecosystem goods and services with an annual value of USD 4,400 billion to USD 5,200 billion. Hence, it pays around 100 to 1 to preserve these habitats instead of converting them to typical forms of human use. Despite increased expenditure since the 1992 Rio Summit by both international institutions and private foundations, the world spends only USD 6.5 billion each year on the existing reserve network. The 19 authors also calculate that the present habitat conversion costs the human enterprise, in net terms, of the order of USD 250 billion each year.
     The study is based on five real cases: logging in Malaysia, loss of Cameroon forests due to agriculture, replacement of mangrove forests for shrimp farms in Thailand, drainage of a marsh for agriculture in Canada, and the destruction of coral reefs by dynamite fishing in the Philippines. This study adds to the list showing that even by the most conservative measures, the value of ecosystem goods and services outweighs the cost of their preservation.

More at:

Balmford, A. et al. "Economic reasons for conserving wild nature". Science, 297, 950 - 953, (2002).

Nature Science Update

The Stockholm water challenge to the World Summit

Seven prominent organisations are urging World Summit delegates to agree on concrete goals and actions to change the world’s water situation.

3) Urban water services are crucial for urban stability and security

4) Policy, planning and implementation must move towards integrated solutions

Based on these principles seven prominent organisation sent a challenge to governments and heads of state to take real action at the Summit. The overall message is that water is the key to sustainable development and that world leaders must agree on concrete goals and actions to improve the world’s water situation. Moreover, water must be given a higher priority in international aid and financing, as well as by developing country governments.
     The world water situation has worsened since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. For example, the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of children crashing every four hours die each year from water or sanitation related diseases.
     The challenge emphasises an integrated approach to drinking water supply, water for food production, and water needed for natural ecosystems. It concludes that a major shift in thinking and massive investments are needed if the UN Millennium Development Targets are to be achieved.
     The challenge includes a proposed list of actions that must be taken immediately. These include dramatically improving the drinking water supply and sanitation, increasing water productivity in agricultural and other uses, preventing water pollution, and protecting and restoring vulnerable ecosystems.


More at:

Read the whole challenge at: www.siwi.org

New book: "Great transition needed for sustainable development"

Among the important debates that take place at the Johannesburg Summit is a discussion of the challenging proposal put forth in the Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead (2002). This book from the Global Scenario Group (see below) discusses different scenarios for sustainable development. It presents a provocative argument for following one of these paths, Great Transition, which identifies strategies, agents of change, and values for a new global agenda.
     While the book's assessment of the current path is disquieting, it also identifies a great potential for a fundamental change in direction. It identifies actors, including the progressive elements of civil society, governments, international organisations, and business as key in forging a new sustainability paradigm. This alternative vision of globalisation is centered on the quality of life, human solidarity, environmental resilience, and an informed and engaged citizenry. The book is a challenge to those interested in sustainable development issues to engage more deeply in discussion of what a sustainable society might look like and how all people might arrive there.

Dr. Kirstin Dow

Source:

Raskin, Paul, Tariq Banuri, Gilberto Gallopin, Pablo Gutman, Al Hammond, Robert Kates, and Rob Swart. 2002. Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm Environment Institute.

The Global Scenario Group is an international, interdisciplinary and independent body convened by the Stockholm Environment Institute in 1995. It is working with scenario development to examine the requirements for a sustainable future. The GSG maintains a Secretariat at the SEI Boston Centre that provides scientific and administrative support. Great Transition along with supporting technical documentation can be accessed or ordered at: www.gsg.org   

The quote:

Source:

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals from 2000. www.developmentgoals.org/