World Summit on Sustainable Development Department of Public Information - News and Media Services Division - New York
	Johannesburg, South Africa 26 August-4 September 2002	26 August 2002

PRESS CONFERENCE BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS   At the conclusion of the Rio summit, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had condemned the outcome text as not enough, yet now it looked as if there was a movement backwards from Rio here at Johannesburg, Marcelo Furtado of Greenpeace Brazil told correspondents today at a summit press conference sponsored by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Joining him to discuss their broad framework for current negotiations were leaders of three other international NGOs: Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network; Beverly Wright, National Black Environmental Justice Network; and Tom Goldtooth, the Indigenous Environmental Network. Mr. Furtado said that Agenda 21, in terms of rhetoric, had provided all the answers. What had been missing since then was action. Financing of Agenda 21 simply had not happened at the expected level and both rich and poor nations had failed to act with the needed political will. Heading into Johannesburg, he had seen "gridlocks and watered down texts". Such issues as the corporate takeover of governments, accountability, renewable energy, sanitation, education, poverty and the need for sustainable solutions were not yet "penetrating the walls" of today's summit. Ms. Ling said that the 10 years after Rio had been terribly disappointing, owing to a clash of two paradigms about the way the world looked at the planet. In Rio, the possibility had emerged of common but different shadings of responsibilities and the recognition of the need to integrate environment and development. Unsustainable production and consumption was also recognized, as well as the need to reassess the levels of technology and toxins in use. Other positive gains had included recognition of the rights of communities and the role of indigenous peoples and civil society. Those were the very positive gains of Rio and of North-South cooperation, she added. But, in reality, when it was the powerful that were setting the rules, a slaughter of the weak ensued. Livelihoods were shrinking, amid the opening of southern markets against heavily subsidized products from Japan, Europe and the United States. In another troubling example, South Africa had been challenged in court for trying to lower the price of HIV/AIDS drugs. Talking about domestic policies was fine, but if the global structures were out of control, destabilization resulted. She sought true multilateralism, and for all people to stand together for a sustainable world. Ms. Wright said that poor people and people of colour around the world -- the sick, hungry and homeless -- were bearing a disproportionate burden of the world's problems. She hoped to bring to the forefront the concept of environmental justice and environmental racism. That was a tremendous battle. She had hoped that all the issues would be addressed at the summit, but so far, that had not been the case. The Chairman's paper should also include timetables and targets for achieving sustainable development worldwide. The summit was a historic opportunity for the nations of the world to begin working together on that topic. Mr. Goldtooth said that one of the biggest concerns of indigenous peoples was the current state of the planet. Many traditional leaders, the elders, said that Johannesburg was perhaps the last stop. The world was at a crossroads, they said. It was time to talk, once again, to the people of the world about their unsustainable lifestyles. Global warming and climate change was affecting people even here in Africa. The world was out of balance. Indigenous peoples had been active in a number of important meetings worldwide, including all of the preparatory meetings leading to the "world summit on sustainable greed" under way now in Johannesburg. He said the time was now to embrace precautionary principles and express concern about the role of corporations, for example, especially when that concerned land rights and access to land for poor and marginalized peoples. The sacredness of water, the state of agriculture, and the scorched earth were other critical concerns. Indigenous peoples still maintained the philosophy that had taught them to live in a sustainable way. The younger generations must be taught to hold the line of resistance against corporations that are exploiting the sacredness of mother earth. Globalization was unchecked and even water was becoming privatized. Responding to a question about the split emerging in civil society between those who were willing to accept "Type 2" partnerships (by and between governments, NGOs and businesses to tackle specific problems and achieve measurable results) and those who wanted nothing to do with that whole concept, Ms. Yoke Ling said no one was against cooperation, coalitions and networking. Many groups had raised concerns about the logic of "Type 2" partnerships, which had been proposed as an alternative to "Type 1" (voluntary initiatives intended to promote implementation of the government-negotiated final documents), so that results could still be achieved. Without "Type 1" partnerships, however, many developing countries argued it would not be possible to have "Type 2", suggesting that that could lead to endorsement without accountability. Either way, collaboration must be among real partners and underpinned by respect. Multilateralism was the goal. The big question was what happened if the United States did not "buy into the process", Mr. Furtado added. But, whatever happened would be what the other 199 countries had wanted to see happen. The big question in the air now was what to tell people around the world -- that a few countries made all the decisions, or that the United Nations was still an effective body where the majority of countries on the planet decided the planet's future? Would the system be multilateral or unilateral?   Meeting Summaries Summit News