The World Summit on sustainable development. Stakes and consequences

Résumé du document

Ten years after the first "Earth Summit? at Rio in Brazil in June 92, a second Summit was flagged of on August 26th and was concluded on September 4th. Indeed, this Summit has a more practical motive than Rio's, according to the Summit Secretary General, Nitin Desai, who declared that we didn't need to hope for great declarations but for new concepts and added that time was right to combat the existing problems.

Extraits

[...] World summit on sustainable development Johannesburg 2002: Stakes and consequences INTRODUCTION Ten years after the first “Earth Summit” at Rio in Brazil in June 92, a second Summit has been taken last August 26th and finished on September 4th. After the disappointment shared in the fact that the commitments determined during that first Summit have not been really applicated but only the world leaders expected a lot in that new Summit, taken in Johannesburg in South Africa. Indeed, this Summit had for ambition to be more turned to action and be less conceptual than Rio's, according to the Summit Secretary General, Nitin Desai, who declared too that we didn't need to hope to great declarations but new concepts, and added that time was coming to tackle to the problems. [...]

[...] That are the main points but not the only ones. Johannesburg wanted to mark a major departure compared to the previous conferences of UN (United Nations): international community had to approach by a different way the problems' solving in the future”. We have to know right now, if Johannesburg made real difference they all expected to. So, we will see the consequences, whether positives or negatives, of the 2nd Earth Summit. II. CONSEQUENCES As it was said, the consequences were more positives than negatives. [...]

[...] But these negative points weren't what more marked memories because the Summit provides, nonetheless, a lot of hope and we have not to forget that is an example of a new way, to the different members, to govern together on sensitive points. Moreover, the American President absence, enough debated and noticed during the Summit, marked the biggest leaders' gathering at Johannesburg. The Summit, in fact, had been marked by the announced absence of the first world-wide power, George W. Bush. Some sources confirmed that President Bush was more preoccupied by his against terrorism which seems to be is priority since September 11th. This absence created more or less lively reactions from the participants. [...]

[...] Moreover it gave rise to a truly interactive dialogue between the different stakeholders as banks, companies, civil society and private sectors. They were obliged to confront the needs and the arguments, of the other actors, to offset them, which shows a new level of dialogue. In concrete terms, the initiatives taken was based on the development of access to clean water and proper sanitations, the management of toxic chemicals, the improvement of agricultural yields and ecosystem management, and protection of biodiversity. [...]

[...] It is time to deliver.” This Summit has not forgotten those who are used to be forgotten, that is to say the developing countries and the poorest countries of the world. But many points approached haven't satisfied all the participants and some critics have made some echo at “Jo'burg”. For example, the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Chairman of the “Group including 132 developing countries would have like the Summit to achieve much more especially on the human rights' subject as the right to housing, to health, to clean water and to life which were not well approached because of the lack of time. [...]