MISSION: Southwest Research and Information Center is a multi-cultural organization working to promote the health of people and communities, protect natural resources, ensure citizen participation, and secure environmental and social justice now and for future generations

World Summit on Sustainable Development or The Corporate Takeover of the United Nations?

Indigenous Peoples from around the world, along with over 6,000 delegates from 189 countries, gathered in South Africa to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The WSSD was the ten-year follow up to the first Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Preceding the WSSD was the Indigenous Peoples Summit on Sustainable Development held in Kimberley, South Africa. Delegates assembled in Kimberly to follow up on commitments made to Indigenous Peoples a decade ago and to reaffirm the Kari-Oca Declaration and the Indigenous Peoples' Earth Charter which were the official documents of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Indigenous Peoples Caucus drafted the Kimberley Declaration that served as their official political declaration at the WSSD. In Johannesburg at the WSSD, an accompanying Indigenous Peoples Plan Of Implementation On Sustainable Development was drafted by the Indigenous Peoples caucus.

The Kimberley Declaration and the Plan of Implementation emphasize that since 1992, the ecosystems of the world have been increasingly degraded and an accelerating spiral of climate change has impacted the aboriginal homelands of Indigenous Peoples throughout the world. The documents reaffirm Indigenous Peoples relationship to Mother Earth and our responsibility to youth and future generations upholding peace, equity and justice. Strong language in the documents stress the pursuit of commitments made 10 years ago at the Earth Summit, especially sections in Agenda 21 of the States official political declaration emphasizing the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in achieving sustainable development through self determination on our lands. The Indigenous documents demand that free, prior, and informed consent must be the principle in approving or rejecting any development project or activity affecting our lands, territories and resources. The forced removal and displacement of Indigenous Peoples from their native homelands for development, the protection of sacred sites, and the disturbing of burial and ceremonial sites were also given high priorities in the documents formulated by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

Indigenous Peoples at the WSSD were considered one of seven major NGO groups who would be directly addressed by States of the world in plenary sessions. A major strategy of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus was to lobby and negotiate with individual government delegates to bring our issues to the negotiating table. Unlike Indigenous Peoples from Canada and the United States, many Indigenous Peoples in developing countries do not have federally recognized lands in their countries. This deprivation of rights denies them their identity and the right to practice their culture and traditional religion. The differing legal structures in developed and developing countries make the unified effort of lobbying nation states so difficult for Indigenous Peoples of the world. Despite these obstacles, Indigenous Peoples presence remained unified and strong as a major NGO group at the WSSD.

Indigenous Peoples of the world posed the questions: is the "Spirit of Rio" still alive? Will the 2002 WSSD really change the future of the world? The systematic problems that lie at the heart of human oppression were hardly touched upon. From the start the WSSD was not about sustainability but about government officials and corporate leaders fighting for institutional self-interest. Free trade dominated the talks, and there was no consensus on whether the United Nations Multilateral Environmental Agreement stressing environmental protection should take precedence over the World Trade Organization agreement supporting the globalization of free trade. There are no new binding rules for corporate accountability. Even though the Kyoto Protocol was "reaffirmed," all target dates for renewable energy development and implementation have been dropped due to opposition from Japan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. Instead, the WSSD plan of action calls to increase subsidies for "cleaner" fossil fuels and large hydroelectric dams for developing nations. Biodiversity was devalued during the meetings by governments aiming to reduce the rate of loss rather than end it altogether. Action to address over-consumption and damaging production patterns was also dropped. The only targets agreed on were to cut the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation in half by 2015, and to establish protected marine networks by 2012. One of the few positive outcomes of the WSSD was when most of the world turned against the U.S. to make sure that genetic engineering was left out of the text of the plan of action.

The vague and controversial concept of public-private partnerships was a major issue at the WSSD. Non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups at the WSSD were reluctant to support States in partnership initiatives due to developed countries avoiding any time-bound commitments made in the agreements. Although developing countries need the funding that developed countries are offering in these partnerships, NGO's at the WSSD were warning developing countries not to accept partnership proposals from the United States and its allies. NGO's urged them to wait until the declaration of the WSSD and other UN mandates specifically put a time bound commitment to the partnership proposals. The NGO warnings were well received by a majority of developing countries in the Group of 77. Developed countries like the U.S., Japan and Canada rejected time bound measures and contend that the most important issue was how to meet their commitments in funding developing nations in order to help them overcome poverty. Critics contend these partnerships allow the business sector, as stakeholders in these partnerships, to put more money into flawed programs that have not reduced illegal logging and bad mining practices. The U.S. and other developed nations dismissed the concerns of many local environmental groups in developing nations over governmental corruption and collusion between government officials and timber and mining barons.

These partnerships between governments working with local communities, NGO's, and businesses in addressing environmental protection involve no UN oversight. Partnership proposals revealed that only a few community groups in the global south are considered partners, and less than a dozen partnerships are directed at changing consumption patterns in rich countries. Moreover, the U.S. is pushing privatization partnerships in the areas of water, energy, agriculture, and forests. Even when thousands outside the conference were demonstrating against privatization, big business smugly walked out of the WSSD while congratulating the United Nations (UN) on implementing the partnership agreements.

Economic globalization constitutes one of the main obstacles for the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Transnational corporations and industrial countries impose their global agenda on the negotiations and agreements of the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, reducing Indigenous Peoples rights in governmental constitutions and in international conventions and agreements. As long as the hegemonic control of G-8 countries -- led by the U.S. -- continues in international governmental forums, we can look to a future filled with greed that benefits transnational corporations.

At the conclusion of the WSSD, the Indigenous Peoples caucus called for a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development to culminate the end of the UN International Decade for the World's Indigenous Peoples (1995-2004), and as a concrete follow-up to the WSSD. Whether they follow our recommendation or not, we reaffirm our mutual solidarity as Indigenous Peoples of the world in our struggle for social and environmental justice.

Manuel Pino is a Sociology Instructor at Scottsdale Community College. He is also a SRIC board member. Readers may remember his article, "The Trail to Dublin" in Voices, Fall 2001