Financing for Development - UN-High Level Intergovernmental Event

	Press releases
Greenpeace Statement on the UN International Conference on Financing for Development Eight Test Cases for Sustainable Development Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March, 2002 Greenpeace is concerned that the Monterrey conference could be a lost opportunity to tackle - ten years after the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 - the lack of political will, and the resulting lack of resources, that is at the heart of what is known as the 'post-Rio decade of failed promises'. In Rio in 1992, the international community agreed to give priority to sustainable development -- development that does not reduce the ability of future generations to meet their needs and seeks to ensure environmental integrity and social and economic equity. It has been agreed that ten years later, at another Earth Summit in Johannesburg to be held in August 2002, the international community will review the [lack of] progress made since Rio, and hopefully agree on a Plan of Action, recommitting the international community to sustainable development resting on its three pillars: economic development, social equity, and environmental integrity. The alleviation of poverty and the conservation and sustainable use of the environment go hand in hand, and it is of great concern that very little consideration has been given to environmental issues in the Monterrey process. If sustainable development is not central in Monterrey, how will governments reconcile development and sustainability in Johannesburg? And how will the public believe them? And how credible will they be if they call for sustainable development in Johannesburg, but merely pay lip service to the financing for sustainable development in Monterrey? The Monterrey conference was meant to establish a dialogue between industrialised and developing countries to enhance the financing of sustainable development and the Millennium Declaration goal of reducing poverty by half by 2015. However what remains in the 'Monterrey Consensus' is only an ambiguous commitment of developing countries to follow the norms and rules set by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) against a promise of funds for development. Greenpeace shares the views expressed by a number of NGOs in their comments on the January 19 Draft Text of the Monterrey Consensus. See: Some brief comments on "Draft text of the Monterrey Consensus",19 January version (Word-File) We must avoid derailing the sustainable development train to Johannesburg. With this in mind, Greenpeace has identified eight test-cases that -- if adopted in Monterrey -- would contribute to putting the world back on the right track. Specifically, we call upon the participants in the Monterrey conference to: 1. Call upon the IFIs and national governments to give priority to the funding of sustainable energy, i.e., efficiency and renewable energy sources; as a means to fight against poverty, and in line with the Monterrey consensus view that the IFIs must act in a manner that is consistent with the agreements adopted by UN institutions in the field of the environment. Access to clean energy is a driver for development which is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms. At the Johannesburg Earth Summit there is a proposal to launch a massive uptake of renewable energy globally, and for the 2 billion people who have no access to modern energy services. Numerous studies show that the goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will not be met unless a major shift from conventional to renewable energy takes place globally in the next decade; 2. Agree that the governments of OECD countries should immediately target 20% of their energy sector lending and support in the form of guarantees via their Export Credit Agencies to renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes. This should be followed by a plan to phase out support for non-sustainable 'conventional' energy activities within 5 years, and to ensure the same measure is adopted for all International Financial Institutions that OECD governments support; 3. Agree on a binding time-table for OECD countries to achieve at least the target of 0.7% of GDP for Overseas Development Aid (ODA), which was agreed at Rio ten years ago. ODA has continued to shrink since 1992; only the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden are currently meeting this target. The Monterrey Consensus reiterates the 0.7% target, but without a time-table there is little doubt that the OECD countries will be as inactive as they have been since Rio; 4. Agree to cancel the foreign debt and debt service of developing countries. Servicing massive foreign debt has been one of the major factors behind increased pressure on the biodiversity of developing countries, in contradiction with the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992; environmentally and socially destructive measures and adjustment programmes have been promoted and forced upon developing countries by the IMF and the World Bank, in breach of the stated commitment of these organisations to favour sustainable development. Instead, OECD governments should, for example, increase their financial commitments to promote the sustainable use and conservation of ancient forests; 5. Recognise the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' for environmental destruction enshrined in the Rio agreements of 1992. The Rio agreements (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity) emphasised that it is primarily the responsibility of the industrialised countries -- who have received the "benefits" from environmental degradation -- to take action and to assist developing countries. Several countries, led by the US, have nevertheless since opposed this principle, and have used their position as bargaining chip; see for example George Bush on the Kyoto Protocol; 6. Agree to take effective steps to ensure that transnational corporations are legally bound to act responsibly. The Monterrey Consensus contains nice words about the need for the business sector to take account of the broader implications of their activities, but there is no reason to believe that corporations will take notice and end their "double standards" in developing countries as long as these requirements are not legally binding; 7. Adopt a time-table to put an end to trade-distorting export subsidies and environmentally destructive subsidies within the next decade. The Monterrey consensus "acknowledges" that subsidies are of particular concern to developing countries, but fails to propose action to resolve this which is at the heart of the continued inequity between developing and industrialised countries. Environmentally destructive subsidies (for example in the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors) have also undermined the Rio agreements, and put the sustainable and clean production sectors at a disadvantage. For example, annual subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries amount to between $US 250 - 300 billion, undermining the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.; and 8. Agree that international trade rules must be subordinate to environmental rules, and not the reverse, and that legitimate restrictions to international trade can be important tools for sustainable development. Since the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) two years after the 1992 Earth Summit, WTO member states have been challenging legitimate trade-restricting measures aimed at protecting the environment and consumers, such as moratoria, bans and other restrictions to the use of genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture. International trade can be an important tool for poverty eradication and development, but it must recognise environmental limits and social concerns. For further information contact: In Monterrey: - Paul Horsman (Paul.Horsman@UK.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +52 8187054475 - Rosa Moreno (Rosa.Moreno@dialb.Greenpeace.org) Tel: + 52 8180541772 - Juergen Knirsch (Juergen.Knirsch@Greenpeace.de) Tel: + 52 818 7054475 In Amsterdam: - Steve Sawyer (Steve.Sawyer@diala.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +31 653504715 - Remi Parmentier (Remi.Parmentier@diala.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +31 20 523 6624

Greenpeace Statement on the UN International Conference on Financing for Development

Eight Test Cases for Sustainable Development

Monterrey, Mexico, 18-22 March, 2002

Greenpeace is concerned that the Monterrey conference could be a lost opportunity to tackle - ten years after the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 - the lack of political will, and the resulting lack of resources, that is at the heart of what is known as the 'post-Rio decade of failed promises'.

In Rio in 1992, the international community agreed to give priority to sustainable development -- development that does not reduce the ability of future generations to meet their needs and seeks to ensure environmental integrity and social and economic equity.

It has been agreed that ten years later, at another Earth Summit in Johannesburg to be held in August 2002, the international community will review the [lack of] progress made since Rio, and hopefully agree on a Plan of Action, recommitting the international community to sustainable development resting on its three pillars: economic development, social equity, and environmental integrity.

The alleviation of poverty and the conservation and sustainable use of the environment go hand in hand, and it is of great concern that very little consideration has been given to environmental issues in the Monterrey process. If sustainable development is not central in Monterrey, how will governments reconcile development and sustainability in Johannesburg? And how will the public believe them? And how credible will they be if they call for sustainable development in Johannesburg, but merely pay lip service to the financing for sustainable development in Monterrey?

The Monterrey conference was meant to establish a dialogue between industrialised and developing countries to enhance the financing of sustainable development and the Millennium Declaration goal of reducing poverty by half by 2015. However what remains in the 'Monterrey Consensus' is only an ambiguous commitment of developing countries to follow the norms and rules set by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) against a promise of funds for development.

Greenpeace shares the views expressed by a number of NGOs in their comments on the January 19 Draft Text of the Monterrey Consensus. See: Some brief comments on "Draft text of the Monterrey Consensus",19 January version (Word-File)

We must avoid derailing the sustainable development train to Johannesburg. With this in mind, Greenpeace has identified eight test-cases that -- if adopted in Monterrey -- would contribute to putting the world back on the right track. Specifically, we call upon the participants in the Monterrey conference to:

1. Call upon the IFIs and national governments to give priority to the funding of sustainable energy, i.e., efficiency and renewable energy sources; as a means to fight against poverty, and in line with the Monterrey consensus view that the IFIs must act in a manner that is consistent with the agreements adopted by UN institutions in the field of the environment. Access to clean energy is a driver for development which is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms. At the Johannesburg Earth Summit there is a proposal to launch a massive uptake of renewable energy globally, and for the 2 billion people who have no access to modern energy services. Numerous studies show that the goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will not be met unless a major shift from conventional to renewable energy takes place globally in the next decade;

2. Agree that the governments of OECD countries should immediately target 20% of their energy sector lending and support in the form of guarantees via their Export Credit Agencies to renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes. This should be followed by a plan to phase out support for non-sustainable 'conventional' energy activities within 5 years, and to ensure the same measure is adopted for all International Financial Institutions that OECD governments support;

3. Agree on a binding time-table for OECD countries to achieve at least the target of 0.7% of GDP for Overseas Development Aid (ODA), which was agreed at Rio ten years ago. ODA has continued to shrink since 1992; only the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden are currently meeting this target. The Monterrey Consensus reiterates the 0.7% target, but without a time-table there is little doubt that the OECD countries will be as inactive as they have been since Rio;

4. Agree to cancel the foreign debt and debt service of developing countries. Servicing massive foreign debt has been one of the major factors behind increased pressure on the biodiversity of developing countries, in contradiction with the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992; environmentally and socially destructive measures and adjustment programmes have been promoted and forced upon developing countries by the IMF and the World Bank, in breach of the stated commitment of these organisations to favour sustainable development. Instead, OECD governments should, for example, increase their financial commitments to promote the sustainable use and conservation of ancient forests;

5. Recognise the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' for environmental destruction enshrined in the Rio agreements of 1992. The Rio agreements (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity) emphasised that it is primarily the responsibility of the industrialised countries -- who have received the "benefits" from environmental degradation -- to take action and to assist developing countries. Several countries, led by the US, have nevertheless since opposed this principle, and have used their position as bargaining chip; see for example George Bush on the Kyoto Protocol;

6. Agree to take effective steps to ensure that transnational corporations are legally bound to act responsibly. The Monterrey Consensus contains nice words about the need for the business sector to take account of the broader implications of their activities, but there is no reason to believe that corporations will take notice and end their "double standards" in developing countries as long as these requirements are not legally binding;

7. Adopt a time-table to put an end to trade-distorting export subsidies and environmentally destructive subsidies within the next decade. The Monterrey consensus "acknowledges" that subsidies are of particular concern to developing countries, but fails to propose action to resolve this which is at the heart of the continued inequity between developing and industrialised countries. Environmentally destructive subsidies (for example in the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors) have also undermined the Rio agreements, and put the sustainable and clean production sectors at a disadvantage. For example, annual subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries amount to between $US 250 - 300 billion, undermining the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.; and

8. Agree that international trade rules must be subordinate to environmental rules, and not the reverse, and that legitimate restrictions to international trade can be important tools for sustainable development. Since the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) two years after the 1992 Earth Summit, WTO member states have been challenging legitimate trade-restricting measures aimed at protecting the environment and consumers, such as moratoria, bans and other restrictions to the use of genetically modified organisms in food and agriculture. International trade can be an important tool for poverty eradication and development, but it must recognise environmental limits and social concerns.

For further information contact:

In Monterrey:

- Paul Horsman (Paul.Horsman@UK.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +52 8187054475
- Rosa Moreno (Rosa.Moreno@dialb.Greenpeace.org) Tel: + 52 8180541772
- Juergen Knirsch (Juergen.Knirsch@Greenpeace.de) Tel: + 52 818 7054475

In Amsterdam:
- Steve Sawyer (Steve.Sawyer@diala.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +31 653504715
- Remi Parmentier (Remi.Parmentier@diala.Greenpeace.org) Tel: +31 20 523 6624