Addressing the Constraints to Implementing Agenda 21

A Challenge to North America and Europe

A civil society contribution to the UNECE Consultative Meeting, July 12-13, 2001, Geneva

The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. 

Principle 7, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

Taking responsibility

The Preamble to Agenda 21 points out that "its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments."[1]  However, Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development points out the special responsibility of the developed countries as to both the "pressures" they impose on the global environment and on the resources they command to effect change.  More specifically, the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production particularly in industrialized countries is identified as "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment."[2]

Thus, the assessment of progress by the countries of the ECE region should especially focus on this responsibility, measuring the degree to which the industrialized countries of Europe and North America have fulfilled that responsiblity, identifying the barriers constraining progress in implemention of the Agenda 21 commitments, and what actions or changes are needed to move forward.

The draft Assessment of Progress in Sustainable Development Since Rio 1992 for Member States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe attempts this assessment.  Almost 100 pages long, the report covers many of the trends, issues, experiences and challenges facing the countries of this region.   However, from a civil society point of view, this report fails to sufficiently address some of the critical issues and questions.

For the most part, the report pays minimal attention to the impact which the industrialized countries have on the rest of the world, instead focusing more on domestic issues, such as urbanization and employment, and the difficulties in the transition to capitalism by the CEE and NIS countries

Implementation crisis

In particular, the report claims that "the intentions and initial actions taken to achieve integration are moving in the right direction, but the actual operationalisation of sustainable development is still in its infancy."[3]  The report admits that gains in ecoefficiency have been "offset by overall trends in production, consumption and economic instability."  Despite the urgency of the global situation, "short term concerns still take precdence over long-term principles of intergenerational equity or the precautionary approach."[4]

Many have described this situation as the  implementation crisis.  Clearly, one of the key objectives of each regional assessment, especially by the industrialized countries, should be to understand the forces contributing to this crisis.  The report however fails to adequately analyze the reasons for this failure to offset what the UN General Assembly described in its 1997 review as "worsening trends."[5]

Understandably, there are some things which are politically difficult for governments, international organizations such as the United Nations, and the industry associations representing the private sector to articulate in public.  Some of the barriers and constraints to the implementation of Agenda 21 are politically sensitive topics which may stir up controversy and friction in a process which attempts to reach consensus in its decisions.

However, the stakes are too great for politeness and fear to rule out discussion of the reasons sustainable development has not been fully integrated into national policy making, why it remains a marginal concern and why the majority of citizens may know something about globalization, a lot about commercial brand names,  yet ten years after Rio still do not have any idea what sustainable development means to their lives -- if they are even familiar with the term.

Civil society groups, expected to be the watchdogs and critics, are in a much better position to raise these more uncomfortable elements of the assessment of progress.  In many ways, it is essential for civil society organizations to raise these taboo and controversial criticisms, if the barriers are to be successfully overcome.

Accomplishments and failures

Since the 1992 Earth Summit, governments and the major groups in North America and Europe have accomplished a number of objectives set out in Agenda 21.  Many of the countries set up National Councils on Sustainable Development, established Local Agenda 21 projects, initiated advances in technology and management methods increasing the ecoefficiency in the production process, products and services.

Yet few deny that the world leaders and the global partnership which committed to Agenda 21 failed to adequately implement their objectives. 

In many ways, analysis and insights into the reasons for failure can be just as useful and important to the Summit as the identificaiton and celebration of "best practices" and promising initiatives.  However, this is where the assessment process tends to break down -- but also where civil society organizations may provide an essential service in their roles as watchdogs and critics.  For much of this silence represents political taboos which cannot easily be overcome by government representatives or enlightened and committed private sector activists.

Constraints on assessing constraints

As different countries and regions assess their progress in the past decade, civil society organizations note the reluctance of governments and private sector groups to give sufficient attention to the reasons for this failure, to the constraints and barriers to implementation by governments, corporations and industry groups, international organizations and as well as many civil society groups.

The "significant silences" or rather political taboos regarding the honest and transparent assessment of the constraints and barriers to implementation represent an immediate barrier to the success of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the preparatory process feeding into it.

The knowledge and technological ability now exists to successfully address the development crisis, notes the Regional Roundtable for Europe and North America held in Vail, Colorado.   "What it still lacks," the report concludes, "is political will and a individual commitment for action and broad public awareness of the consequences of inaction." 

However, although "lack of political will" is continually cited as a barrier to implementation, this phrase does not describe what this means, why policymakers are "willing" to make choices and decisions favoring the wrong priorities.  What are the driving forces involved in which policymakers are willing to engage in the rhetoric of sustainability but not the implementation of commitments? 

In turn, there are already many claims to "individual commitment" to sustainable development; however, it is the implementation of commitments which is the problem.   Agenda 21 represents a long list of  unrealized commitments.

Thirdly, while the lack of public awareness is one of the major barriers hindering implementation of Agenda 21, the important question is why the main institutions in society have not adequately informed the public about sustainable development and what is at stake.

Thus, civil society groups have identified a number of major constraints, generally neglected in the UNECE assessment, but which require critical attention.  These include:

·        Influence of corporate lobbyists.  One of the major taboos in the United Nations and within many governments is to mention in public the influence of specific professional industry lobbyists when they acatively undermine progress towards effective sustainable development policies, as blatantly seen in industry efforts against development and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

·        Policy integration moving forward more in rhetoric than in institutional change.  Continuing dominance of trade liberalization, deregulation and privatization and other economic priorities in most governmental decisions over environmental and social needs, particularly by the United States.

·        Double bind in assumptions and philosophies underlying policies.  The Regional Roundtable in Vail, Colorado pointed out that "the model for development followed by industrial economies... is clearly outdated," that "current models still rely on a form of economic growth that gives most value to financial and manufactured capital at the expense of human and natural resources."  That report concludes that "a new development model is needed."  Yet the ECE report fails to explain why many industrialized government policies attempt to ultimately promote the "outdated" model justifying corporate-driven globalization over sustainable development.  Still these governments continue to claim the importance of achieving sustainable development, although failing to operationalize these claims.

·        Promotion of consumerism by advertising.  Huge financial and technological resources are mobilized in the global advertising and marketing of consumer values, desires and habits.  Yet the advertising industry remains unaccountable for its aggressive promotion of unsustainable consumption and production patterns or the environmental and social degradation that results.  The current approach by the UN, UNEP and OECD in politely "encouraging the media, advertising and marketing sectors to help shape sustainable consumption patterns" is regarded by many civil society organizations as naive at best.  Governments need to take stronger action, especially with the aggressive and shameful marketing to children.  This is not a "freedom of speech" issue but an abuse of media power, including the public airwaves which government is responsible for regulating.

·        Irresponsibility of mass news media by failing to inform public about the importance of sustainable development and the serious consequences of neglect.

Failing to adequately address these constraints puts in jeopardy the success of sustainable development, not to mention the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  Currently corporate-driven globalization is the main model for development, shaping policies and decisions, with sustainable development a marginal concern, albeit with increasingly sophisticated  dialogues and speeches.  However, dialogues and speeches will not slow climate change or eradicate poverty, especially when the vast majority of citizens are left out of the discussion.  If the world leaders are truly serious  and "committed" to sustainable development, as they claimed ten years ago, they will at least need to acknowledge the nature of the forces they are up against, allowing civil society organizations to voice the controversial and sensitive questions if they cannot.

These constraints need to be addressed -- or at least acknowledged as controversies -- in the UNECE assessment report.  Also, the topic of critical constraints needs to be at the forefront of the multistakeholder dialogues scheduled for September, with civil society organizations especially given the opportunity to raise those questions and issues which may be too politically "sensitive" to be raised by government or industry delegates.

Prepared by Jeffrey Barber

Citizens Network for
Sustainable Development