Monitoring the implementation of the decisions of the Johannesburg Summit and the Kyoto Process

Working document prepared by Mr Meale

1. One of the main objectives of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which took place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 5 September 2002, was to send out fresh impulses worldwide, proclaiming the message that those problems that remain and may even in some cases have worsened after Rio, could be tackled. As we now know, the outcome of the Summit did not meet people's expectations. However, after long and intensive negotiations, important environmental and developmental goals were set and the road towards their implementation laid out. Thus, chances for an improved implementation of the guiding principle of sustainable development have increased.

The Johannesburg Summit concluded with a relatively short political declaration and an extensive action plan. The action plan itself begins by declaring its commitment to the principles already laid down in other relevant documents such as Rio Declaration, the UN Millennium Declaration and the Agenda 21 Declaration, and reaffirms its support for the agreed goals set out in these documents.

Importantly the political declaration underlined the need to implement the comprehensive list of measues via "partnership approaches", especially between North and South, and between governments and civil society.

In the first chapter of measures, the action plan focuses upon strategies for combating poverty, followed by a lengthy chapter on strengthening "sustainable" production and consumption. Chapter IV deals with protection and management of existing natural resources (drinking water, fish stocks, climate change, agriculture). The formulation of goals in the chapter on "Sustainable Development in a Globalising World" and "Health and Sustainable Developement" is relatively brief but nevertheless important.

In summary, the following specific goals emerged:

Trade and globalisation: enviromentally harmful subsidies should be phased out. However, no timetable is set for this process.
In the case of agricultural susidies, participants were unable to reach agreement. It was decided however, that multilateral environmental agreements would not be subject to WTO competition regulations.
Kyoto Protocol: States that have ratified the protocol are called upon to do so.
Protection of endangered species: loss of species should be "significantly reduced" by 2010.
Renewable energies: participants agreed on a compromise - the proportion of renewable energies should be increased: with a sense of urgency. However, no specific requirements were laid down.
Fisheries: stocks must not be overfished. Efforts to be made to ensure that damaged stocks recover by 2015.
Water and sanitation: by 2015 the proportion of people without access to clean water and basic sanitaion should be halved.
Chemicals: the adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment should be minimized by the year 2020.
Natural resources: the loss of natural resources, especially those found in seas, oceans and forests should be halted "as soon as possible".

2. One of the weaknesses of the action plan is the fact that, despite specifying certain dedlines in some areas, it does not envisage any specific measures whereby the goals - some of the ambitious, others subject to restrictive clauses - can be achieved. In this context, the setting up of an interparliamentary network to follow and monitor the WSSD process is of crucial importance. The same holds true for the Kyoto Protocol - once it has come into force - and for further agreements regarding climate protection following the first period of commitments, i.e. the time after 2012.

With a view to the role European states must play in these processes, the question arises as to who - at least in Europe - can implement such a monitoring process. Limiting such monitoring to the area of the European Union would be insufficient. Therefore, the Council of Europe with its now 44 member states is the obvious body to carry out, in co-ordination with the EU, such a task. In this respect, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should develope a particular close relationship, as was discussed already during the Second Interparliamentary Round Table in Johannesburg on 27 August 2002. The delay in Russia's and other nations' ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is an important argument for strenghtening the role of the Council of Europe's activities in the field of environmental policy as regards conventions have concentrated merely on its "Bern Convention" mainly on protection of species, nature and landscape.

We therefore suggest that the following measures should be approached with a view to the creation of a partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe to monitior the implementation of the WSSD and the Kyoto processes in Europe. Bearing in mind the Council of Europe's competence in monitoring, it would seem advisable that such a mechanism be built upon, especially recognising the number of disparate nations within the Greater European are who are not numbered amongst the members of the European Union, nor its aspirant nations.

- The Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State Government scheduled for the end of 2004, would have to affirm its support for the goals of the WSSD process and allocate a pioneering role to the Council of Europe in implementing the action plan agenda. This political impetus should be transmitted to the current preparatory talks for the Summit at an early stage. The relevent bodies of the Council of Europe could then be given the task of developing initiatives to aid implementation of the WSSD process and to report on these to the Parlimentary Assembly.

- Once a year, the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament should hold a debate on the WSSD process. The respective Secretariats would be requested to draw up a list of agreements under international law that are of relevance for the WSSD process and examine whether, if legal loopholes exist, appropriate conventions should be drawn up to deal with these. The reports should then be submitted to the Parlimentary Assembly and the European Parliament and should detail the extent to which the respective member states have ratified multilateral environmental conventions relevant to the WSSD process (eg Kyoto Protocol, Convention on Climate Change, Convention on Biodiversity, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention on Hazardous Chemicals, etc). The relevant committees of both bodies should then, in co-ordination with each other, concern themselves with the current stage of ratification.

- Debates in the Parlimentary Assembly and the European Parlimentary on the WTO and OECD would then given respective participants the opportunity to examine in each case whether the requirements of the action plan regarding the Doha Agenda (WTO) have been implemented. (Multilateral environment agreements are not subject to WTO regulations on competion, phasing out of agricultural subsidies.)

- In order to guarantee a truly efficient monitoring process over a long term it might be necessary to establish a post of "Commissioner for Future Generations". The structure and assignment of such a position could be similar to that of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, or the Commissioner for Future Generations as currently established by the Israeli Knesset, whose role enables provisions of opinions on all legislative proposals affection specified areas.

- First and foremost, such a position should be given an exact mandate and considerable competencies vis-a-vis the member states. A monitoring process that is not to be restricted to gathering member states' data must encompass independent and plenary examination and monitoring powers.