World Summit on Sustainable Development: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ; LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE; ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE; JOINT MEETING
18 June 2002
WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Ms G L Mahlangu

Documents handed out:
Report from Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting
Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions
Draft plan of Implementation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (e-mail [email protected] for document)

SUMMARY
Director General of Land and Environmental Affairs briefed the Committee on the Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting that took place in Bali Indonesia on the 24 May to 7 June 2002. Nairobi and Abidjan international Conventions focussing on the protection of marine and coastal environments were discussed.

The briefing was made to a joint sitting of the Land and Environmental Affairs Select Committee; the Foreign Affairs Portfolio Committee; the Environmental Affairs and Tourism Portfolio Committee. The Director general reassured members that contrary to media reports that the summit would not be successful was far from the truth. Disagreements on certain issues to be discussed in the summit could be overcome.

MINUTES
Dr Olberg, Director General, Land and Environmental Affairs Select Committee presented on the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development taking place in Johannesburg later this year. He read through the Draft plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development which was formulated in the Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting that took place in Bali from 24 May - June 7 2002.

Please refer to Report from Fourth Preparatory Meeting attached.

Discussion
Ms F Mahomed (ANC) asked Dr Olberg if genetically modified foods had been discussed and what was the view taken. Was the right to food entrenched in the action plan of the summit? Was the question of gender adequately dealt with in the report? What was the view on developing countries on access to clean water and sanitation

Mr E Moorcroft (DP) asked if there would be consensus before the summit started in September. He said he was concerned that this might be a failure as the Rio summit was a few years ago. He was concerned that there was still no substantial financial support by the west on many of the issues that would be discussed at the summit.

Ms C M P Ramotsamai (ANC) said she was concerned with the non-committal of some of the leading western delegates to attend the summit. In terms of governance why were the G77 countries non-committal to the issue?

Dr Olberg said that their view on subsidies was that there needed to be an improvement in market access for the developing countries hence they believed in phasing out all forms of export subsidies. They also believed in substantial reduction in trade distorting domestic support for agricultural products. They believed this would result on a shift that would see global agricultural product coming from the developing countries in ten years to come.

On the question of gender and water Dr Olberg replied that these two issues were on the millennium declaration and therefore the summit would hold the same view on these issues. On water he said the view was to drastically reduce by 2015 the proportion of people lacking access to safe drinking water and undertake a related effort for the people without access to improved sanitation, sensitive to the needs of the poor and protecting the environment. On gender he said there were few references to gender on the report and therefore he believed there was a need for more explicit approach on a plan of action for gender. He did however say that the summit itself had more than one third of its team being women.

On the question of genetically modified foods Dr Olberg said that there had not been a huge political debate on these issues he did however point out that the EU delegation brought this issue up in Bali.

On question of governance he said the report dealt with this issue on many different levels such as promoting rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedom.

On committal of government to attend the summit he said a survey was undertaken on the attendance for the summit which found that there would be a low attendance. The European Union was making a consorted attempt to attend. Many governments around the world were holding back to see the outcomes of the Preparatory talks before announcing their attendance at the summit

On the question of time being limited for some agreement to be reached before the start of the summit the director general believed many of the contentious issues could be easily resolved except for trade and finance. The debate had moved away from how the sustainable global development should be resourced to an economic platform where issues such as phasing out subsidies on trade were seen as crucial to global trade. It was normal for there to be disagreement on contentious issues before the start of such a huge summit and he believed the different parties could reach some kind of an agreement on this issues.

Mr Moorcroft(DP)said he was happy with the approach the South African delegation had taken in voicing its concerns on Global Sustainable Development. He asked how one could discuss sustainable development without discussing trade and finance.

Ms L R Mbuyazi (IFP) said she was concerned to read in the newspapers that the organisers of the summit had not yet secured a venue for the summit. She asked the DG to shed light on this.

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) said she was concerned with what she heard about the west countries not disagreeing on issues concerning trade and finance. What implications this will have for NEPAD?

Dr Olberg stated regarding implications for NEPAD that there were no fundamental implications for NEPAD because it had received a number of commitments from G8 countries. Many of the disagreements they had needed a go ahead from the heads of states of the different countries.

On the issue of the venue, he said Nasrec has been confirmed for the summit.

Ms JA Semple (DP) asked how successful the summit was going to be if the western countries had not yet committed to coming.

DG said high level talks had to take place between the government of all the countries to show commitment in attending the summit.

Ms G L Mahlangu said she was concerned that members of parliament who were not part of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Land and Environmental Affairs knew very little about the summit in Johannesburg. Hence she felt that all members of parliament should be brought into the debates on the summit. She suggested inviting members of parliament to attend meetings during recess. She said they would be taken through the whole purpose of the summit and a video of the last meeting in Rio would be shown to them. The committee would be conducting a study tour of the area where the summit is to take place and look at issues such as how far the venue is from Soweto.

Mr September (ANC) told the committee members that the Minister of Land and Environmental Affairs Mr Vali Moosa had started a chat room on the internet to give briefs on many of the issues affecting his department and this included the world summit.

Mr M L Moss (ANC) said he thought it would be necessary the Director General of Trade and Industry to shed more light on the difficulties they were facing with Western countries not being involved in any talks involving trade and finance.

MINUTES
Director for Marine & Coastal Management
Ms Lynn Jackson, Director for Marine & Coastal Management, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism discussed whether it would be in South Africa's interest to adopt the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions. These are international conventions that focus on the protection of marine and coastal environments.

Ms Jackson briefed the committee on the history and aims of the conventions. She said that the conventions were initiated in 1974 and had 11target regions.The Convention covered Marine Pollution, Protected areas, EIAs and Marine Emergencies. There were action plans which were divided into Regional Conventions and secondly Technical Protocols. Provisions were very general and the details were spelt out in Technical protocols. This is aimed at oil spills or other hazardous substances from ships. Both Conventions were taken into account to develop new protocols of land-based activities. She said that it was estimated that 80% of hazardous pollution come from land-based sources and the conventions were important to develop better control.

Benefits for the convention had both a political and technical element. From a political point MCM (Marine Coastal Management) would make considerable contributions to NEPAD. Technical benefits were that Marine Pollution and Marine Resources were Transboundary issues which meant that policies and strategies had to be harmonized because there was sovereign power only over local coastal boarders. Being part of these conventions would give South Africa better access to funding to tackle the problems.

She noted that it was very difficult to regulate Marine Pollution because of the structure of the sea. Most Marine issues were governed both on an international and national scale and harmony regarding these issues.

She said that there were no major disadvantages to acceding to the conventions except for the fact that financial contributions were required which was the sum of 70 000 US dollars as well as skills training for officials. It would be possible to get a 50% reduction on the levy, as the sum would soon be reduced. She said that there was scope for "in kind" contributions as has been done in the Seychelles.

The conventions definitely gives South Africa a future role to play in regional seas as it shall provided internal governance and a platform for all MCM issues. It is the solution to better contributions, efficiency, effectiveness and equity of the seas to all members acceding to the convention.

Discussion
The chairperson asked if South Africa was the only African country attending.

Ms Jackson replied that Marine Pollution was dealt with on different levels in the international arena. In 1988 the Mozambique government discussed the effects of the convention called a meeting in Mozambique. Thereafter a follow up was held in Cape Town called by ACOPS. At the end of this convention emerged the Cape Town Declaration that revitalized the process. Finally a meeting in Nairobi was held to finalize the list of proposals which was suggested in Cape Town and that was the start to initiate a partnership process between African States.

Ms Chalmers asked if the focus on Marine Coastal Environment was more reactive or active and how this interacted on an international level because she did not understand how this benefitted the nation?

Mr Mvoyazi suggested that it was important for the Deputy Minister to brief the committee on the need of the Convention for African Development.

Mrs Mars enquired if the Convention included nuclear waste.

Ms Jackson stated that the only protocol was one on Marine Emergencies covered in the conventions but it left a wide scope for a wide range of issues which could cover nuclear waste. The conventions played a proactive role by making provision for training in oil spills.

She said further that the role South Africa would be playing was to ensure training to countries in areas of oil spills. Conventions were broad enough to include appropriate technologies like sanitation and sewerage. They would try to introduce appropriate sanitation which would ensure set targets for marine pollution.

In conclusion the Chair suggested to the committee that it would be in the interest of the country to accede to the convention.

Members unanimously adopted the Nairobi and Abidjan.

The meeting was adjourned