Albaeco | Casavaria.com

THE JOHANNESBURG WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Is the world becoming more sustainable?
The 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm is acknowledged as the landmark event that put environmental issues on the international political agenda. In the 1980's the UN World Commission on Environment and Development produced the Brundtland Report: "Our Common Future". This document framed discussions at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and includes the most commonly used definition of sustainable development: "development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Though the 1972 and 1992 summits focused world attention on environmental problems, many are frustrated with the lack of progress since the 1992 adoption of Agenda 21, a global action plan for sustainable development. It is now time to evaluate what has really happened since Rio, focus future goals, and agree on how to implement Agenda 21.

Sustainable development means different things to different people. Scientists and world leaders cannot even agree on its definition, but all agree that it must be clearly defined. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "It is far from being as abstract as it sounds. It is a life-or-death issue for millions upon millions of people and potentially the whole human race." To help clarify goals for sustainable development, the UN has outlined three priorities: 1) combating poverty and promoting sustainable livelihoods, 2) sustainable consumption and production and 3) protecting the integrity of life-support ecosystems.

Focus on natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity
One main target of the Summit is the Millennium Development Goal, to decrease the world population living in poverty by half by 2015. Some fear, however, that the Summit will encourage short-term approaches to fighting poverty and increasing food production, at the expense of natural resources and ecosystems. In fact, sustainable management of local and global ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is key to poverty reduction, food security, and insurance against the effects of natural disasters. Therefore, the Millennium Development Goals can only be reached if biodiversity is better managed and the benefits of its use are distributed more equitably.

A huge international project dealing with how to manage ecosystems so that they can provide human benefits over the long run is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)(see SDU 1/2001). It was launched in 2001 to assess the impact of factors such as shifts in land use and loss of biodiversity on ecosystems' capacity to provide the goods and services that sustain development. The MA-project is represented at one of the parallel events at the Summit.

Sweden's contributions
Swedish contributions to the Summit will include a national pavilion highlighting Swedish expertise, innovation and activities in the water sector. This pavilion will be located at the WaterDome, organised parallel to the Summit to raise awareness of water as critical to sustainable development. An additional exhibition on Local Swedish Agenda 21 initiatives will be arranged at the Nordic Pavilion in the "Ubuntu Village".

The Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida) will exhibit projects focusing on poverty alleviation and sustainable development around Lake Victoria and in South Africa. Sida has also produced a brochure describing Sweden's development cooperation and work for sustainable development, "Consideration of the Environment Essential for Sustainable Development". Mats Segnestam, head of the Environment Policy Division at Sida, says it is important not only to focus on the poor countries, but also talk more about the rich countries impact on the environment. Countries in the North must support the South in their strive for sustainable development, but the Summit must not become a conference about charity from North to South, says Mats Segnestam.

In conjunction with the Summit, the South African Government and a number of international partners organise a parallel event: "Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development". The first session, "Harnessing Science for Sustainable Development", includes a presentation by Dr. Johan Rockström, Sweden of a report from the Resilience Alliance (described in an earlier issue of this newsletter, SDU 3/2002). Another "Swedish" session at the Forum is "Decoupling economic growth and environmental impact" organised by the Swedish Environmental Advisory Council and ICSU (International Council for Science), see also this issue's "sustainability school".

In addition, a number of representatives are in Johannesburg from the Swedish network Alert 2002, established in 2001 to co-ordinate the Swedish NGO preparations for the Summit.

From words to action
NGOs claim that governments pay "lip service" to issues of environmental protection, but continue to support economic growth above all else. Many therefore fear that the Summit will only result in a watered-down plan with few or no commitments to change "business-as-usual". It has been difficult to reach consensus on critical issues regarding financing, human rights, globalisation and trade in the four preparatory committee meetings before the Summit (Prepcom).

But why consider the Summit a failure before it has even started? There are signs that the international community is willing to implement new sustainable policies. Since 1992 more than 6,000 municipalities around the world have addressed issues of sustainable development within Local Agenda 21 processes. Recently, thirty-two governments agreed to a US$ 2.9 billion replenishment of the Global Environment Facility over the next four years, the highest replenishment ever for the GEF. Earlier this year, richer nations met in Monterrey, Mexico, and promised to increase foreign aid significantly. Secretary General Kofi Annan has identified five key areas for sustainability where concrete results can be obtained with available knowledge and resources (see SDU 3/2002).

We know enough to make real action feasible using existing financial resources. After all, governments set the rules that even powerful multinational companies must obey. Therefore, the Summit can become a success if world leaders find the political and moral will to make it so.

CAN COFFEE FIGHT POVERTY & SAVE THE RAINFOREST?

Your cup of coffee can help save the rainforest. Fair-traded organic coffee does not leave the sour aftertaste of poor living standards for farmers and destroyed nature in your mouth, reports the World Watch Institute.

A recent study shows that insect-pollinated coffee plants yield over 50 percent more beans than plants that are shielded from bees. This may be why yield are falling in many coffee plantations that are ever more homogeneous and use more insecticides – two practices bad for pollinators.

Coffee was traditionally grown in mixed plantations in the rainforests with other plants below and above it. But according to the May/June edition of the magazine World Watch magazine over 40 percent of the coffee area in Colombia, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean has been converted to intensive, sun-grown coffee that uses more chemical fertilisers and pesticides. In the short term, this can lead to increased yields, but in the long term many intensive plantations have experienced lowered yields. When a coffee farm is converted to full-sun cultivation, the diversity and number of birds [1], insects, orchids and other organisms that inhabit the area is drastically reduced.

On shade coffee farms in Peru, farmers derive nearly a third of their income from firewood, timber, fruits, and medicinal plants found in the shade system. Coffee grown in the shade matures more gradually, which seems to give it a more powerful taste and aroma. Coffee companies and drinkers are also willing to pay more for shade grown coffee. Some coffee labels even guarantee shade growers a minimum price higher than the world price. So, starting your day with an organic cup of java grown in the shade, and fairly traded, can be a small but significant way to contribute to preserve biodiversity, reduce poverty and help farmers avoid constant exposure to pesticides.

Sources:
Roubik, D. W. "The value of bees to the coffee harvest." Nature, 417, 708, (2002).

Nature Science Update on "The value of bees to the coffee harvest".

"Shade-Grown Coffee—A Winning Fix." World Watch, May/June 2002

Notes:
[1] Shade coffee works for some bird species and not for others, according to an article in Ecological Applications, 2000, Vol. 10, pages: 1414-1425. [ Keep Reading ^ ]

[ Top ^ ]

ABATING CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BARGAIN

Abating climate change will not bankrupt the world economy, even if one accepts the conventional economic models. Stabilising levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at levels thought necessary to halt global warming would cost 1 to 8 trillion USD. The economic impact of such an investment is negligible according to Swedish energy economist Christian Azar and US climate scientist Stephen Schneider. With this investment the world would have to wait two more years to be ten times richer than today, reaching that level in 2102 instead of in 2100 assuming a growth rate of two percent per year. Likewise, the cost to implement the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries would be twenty percent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010, according to the new findings.

Another interesting, yet controversial, comparison is the cost versus the benefits of abating climate change. No one knows the total cost of climate change, but most estimates are that it is considerably higher - and more uncertain - than the cost of abating it. Still, most calculations underestimate the costs of inaction as they do not capture values that cannot easily be measured in monetary term—such as human lives lost, species lost, and distributional effects.

And it seems to be time to act. Central Europe and Asia are currently experiencing extreme weather and flooding, which may be a consequence of global warming. Moreover, the British Meteorological Office recently reported that the first six months of this year have been the warmest ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, and the second warmest globally.

Louise Hård af Segerstad

More at:
Christian Azar and Stephen H. Schneider. 2002. "Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive?" Ecological Economics Vol. 42, Issue 1-2, 73 – 80

Fred Pearce. 2002. "Two years to save the world." New Scientist

The Brittish Meteorological Office press release.

[ Top ^ ]

[ Read the Complete Newsletter at Albaeco.com ]

	En español
	Copyright Issues
	Terms & Conditions
	Contact Us
	Publish Here!
	About Casavaria
	About EcoVaria