Amid protests, summit ends

As technicians switched off the internet linkups in the conference center media lounge, and the kiosk at the ballroom level sold its last mango juice, 10 days of bargaining and debate, cocktail parties and protests came to an end Wednesday at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development.

But for all the ideas presented, pledges and partnerships announced, and intense media coverage devoted, the questions remain: What was achieved, and is our planet going to be a better place?

The summit produced an ambitious 70-page plan toward "sustainable development" – helping the world's poor without damaging the environment in the development process. But the plan, expected to be approved late Wednesday by the more than 100 heads of state assembled here, is non-binding.

Among the goals agreed upon: By 2015, cutting in half from 2 billion the number of people who lack access to basic sanitation; removing trade barriers that burden developing economies; restoring the oceans' depleted fish stocks. There were also resolutions to curb the loss of biodiversity and clauses supporting the idea of phasing out agricultural subsidies in wealthy countries, which are criticized by developing countries for protecting markets for developed farmers.

But in the eyes of many here, the plan ended up being too much of a compromise.

"It's good news if you don't have a toilet or if you're a fish," says one observer, noting the relatively strong clauses on water and fisheries. "Otherwise, it's nothing."

Environmental activists complain that on the contentious matter of energy, the lack of timetables for increasing alternative sources such as solar and wind power proves the plan lacks teeth. Environmentalists also criticized the lack of a forceful admonition to nations that have not yet ratified the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce so-called greenhouse gases.

"I don't think these summits can work with so many people. Too many agendas are fighting for attention; important issues are buried; nothing is nailed down," says Zach Goldsmith, an environmental activist and editor of the Ecologist Magazine. "Can we now wait another 10 years before we have another such opportunity? We don't have time for these intolerable compromises."

By staying on his Texas ranch and sending Secretary of State Colin Powell instead, President George Bush angered many here already predisposed to blaming the US for hampering efforts toward sustainable development. Jeered and booed by activists during his five-minute speech here Wednesday, Mr. Powell spoke in broad terms about the US's commitment to creating a better world.

In his speech, Powell stressed two themes the US has been pushing here all week: partnerships and accountability. Powell said partnerships – voluntary initiatives by which governments, corporations, and grass-roots groups work together on tasks outlined in the action plan – were the way forward in development. The US had previously announced a long list of partnerships it was involved with, valued at about $2.4 billion.

Powell also stressed the US position that aid needs to be linked to good governance, transparency, and sound economic policies by the receiving country. He scolded Zimbabwe for bringing its population to the edge of starvation by confiscating white-owned commercial farms. He also reprimanded Zambia for not accepting US donations of genetically-modified corn that would help reduce food shortages there.

Other delegates acknowledged that standing for on accountability and promoting partnerships were good steps, but said that the world's superpower should be doing more.

"Solving the problems of some villages [through partnerships] is not an appropriate stance for the United States," says Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. "It puts us at risk in our foreign policy. We cannot lead the world in a war against terrorism if we don't lead the world in the war on poverty, disease, and environmental degradation."

Page: 1 | 2