IUCN’s President Yolanda Kakabadse on Summit:
‘So Much Money Must Produce Something’

By María Laura Mazza

Ecuadorian environmentalist Yolanda Kakabadse is the president of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and one of the prominent figures of the civil society movement at the WSSD. She spoke to Tierramerica in Johannesburg.

How are the negotiations going?

During this first stage of negotiations, what we see is a constructive spirit, in order to be able to achieve something concrete. Both the representatives of governments and civil society from around the world fear that this will be a failure, and are defending what was already agreed, in Rio de Janeiro. There are few who are trying to change that, but it is not worth modifying principles that were so difficult to negotiate in the first place and which have not yet been lived up to.

Will Bush’s absence and the U.S. stance towards the summit block any meaningful outcome?

Yes and no. I believe the United States should be here, in the first place to demonstrate a greater commitment to sustainable development, which is a global, not a North or South, issue. The absence of the United States suggests that the U.S. government is not thinking about the planet as a whole. On the other hand, I imagine that the U.S. delegates can work on the specific issues that are on the Johannesburg agenda. It would be serious if there were groups attempting to throw up barriers to the negotiations, but that has not become apparent so far. More worrisome than the absence of the United States in Johannesburg is its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and its failure to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity. That is where there is really a vacuum.

Does Latin America have any influence in this debate?

The meetings of the ministers from Latin America and the Caribbean sent a strong message last year with respect to the need for ethical principles to govern sustainable development. They discussed that question in two gatherings last year, in which they suggested the inclusion of a code of ethics in the Johannesburg declaration. There have been several efforts to eliminate that text from the declaration, and perhaps that is what makes it so important. The heavy resistance to reaching agreement on principles and values is worrisome, because they are essential to sustainable development. Putting things into practice is the easy part if agreement has been reached on what kind of societies we want.

What are the chances of success of the Brazilian initiative for a pledge that 10 percent of the energy consumed worldwide will come from clean sources by 2010?

Brazil is definitely a leader, not only in Latin America, but in the world. An initiative like this one that Brazil has set forth sends a loud message that things can be done when the political will is there. I believe President Cardoso and Brazil unquestionably exercise a leadership role because they see the planet from the standpoint of economic development combined with conservation and good use of resources, social development and improving the quality of life. Big dreams are built around big goals, and I believe that what Brazil proposes is possible if we all work towards that.

Pressure from indigenous leaders will bring about progress?

In 1990, two years before the Earth Summit, indigenous organisations or leaders were nowhere to be found. But that presence has been built up, and their capacity to influence global decisions has grown in the past few years. I don’t believe Johannesburg will change the world of indigenous people, but it will change non-indigenous people. Indigenous organisations and activists are getting better and better at lobbying on the international level with concrete messages and proposals, but it will take several decades to insert the indigenous agenda in the global agenda.

An agreement was reached Tuesday in the WSSD to protect fisheries by reducing commercial catches. What does this mean?

Fishing is one of the most destructive activities today, and also one of the most threatening, because an enormous number of people around the world depend on fishing for their main source of food. Perhaps because what is underwater is not visible, those who monitor the good use of natural resources have a limited capacity to observe the full extent of the destruction that has taken place in the world’s fisheries. Thus, the decision reached by the summit is extremely important, because in this area not only is there great destruction, but also great inequity. The large fleets of ships from countries capable of financing them extract the ocean’s seafood resources and leave nothing for the local coastal populations that depend on those resources.

What’s ahead?

Like all environmentalists, I am optimistic, and I believe that we can change things in the world. I am convinced that this summit has to produce something worthwhile for the planet, that this huge investment of financial, human, technological and scientific resources will not be a waste.