| |
|
|
 |
Tibor Farago, joint coordinator of Hungary's delegation in Johannesburg, describes efforts to represent CEE interests at the summit and explains why the meeting did not produce more concrete results While the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg did not produce the kind of concrete agreements needed to set the world on a course for sustainable development, it did represent progress toward this goal if only in that it forced the world to appreciate just how complex sustainable development can be. The Aug. 26-Sept. 4 United Nations summit also made clear the complex position occupied by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in the quest for worldwide sustainability. Ten years ago, sustainable development was treated mainly as an environmental issue. But Johannesburg showed that it is equally a social problem, involving issues as diverse as human rights, education, international trade and health care. In the wide-ranging, unwieldy debates that took place in South Africa, it became clear that CEE is made up of a mixed group of countries in varying stages of transition, existing somewhere between the developed and developing worlds. For the European Union candidate countries, Johannesburg was an opportunity to strengthen links with western states by joining their side in debating global issues. Meanwhile, the poorer states were left to remind donor countries that there remain desperate pockets of poverty here in Europe. The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg was not a stand-alone event, but rather a milestone in a process. A major step in this process occurred 10 years before, at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, which was held in Rio de Janeiro. The fact that the international movement at Rio coincided with the political and economic changes in CEE meant that the countries of the region could only make a limited contribution to the 1992 summit. The dramatic changes in this region left these countries ill-prepared to take a stand on the challenges of tackling global poverty and providing financial or other assistance to the developing world. Still lagging More than a decade later, the CEE countries are still lagging behind the most developed countries, and it seemed unlikely that this region could comply with the emerging priority for the Johannesburg summit: making the switch to sustainable production and consumption patterns in order to cope with global environmental degradation. While many recognised that the most important objectives of the Johannesburg summit included efforts to eradicate poverty in the developing world and attempts to abandon unsustainable patterns of consumption, both of these goals present challenges for the CEE. True, poverty alleviation and social cohesion are well-known objectives in this region. But the primary economic aim of CEE countries is to reach the development level of the West, and financial and technological resources are considered scarce. That is why CEE countries generally lack international development donor policies. Sustainable consumption and production are generally treated as something that will only become relevant to CEE countries after they achieve a certain level of development. Improving the quality of life is still the public's main priority more than a decade after the region began the transition to free-market economies. For these reasons, this formerly very active Eastern European group was notably quiet during the Johannesburg preparations, which started in the spring of 2001. Some countries did not articulate any position at all. Certain representatives from the Newly Independent States, quite understandably, mainly spoke out on matters related to international financing and assistance for sustainable development. Only a few CEE countries delegates regularly added their voice to other areas that were to be dealt with in Johannesburg. Regional pact Just before the summit, a subgroup of CEE countries, consisting of EU candidate states who wanted to make sure this opportunity to shape world discussions on sustainable development did not pass them by, agreed to work together to address issues of common interest and to influence the negotiations in Johannesburg. This group of countries, which became known as the Central Group, included Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. These Central Group countries regularly exchanged views with EU members and lent their support to several EU-sponsored objectives. It was clear that the Central Group countries are close political allies of the EU not only because of expected enlargement, but also because they have similar interests in tackling global problems of sustainable development. And, since these countries are expected to be part of the enlarged EU before various targets set at Johannesburg are met, any targets set for the EU would become obligations for the current candidate countries. Eventually, Malta became responsible for the protocol issues whilst Hungary undertook the technical coordination of the Central Group. These 13 countries met every day before the high-level segment, and had daily consultations with the EU. They managed to come to a common position and to contribute to the adoption of meaningful compromises on a limited number of crucial questions. Obviously it is important that the countries of CEE join other countries in seeking sustainable development. But the region's cooperation in international discussions is also useful because CEE can provide lessons in the context of broad institutional mechanisms of sustainable development. These countries are in a position to avoid the mistakes of the most developed countries such as exaggerated consumerism, huge gaps between the poor and the wealthy and new, sophisticated environmental pressures while also benefiting from the positive experiences of others. The global discussions on sustainable development could have dealt with these issues, addressing critical problems and tasks that CEE faces in pursuing sustainable development, as well as the region's relations with the Western world and the less developed countries. Unfortunately, these issues were not clearly articulated during the preparatory process for a clear and understandable reason: the Johannesburg summit, much like the whole Rio process, was almost exclusively devoted to a North-South new deal. The relationship between the wealthiest and the poorest countries dominated discussions, and the concerns of transition countries were sidelined. |
 |
      |
|||
|
