The UN World Summit for Sustainable Development was a wasted opportunity to help the poor

For more than ten days in Johannesburg thousands of official government delegates were closely observed by the world’s media and tens of thousands of members of civil society and business representatives have laboured over a lengthy implementation plan.

The Summit was supposed to build upon the historic Rio conference held 10 years ago and give an impetus to efforts to tackle the crises of world poverty and environmental degradation. But aside from a few noteworthy achievements, the overwhelming assessment is that it has delivered little for the poor or for the environment. And indeed the lack of real progress raises fundamental questions about the political commitment to build a sustainable future.

The Summit’s Plan of Implementation can hardly be considered a coherent "program", let alone an action of implementation plan. Its positives are few. A time-bound target to improve sanitation provision, a recognition that the private sector is accountable for their social and environmental impacts and some useful measures to protect the oceans are the most noteworthy. And of course some governments did pledge significant resources.

But these few gains are overwhelmed by the lack of commitment to tackle the scandal of more than two billion people living in absolute poverty, denied their basic human rights to such things as access to education, healthcare and clean water.

When it comes to tackling poverty the Summit’s implementation plan and declaration are marked either by silence, backsliding on long-standing commitments or high sounding rhetoric with no back-up in resources or definite timetables.

On one of the most central issues for poverty reduction worldwide – reform of international trade – Summit outcomes were neither here nor there. Without crucial adjustments, the current system of rigged trade rules will continue to clash with social and environmental values.

Volatile commodity prices – a major concern for many developing countries and cause of much poverty and vulnerability – are also left unaddressed at a global level. There was no progress on the urgent need to reduce rich country agriculture subsidies which often result in the dumping of produce on vulnerable developing country markets.

Long-standing commitments to increased foreign aid levels have been weakened. And notably, there is no new commitment to tackle the crippling debt crisis.

So why is the Summit characterised more by failure than success? Why has it failed to deliver on its own theme of "Poverty Eradication through Sustainable Development"?

The essential problem is a lack of political will on the part of the world’s leaders, especially on the part of those from the rich world. Some, like United States’ President George Bush and Australia’s John Howard, did not even attend the Summit. This was a clear indication of their lack of interest in the issues being discussed at the Summit and their contempt for the process underway. President Chirac of France did attend and made a speech with high-flown rhetoric about "the house burning down" and that the world must act. Yet it is France opposing real reform of European Union agricultural subsidies - $40 billion per annum that depresses world prices and devastates the livelihoods of farmers in poor countries

Most world leaders, however, did attend. But the fine sentiments and grand rhetoric in their speeches were not reflected in their negotiating positions. Far too many countries were looking to turn back the clock, overturn principles agreed to at the Rio conference and roll back previous commitments.

When push came to shove, a concern for keeping spending down had priority. A narrow trade agenda triumphed. It was as though the world’s rich countries had virtually all adopted a fortress mentality.

What are some of the consequences of the Johannesburg Summit failing to deliver?

Most immediately it means that the thirteen million people in Southern Africa, who are enduring a food crisis caused in part by poor policies of governments and international financial institutions, face neither respite nor real examination of the causes of their plight.

It means a severe tempering of hopes that the World Trade Organisation’s new Development Round will genuinely face up to the changes needed to make international trade a force for poverty reduction.

And expectations for the realisation of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, which specified targets for improvements in such areas as access to clean water and education, must now come under even greater doubt.

This last week’s deliberations give an added urgency to attempts to renew the way the international community faces up to critical issues such as mass poverty and environmental degradation. It’s clear that these issues need to be tackled at a multilateral level through inter-governmental agreements.

But it’s also clear that the race to the bottom demonstrated by the Summit needs to be reversed. Those governments, which are truly committed to sustainable development, need to work with non-government groups, business, trade unions and others in a genuinely inclusive process to lift expectations.

The sad reality is that the WSSD process offered this sort of approach. But the views of the people were not listened to. A lesson to be drawn from Johannesburg is that the voices of the people need to become even louder. Creating a fairer and sustainable future should indeed be a priority for all.