IT WAS the cathartic moment of the World Summit. In the early hours of Monday morning, dozens of environment ministers from round the world clambered over their desks in a rush to hug one another. Outside in the corridors a cheer went up as the news broke. Delegates had thrown out a sentence in the summit鈥檚 final resolution that would have ceded to the World Trade Organization the final say in any conflict between free trade and environmental protection.
It doesn鈥檛 sound much. Nothing agreed in Johannesburg is binding on anyone. The WTO will no doubt continue to presume that it is the world court on such matters, and that companies have the right to trash the planet in pursuit of profit. But this vote could just be the start of a fight-back against the blind faith in free trade that has disfigured our world over the past decade, while giving little to the world鈥檚 poor.
There was other good news. Nobody would argue that the targets to bring water and sanitation to those who go without are anything but laudable 鈥� though what had to be given up in negotiations to reach these targets is not yet clear. Greens also rejoiced at the inclusion of the idea that governments should get together to 鈥減romote corporate responsibility鈥�.
Advertisement
Yet the overwhelming impression was one of institutionalised timidity. There are no targets for renewable energy, merely a call for countries to increase their output from wind farms and solar power 鈥渨ith a sense of urgency鈥�. Equally feeble and shorn of targets is the biodiversity agreement.
Then there are the partnerships on which Western governments set so much store before the summit began. These are designed to spread involvement in sustainable development beyond national governments to local administrations, companies and community groups. No doubt some will take off and help tie industrialists into greener and more socially acceptable practices. But the first tranche of proposed schemes fails in key aims (see 鈥淧artnerships don鈥檛 live up to the hype鈥�). And companies will inevitably expect something in return: if not great PR, then a profit. If the UN is to say which of these schemes goes ahead, its officials will be in the dangerous position of having to decide which commercial motives should be put before others.
So what has emerged from Joburg is a few non-binding targets and lots of good intentions, sprinkled with confused messages about the compatibility of development and conservation. Environmental objectives, declared Britain鈥檚 aid minister Clare Short, 鈥渇requently end up being anti-development鈥�.
What the targets and intentions are worth is doubtful: after all, countries have not delivered on any of the targets and promises agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio 10 years ago. As far as the environment is concerned, there is still a vacuum at the centre of global politics. Those ministers celebrating on Monday should have pushed harder to force world leaders to decide the exact relationship between trade and the environment. Until this is sorted out, economic growth (that is, unsustainable development) will remain an end in itself. Sustainable development will continue to be seen as an optional luxury.
It needn鈥檛 be like this. Have you ever heard of the Commission for Sustainable Development? This is the body set up by the UN to oversee implementation of Agenda 21, the blueprint for the future drawn up in Rio. It has wielded about as much power as its anonymity suggests. Yet the summit this week chose to entrust policing the Johannesburg agenda to this feeble body.
Compare it with the WTO. Whatever you think of its works, it has rules and powers to enforce them, and it means business. Only last Friday, it judged that the European Union could charge the US up to $4 billion as a penalty for subsidising American exporters in breach of WTO rules.
Imagine a tough new body 鈥� let鈥檚 call it the World Environment Organisation 鈥� that could hand down such rulings in the interests of global sustainability. It could fine countries or companies that wreck rainforests, send noxious clouds across borders or renege on Kyoto commitments. Cynics might say that governments would never give up such powers to an international body. But look at what they gave up to the WTO in the interests of free trade. It can be done, but this week world leaders missed the chance to create such a body.
With every rejection of targets and every inclusion of phrases like 鈥渨here possible鈥�, our leaders indicated that they have lost the nerve and the will to control events on the planet. Until they regain it, even late-night declarations that the environment will not be subservient to the free-trade juggernaut will count for little.