SARPN Home

POVERTY, ENERGY & GENDER > Sustainable Energy News

[previous]

[table of contents] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[next]

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY NEWS NUMBER 9

3. WSSD

Storming and looting - what did the Summit deliver? In the UN's attention to the needs of the poor, compromising for the U.S., and placating the global corporations, the heavy ecological footprint of the planet was not addressed enough by officials. With its emphasis on poverty alleviation, strides were made on water and sanitation. But compared to industrialised lifestyles, poor people place very little stress on ecological resources anyway so resources will continue to be consumed by the industrialised countries at an alarming rate with dire consequences for the poor. Much has been said of the failure of the Summit to deliver effective targets for renewables and the general failure to deliver milestones and timelines. The weak outputs also give more endorsement to clean coal than to renewable energy. At the international level South Africa either bowed to, or facilitated OPEC influence (and other business-as-usual apologists) to get the 'G77 & China' group to abandon targets for renewable energy, and delete any measurable commitment to reform/rationalise subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power. Iran and Iraq sided with the US in rejecting renewable energy since both have vested interests in oil. Some cite the proposal calling for the phase out of subsidies to fossil fuels making it to the official table as a success. This led to the Chair telling DME to speak to NGOs about subsidy reform in SA - we're waiting. There was pressure on the UN to set up some mechanism by which countries can report on subsidies as a basis for target development since this was deleted from the text. (The International Energy Agency is supposed to be doing a study on subsidies.) The strong sanitation target should be linked to the use of sewerage treatment facilities as sources of renewable energy. Arguably, it was in side events, seminars and street activities that the real action was taking place. In such fora the heavy ecological footprint of the North in particular was highlighted and the links were made between consumption of resources locally and the impacts thereof globally. Emphasis was placed on the need for enforcement of the "polluter pays principal", "ecological debt" and the enactment of "common but differentiated responsibilities". The failure of the structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank and IMF in meeting development challenges and pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol were common rallying cries. The slow pace of land redistribution gave impetus to the Landless People's Movement that found alliances with many similar South American land movements and together they took centre stage at the march from Alexandra to Sandton held on August 31 attended by 20 000 people. Repeatedly, fears were expressed that NEPAD might entrench the trend toward the privatisation of services and emphasise foreign direct investment at the expense of Africa. Community, NGOs and social movements vowed not to relent in their watchdog roles but there was very seldom collaboration between Northern and Southern NGOs. An exception was Groundwork's Corporate Accountability Conference (culminating in the Greenwash Awards) that made clear the need for rules for big business. Testimonies by representatives from communities all over the world who have been affected by unregulated companies - Dow (Union Carbide) in Bhopal, Total/Unocal in Burma, Cape PLC, and so on - drove the point home. Friends of the Earth International said the Plan of Implementation (the main output) was disappointing because it set no rules for corporate accountability and called for a UN conference on corporate accountability by the end of 2003. The Global Forum's Energy and Climate Change Commission, chaired by the Black Environmental Justice Networking Forum (USA), had speakers and the floor (notably National Union of Mineworkers) condemning nuclear power, Shell's destruction of Nigeria and other such examples of multinational abuse of people. Strong representation was made by Alaskan representatives whose livelihood is directly threatened by the melting of ice due to global warming. Long before any of the weak outcomes came to the fore, the International Anti-Globalisation Teach-In at Wits University concluded that the development of the social movements is the only avenue left for effecting any change. Speakers criticised the WTO and its neoliberal rhetoric, called for the cancellation of debt and condemned global capitalism. A candlelit march down town initiated by the Anti-Privatisation Forum resulted in police brutality and arrests of peaceful marchers. At least one positive outcome of the Summit was that Multilateral Environmental Agreements are not explicitly superseded by WTO trade rules. The exhibitions provided practical examples for all kinds of environmentally friendly products and state-of-the art technologies. To cite a few: the Japanese stand at Ubuntu Village showcased the hybrid fuel-cell vehicle; the UNESCO stand showcased rooftop wind turbines, Solar Heat displayed cheap solar water heaters, The Greenhouse Project in Joubert Park provided the largest source of PV power. The Greening the Summit Initiative provided Sandton and Nasrec with energy from renewables. And Greenpeace proved how weak security is at Koeberg nuclear power station. Many partnerships were formed and initiatives launched. The powerful business lobby rejected the notion of international corporate accountability and was keen on partnerships with UN agencies and other groups. As a result, Type II partnerships became the order of the day, despite the fact that many NGOs had said that they would only be worthwhile if there were strong Type I initiatives, and that governments should not establish voluntary agreements until the ground rules are established. Now the private sector has the added benefit of using Type II partnerships to attract donor funding to underwrite a portion of the investment to set up infrastructure while the public sector still pays for pollution induced health costs and NGOs have to beg for funds to continue their watchdog role. So companies like Shell and Eskom can continue to wreak havoc on the health of communities and get their profits and returns subsidised and guaranteed for further expansion. Eskom's plans to extend electricity infrastructure throughout Africa is based on the business-as-usual philosophy that holds that long-value chain projects will have trickle down benefits for the community. Thus small communities are not the primary beneficiaries but industry is, with the promise that small communities will get jobs along the way. Shell pitched for a voluntary agreement for its rural electrification programme to roll out photovoltaic panels (PVs) all over Africa. (Shell does not seem to have taken cognisance of the fact that rural communities off-the-grid need energy for cooking and space heating primarily, not lights.) While Shell was extolling the virtues of its PV expansion plan, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance was holding its alternative WSSD: The Wentworth Summit on Sickness and Death to highlight the fact that oil refineries in the area have led to asthma rates 29% higher than the national average. UNICEF and MacDonalds have teamed up, giving substance to charges that the UN is another blue-washing exercise. Greenpeace and the WBCSD teamed up leading to street action in Barcelona and Amsterdam where organisations called this collaboration the UN Masquerade. The EU energy initiative is vague, the UK energy initiative (REEEP) is more focused and there are rumours that SA might buy into it. The African Energy Fund for African Development is ESKOM driven and should be watched for its business-as-usual tendencies. The U.S. calls its "Global Village Energy Partnership" a 'clean energy initiative' with its focus on increasing efficiency and changing vehicle patterns but it remains to be seen if this is just lip service. Germany's "Global Sustainable Energy Strategy" promises to share information, develop strategies together and build consensus. Government ministers from the EU; Germany in particular, repeatedly stressed their commitment to reducing the footprint of their countries by encouraging energy efficiency and the development of renewables. But their statements were characterised by general timidity, evidenced in comments about the rights of individual lifestyle freedoms over government intervention. We still have a long way to go before we think globally as it's clear that international leaders remain committed to their respective election mandates and corporate vested interests bind their hands and continue to loot resources. Meanwhile, storms raged in Europe and starvation worsened in Southern Africa. Zero Waste Project - at least one success story of WSSD The Earthlife Africa (ELA) Zero Waste project, with support from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) far outperformed all the other summit venues with regard to minimisation and diversion of waste. Although preliminary figures show a diversion of between 70% and 80% at the Global Forum (NASREC), whatever the final figure, it will be far in excess of the total for the entire Summit - which is around the 25% mark. The initiative entailed modifying bicycles by attaching trailers, providing bins for separating waste and liasing with caterers to avoid the use of plastics and training an already ardent staff. Not only does recycling waste cut down on landfill build-ups, but it also cuts down on the use of energy in the production of new goods. "This not only dramatically shows the merits of Zero Waste as an organizing principle, it shows that NGOs are also capable and competent agents of delivering innovative environmental services" says Muna Lakhani project co-ordinator from ELA Johannesburg. "This innovative system has proven that, with comparatively minimal resources, but with a good plan and a dedicated team, large diversions of waste from landfills and incinerators can take place." The Zero Waste project at the Global Forum began by attempting to avoid as much waste as possible to start with, (particularly plastics, with a focus on PVC and polystyrene) and then put into place educational information systems; emission-free waste collection (on specially designed tricycles); and deployed an enthusiastic team of workers within the system. Under normal conditions at Nasrec, the waste system that the Zero Waste team re-designed, would only have created about six jobs for the duration, and no permanent employment. Zero Waste systems create employment: the system at the Global Forum created 90 part time jobs, and will leave behind an ongoing local benefit of about 40 and support for 10 existing full time jobs. All these jobs are for Black South Africans. Some attempts to design waste out of the system were not wholly successful, as water was still sold in PET (plastics) bottles, and lids and straws were still used, despite Coke's initial agreement not to use these products. Some Government departments and organisations "imported" unsustainable waste, mainly in the form of polystyrene containers. It is estimated that between 8% and 12% of the total waste stream was "imported", leading to a lower figure than would have been possible. Reducing hazardous wastes is a vital part of Zero Waste Systems. The minimising of the use of toxic chemicals, by analysing the products normally used, and designing alternatives that are orders of magnitude less toxic, also contributed to the program's success. Already, many businesses, government departments (especially local government) and community groups have shown a keen interest in actively promoting the Zero Waste concept to reduce waste. Contact: Muna Lakhani, (0834-717276) muna@iafrica.com; Ann Leonard, GAIA, USA, (office) +1-510-524-4000, aleonard@essential.org

[previous]	[table of contents] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]	[next]