Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 7 • 18th April 2002

PrepCom III Fails to Agree on Draft Text for WSSD

Do More

Download this issue

See also

PrepCom III fails to agree on draft text for WSSD

Delegates at the third meeting of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom III) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) on 25 March to 5 April in New York failed to achieve their objective of producing the first draft of a ‘review’ document for WSSD, instead asking the PrepCom Chair Emil Salim (Indonesia) to come up with a new text for discussion at PrepCom IV in May. Many environmental groups blamed the US, Canada, Australia and the oil exporting nations for “blocking meaningful targets and timetables” and reiterated concerns that WSSD would be subordinated to the multilateral trade regime.

Failure blamed on lack of commitment and inadequate guidance

Following the delegates’ failure to agree on a draft text for further action to be discussed at WSSD, informal consultations will be held in the lead-up to PrepCom IV, including three days of discussions immediately prior to the meeting. At the request of the G-77/China and several other delegations, the Chair will compile an action-oriented and concise draft document for PrepCom IV, based on these informal consultations and incorporating the concerns articulated during PrepCom III.

With this setback so close to the main event, many critics pointed to a lack of high-level political commitment and inadequate preparations of government delegations. Others also expressed frustration with the insufficient guidance on process, content and direction of the talks provided by the PrepCom Bureau, as well as logistical and time constraints. Many participants furthermore criticised the more than 100-page long compilation text put forward by Chair Salim after the first week of the meeting (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April 2002; http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-04-04/story4.htm) as unwieldy and difficult to negotiate. Some, however, cautioned that the difficulties apparent at PrepCom III were an inevitable stage in any multilateral negotiating process that had also plagued preparations for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

Trade issues in the draft text - where and how?

Discussions on how and where to include trade-related issues in the draft text continued at PrepCom III mainly in the context of Sections V (Sustainable Development in a Globalizing World) and IX (Means of Implementation) of the Chair’s text. While the G-77 proposed general references to subsidies and trade barriers in the Introduction with more specific points in the Sections V and IX, focusing in particular on market access, special and differential treatment and the elimination of trade barriers, the US preferred trade references to be restricted to encouraging WTO Members to implement the outcomes of Doha. For its part, the EU emphasised technical assistance and preferential market access for least-developed countries, proposing that such reference should be included in Section IX. In the end, delegates reached a tentative agreement to move trade references from Section V to a subsection on “trade” in Section IX, leading some NGOs to question how trade references would link to other sections of the paper if trade was merely included as a means of implementation.

Civil society criticises unconditional support of trade agenda

At PrepCom III, many civil society groups at PrepCom III expressed concern regarding governments’ seemingly unconditional support of the Doha Agenda agreed to at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference last year. WWF criticised governments for not making any efforts to explore how WSSD could complement the Doha mandate on sustainable development and environment, instead restricting themselves to political statements supporting the implementation of the Doha mandate. These sentiments were echoed by the Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED) which criticised the “unconditional support” for the new trade round, even among developing countries (G-77), which ANPED claimed would “seriously undermine the efforts to implement a sustainability agenda”. Similarly, Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) remarked the lack of references in the Chair’s text to potential negative impacts of economic globalisation on wider society, sustainability and the environment, accusing governments of “ignoring civil society’s concerns about the trade liberalisation process”.

NGOs furthermore reiterated calls for a clarification of the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and WTO rules in the context of WSSD, which they say should not be left to WTO Members to decide. [A clarification of the MEA-WTO relationship is part of the mandated negotiations launched at Doha.] In a joint statement by FOEI, Greenpeace, WWF, TWN, ANPED and the Sierra Club, the NGOs called on governments to reaffirm the authority and autonomy of MEAs and to clarify that “the objectives, principles and provisions of MEAs must not be subordinated to WTO rules”. While singling out the EU as the only government at PrepCom III to bring forward any concrete trade-related proposals, such as references to the promotion of trade in organic products, WWF expressed disappointment that the EU did not raise the MEA-WTO issue despite pushing for its inclusion in the new round of trade talks and circulating a controversial paper outlining preliminary ideas on the MEA-WTO relationship at the last negotiating session of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April; http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-04-04/story3.htm).

NGOs wary of ‘partnership’ discussions

Delegates at PrepCom III also began informal discussions on partnerships — the so-called “type 2″ outcomes of WSSD — which are meant to focus on concrete and specific initiatives to strengthen the implementation of Agenda 21 (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April 2002). While generally agreeing that these partnerships should be of a voluntary and self-organising nature, many delegates and NGOs suggested establishing a framework that would ensure their alignment with the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. NGOs furthermore reiterated previously voiced concerns that such initiatives should not be a substitute for concrete action by governments, but should rather aim to reinforce the implementation of Type 1 outcomes.

Efforts to formulate a draft text for WSSD and informal consultations on partnerships will continue at PrepCom IV, to be held at the ministerial level in Bali, Indonesia, on 27 May to 7 June (with three days of informal discussion prior to the meeting). Delegates will furthermore aim to finalise a political declaration that will be endorsed by heads of State and Government attending the Summit on 26 September to 4 August in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Additional Resources

Documents of the PrepCom III and further information on WSSD and the preparatory process are available at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org. In addition, the National Preparatory Committee of Indonesia has launched a website for PrepCom IV which provides information on the preparation, a free message board and a free mailing list (see http://baliprepcom.org).

For daily coverage, see IISD Linkages.

“From Doha to Johannesburg: Who Will Decide Our Common Future?”, Victor Menotti, BRIDGES Monthly Review, March/April 2002.

ENB, Vol. 22 No. 29, 8 April; “Bali next stop for Johannesburg Summit preparations,” WSSD PRESS RELEASE, 5 April; “With us or against us to save the planet?” FOEI, 5 April 2002; ICTSD Internal Files.