Earth Summit 2002 - Greenpeace

Monterrey, Mexico, 18 March 2002: Greenpeace believes that the United Nations conference on Financing for Development which starts in Monterrey today, could be a lost opportunity to redress the failure of the world’s governments to keep the promises they made 10 years ago at the Rio (de Janeiro) Earth Summit.

At Rio in 1992 the international community agreed to prioritise sustainable development - development which does not reduce the ability of future generations to meet their needs and seeks to ensure environmental integrity, and social and economic equity.

“In the 10 years since governments committed to sustainable development the gap between rich and poor has widened and we are now facing the greatest threat to the environment through climate change,” said Greenpeace campaigner Paul Horsman. “These facts demonstrate that governments have until now failed to take sustainable development seriously.”

The alleviation of poverty and the sustainable use of the environment go hand in hand, but little consideration has been given to environmental issues in the Monterrey process. This conference takes place just five months before the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development.

“If sustainable development is not central in Monterrey, how will governments reconcile development and sustainability in Johannesburg,” said Horsman. “Furthermore, how credible will they be if they call for sustainable development in Johannesburg but merely pay lip service to its financing in Monterrey.”

The Monterrey conference was meant to establish a dialogue between industrialised and developing countries to enhance the financing of sustainable development in a bid to meet the UN millennium declaration goals of reducing poverty by half by 2015. However, what remains in the “Monterrey consensus” is only an ambiguous commitment of developing countries to follow the normal and rules set by the International Institutions (IFIs) against a promise of funds for development.

Greenpeace has identified eight test cases which if adopted in Monterrey would contribute to putting the world back on the right track towards sustainable development. Of particular importance is that the IFIs and national governments should give priority to the funding for sustainable energy, such as efficiency and renewable energy sources as a means to fight against poverty. Access to clean energy is a key driver for development which is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms.

At the Johannesburg Earth Summit Greenpeace is calling for the launch of a massive uptake of renewable energy globally and for the two billion people who have no access to modern energy services.

More information

Earth Summit Prepcom 3: Preparing for action or more empty promises?

March 1, 2002: Greenpeace comments on the Chairman's text for the next preparatory meeting in New York which begins 25 March. Delegates in New York will need to work hard to ensure that the Summit does more than remake old promises - it's time to put binding timetables on these commitments. Read the report >>

At the conference, Greenpeace is calling on participants to:

1. Call upon the IFIs and national governments to give priority to the funding of sustainable energy, such as efficiency and renewable energy sources; as a means to fight against poverty, and in line with the Monterrey consensus view that the IFIs must act in a manner that is consistent with the agreements adopted by UN institutions in the field of the environment;
2. Agree that the governments of OECD countries should immediately target 20 percent of their energy sector lending and support in the form of guarantees via their Export Credit Agencies to renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes. This should be followed by a plan to phase out support for non-sustainable ‘conventional’ energy activities within five years, and to ensure the same measure is adopted for all IFIs that OECD governments support;
3. Agree on a binding timetable for OECD countries to achieve at least the target of 0.7percent of GDP for Overseas Development Aid (ODA), which was agreed at Rio 10 years ago. ODA has continued to shrink since 1992; only the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden (Check esp. DK) are currently meeting this target. The Monterrey Consensus reiterates the 0.7percent target, but without a time-table there is little doubt that the OECD countries will be as inactive as they have been since Rio;
4. Agree to cancel the foreign debt and debt service of developing countries. Servicing massive foreign debt has been one of the major factors behind increased pressure on the biodiversity of developing countries, in contradiction with the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992; environmentally and socially destructive measures and adjustment programmes have been promoted and forced upon developing countries by the IMF and the World Bank, in breach of the stated commitment of these organisations to favour sustainable development. Instead, OECD governments should, for example, increase their financial commitments to promote the sustainable use and conservation of ancient forests;
5. Recognise the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ for environmental destruction enshrined in the Rio agreements of 1992. The Rio agreements (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity) emphasised that it is primarily the responsibility of the industrialised countries -- who have received the "benefits" from environmental degradation -- to take action and to assist developing countries. Several countries, led by the US, have nevertheless since opposed this principle, and have used their position as bargaining chip; see for example George Bush on the Kyoto Protocol;
6. Agree to take effective steps to ensure that transnational corporations are legally bound to act responsibly. The Monterrey Consensus contains nice words about the need for the business sector to take account of the broader implications of their activities, but there is no reason to believe that corporations will take notice and end their "double standards" in developing countries as long as these requirements are not legally binding;
7. Adopt a timetable to put an end to trade-distorting export subsidies and environmentally destructive subsidies within the next decade. The Monterrey consensus "acknowledges" that subsidies are of particular concern to developing countries, but fails to propose action to resolve this which is at the heart of the continued inequity between developing and industrialised countries. Environmentally destructive subsidies (for example in the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors) have also undermined the Rio agreements, and put the sustainable and clean production sectors at a disadvantage. For example, annual subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries amount to between $US 250 - 300 billion, undermining the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and
8. Agree that international trade rules must be subordinate to environmental rules, and not the reverse, and that legitimate restrictions to international trade can be important tools for sustainable development. Since the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) two years after the 1992 Earth Summit, WTO member states have been challenging legitimate trade-restricting measures aimed at protecting the environment and consumers, such as moratoria, bans and other restrictions to the use of genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture. International trade can be an important tool for poverty eradication and development, but it must recognise environmental limits and social concerns.