Sustainable Development: More than Inspiration

An article co-authored by Jennifer Peer and myself for CSD15

Actions for realising the contribution of trade to sustainable development, as detailed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)’s means of implementation chapter, are simply a form of “guidance” and the JPOI is a mere “inspiration” for Member States.
Actions for realising the contribution of trade to sustainable development, as detailed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)’s means of implementation chapter, are merely a form of “guidance” and the JPOI is a mere “inspiration” for Member States. At a side-event held yesterday on “The WTO and Sustainable Development” these and similar statements about sustainable development and trade were expressed. After this barrage of pro trade statements, it seems clear that the CSD, the UN’s highest level commission on sustainable development, needs to be able to address issues related to trade and sustainable development.

As the CSD struggles to conclude this cycle with policy recommendations that advance sustainable development, it is time to ask ourselves: Should the WTO, an organisation that barely contributes to the CSD dialogue, dictate the scope and usefulness the CSD agenda? The answer is no. By ignoring important issues for the implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI, the CSD is unfulfilling its mandate to avoid disturbing the big trade giant. The CSD must realise its potential; it must take the chance to serve a trust-building policy forum to create far-sighted policies that do not centre on economics. Sustainable development is not an 'inspiration', it's a promise we have made to future generations

Trade is considered by many to be the engine of growth. In many cases, however, such growth prioritises economic benefits at the expense of social and environmental capital. We know that sustainable development requires a balancing of environmental, social, and economic concerns. The WTO founding documents define sustainable development as an overarching objective of the WTO. Ministers in Johannesburg pledged to “promote open, equitable, rules-based, predictable, and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial systems that benefit all countries in the pursuit of sustainable development.” Given these explicit links of trade and sustainable development in both international sustainable development agreements and international trade agreements, one would expect to see a WTO that is upholding and promoting sustainable development.

To date, however, this has not proved possible. After almost two years of working towards a CSD outcome that favours sustainable development, and hearing time and time again at CSD 14 that fair trade practices are necessary and that energy subsidies are distorting the global market, we are now faced with a text that excludes any recommendations on trade policy or trade-related practices. The text has been watered down to avoid any conflict with the WTO, as though the global trade policies that have led us into this current state of unsustainability do not need to change. The CSD has chosen to stay on the sidelines, making only superficial and tangential policy recommendations, while letting the WTO define the scope and meaning of the policies that are supposed to get our world on a sustainable track.

Given the current deadlock in the WTO, this is a potentially deadly approach for sustainable development. Though the speaker at yesterday’s event did highlight potential areas of progress for the sustainable development agenda, she focused only on areas where we can anticipate a positive outcome for environment in the Doha Round, namely: fishery subsidies, the liberalization of environmental goods, and the defining of the relationships between multilateral environmental agreements and trade rules. Yet, there are more areas where a positive agreement is desperately needed (agricultural subsidies, non-agricultural market access, and special differentiated treatment)—areas of critical importance to the promotion of sustainable development, and where the CSD must exercise leadership.

The relationship between industrial development and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) is a case in point. Our cautious approach to industrial development at this session has weakened any policies calling for tariff reductions for developing and least developed countries. As though there are no links between trade and industrial development, Commission Members have avoided speaking on the fundamental social and environmental aspects surrounding issues of non-agricultural good and market access. Policy recommendations to provide guidance for poverty reduction and industrial development are hopeless because the CSD has surrendered its power while waiting for the WTO to conclude negotiations on NAMA.
Looking ahead to the next cycle of the CSD, the potential for trade sensitivities to weaken the outcome is high. Focusing on agriculture, rural development, land, and Africa, CSD 16/17 will address issues that strike at the heart of the current Doha impasse. The WTO has, to date, failed to deliver an agreement that promotes principles of sustainable development in these areas. We have yet to see a definition of “special products” that addresses Africa’s food security, livelihood security, and rural development needs. Similarly, the “early harvest” in the cotton negotiations, called for by the ‘Cotton 4’ (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali), has not yet materialised. In light of this, we must not shy away from putting the critical issues for agriculture and sustainable development on the table at CSD16/17. Furthermore, in the absence of progress at the WTO, we need to create space for ‘confidence building’ between developed and developing countries on sustainable development and agriculture. The CSD offers a forum for this and shoul not e wasted. the JPOI is not a token inspirational reference: it is a blueprint for achieving sustainable development.