Follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development: a common challenge.

Precommendation and resolution
Rapporteur: Mr Alan Meale, United Kingdom, SOC

Draft recommendation

1. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro adopted the Rio Declaration in which environmental protection and social and economic development are designated as essential for ensuring sustainable development. A programme of acton "Agenda 21", was laid down in order to achieve this development.

2. Ten years later, the condition of the world is just as alarming and the results of the measures taken in Rio are disappointing. Deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, access to water is still not secured to the majority,and exhaustion of resources continues. The situation is scarcely better with regard to development: cases of inequality and utter destitution are on the increase. In additon, environmental problems and sustainable development are still nowhere near the top of our governments' policy action programmes.

3. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesberg from 26 August to 2 September 2002 reaffirmed the central role of sustainable development, stressing the need for global action to combat poverty and depletion of natural resources and for the active protection of the environment.

4. It is therefore a welcome fact that the Summit succeeded in closely linking together as a dual objective the fight against environmental degradation and poverty eradication.

5. The Assembly notes with satisfaction that the Summit concludes with the adoption of the anticipated texts, viz. a political declaration and a definite programme of action setting out the priorities of the requisite measures for implementing Agenda 21.

6. An additional benefit of the Summit was to unite govermnents, NGOs and enterprises in an extensive programme of voluntary partnerships with the aim of furthering sustainable development at local, national and international level. Here it is important to emphasise the soundness of these partnerships on condition that they are not formed to the disadvantage of the most vulnerale populations.

7. Having regard to the negative assessment made of the follow-up to the Rio Summit, it can be asserted that the Johannesberg [summit] decided on a number of undertakings and tangible objectives for actions to achieve the goals set.

8. In this respect, the assembly emphasises and especially welcomes those of the ojectives which seek significant reduction of the number of persons in a state of extreme poverty and those without access to water and sanitaion.

9. Conversely, it regrets that the Summit did not fix any objective for promoting forms of renewable energy, and that apart from fishing the decision in the field of biodiversity and natural resources were rather low-key.

10. Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, it is regrettable that a small but significant number of Council of Europe member States have still not taken the step of ratifying this instrument, thereby obstructing its entry into force.

11. In other respects, it must also acknowledge that the Johannesburg Summit made no advance in the area of the institutional reform needed for a new world governance involving a review of the sustainable development role of the World Trade Organisation and of the World Bank, besides which the creation of new world-wide environmental organisation could be envisaged. The Assembly is in fact convinced that sustainable development is to be achieved by introducing new patterns of production and consumption which require rethinking the international economic order.

12. Where the political decisions reached at Johannesberg are concerned, it is essential to realise that they remain inopertative unless they are coupled with the tangible implementation of the action plan, which is the collective responsibility of all players involved.

13. Hence the national parliaments and multilateral interparlimentary bodies like the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly have a duty to make their contribution both through their legislative action and through the pressure which they can bring to bear on the governments, or again as elected representatives of civil society.

14. The Assembly proclaims its commitment to the Johannesburg process and welcomes the contacts established between the parliamentarians who attended the Summit and particularly the initiative taken in conjunction with the European Parliament to hold an interparliamentary round table. This made it possible to identify the contribution which might be made to the process, and to formulate proposals.

15. The Assembly is convinced in particular that it would be worthwhile to attach greater importance to the role of parlimentarians in the future negotiations and in this kind of Summit generally. Like most of the parliamentarians who were present in Johannesburg, it feels that their contribution to the WSSD preparatory process was not adequately taken into account and that this situation must change in the future. It therfore insists that the new agreements be subjected to increased parliamentary control and that parliamentarians be associated more in the implementation of the decisions taken.

16. For its part, it welcomes the proposal made by its representatives and those of the European Parliament attending in Johannesburg to look into the possibility of an arrangement to monitor the undertakings made by the countries in the framework of certain environmental agreements, notably the Kyoto Protocol.

17. In the light of foregoing, the Parliamentary Assembly recommends the Committee of Ministers:

a. to take account of the decisions reached at the Johannesburg Summit and to ensure that the Council of Europe intergovernmental work programme contributes to its fulfilment, particularly as regards social cohesion and environmental protection;

b. to pinpoint the reasons why the Council of European Conventions on Civil Liability for damage resulting from Activities dangerous to the Environment (Lugano, 1993) and on Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (Stasbourg, 1998) are not yet in force, and to consider possible actions which might induce the member States to ratify these two instruments;

c. to ensure that the next pan-European Conference of Environmental Ministers (Kyiv, 21-23 May 2003) to whose preparation the Council of Europe is contributing will also be placed in the context of implementing the Johannesburg programme of action and will fully appreciate the contribution which the Council of Eurpoe can make in this context;

d. to invite the governments of the member states to call upon the Council of Europe regarding the partnerships established after Johannesburg, in particular by taking advantage of the project opportunities offered by the Council of Europe Development Bank.