We have interviewed two representatives from the civil society in order to learn their expectations and misgivings concerning the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Thomas Forster and Peter Hurst spoke on the processes of participation in UN summits as well as on the role that civil society has in sustainable development.

What aspects of Agenda 21 do you believe need to be reviewed in the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg?

Thomas Forster: All the chapters of the agenda are important. Two years ago, NGOs that worked on themes related to food and agriculture began to review Chapters 14 (sustainable agriculture), 32 (role of farmers), 10 (land) and 13 (mountains). The main concern of these NGOs is that Chapter 14 is not a sufficient determinant for the problems it treats, as it does not envision structural changes, and progress is difficult to evaluate. Not only are important changes not envisioned, but moreover it supports the status quo established both on the use of technology to increase productivity as well as on the liberalization of trade. We NGOs opposed this in Rio and we continued to do so throughout the 90s, as we believe that the agricultural model imposed by the governments is the wrong model. Now, with respect to Rio, we have more successful case studies to disseminate in the field of sustainable agriculture. We believe that government protection against the effects of globalization and privatization is necessary, and we join with agricultural syndicates, indigenous peoples, and small farmers to defend this idea. In addition, with concerted effort with FAO, we have managed to place sustainable agriculture in one of the key positions of Agenda 21. Compared to the experiences in the past, the preparatory process of this summit has shown us that the agreement of various development partners involved in a particular theme presents an enormous potential for applying pressure on governments. Nobody could have predicted 10 years ago that sustainable agriculture would some day occupy such an important place in this summit.

Peter Hurst: Our organization (IUF-UITA-IUL) is an international union of agricultural syndicates representing basically the 450 million waged small farmers that exist in the world, 40% of the total work force. Until now, in such international processes as the summits on Food and Sustainable Development or Agenda 21, we have been practically invisible, in spite of the fact that not just the agricultural land owners produce food. We represent the interests of these people, often the poorest of the poor who could make fundamental contributions towards sustainable agriculture and food security. Waged agricultural workers have no labour protection; in countries such as Uganda, they earn less than ten dollars a month; poverty prohibits their children from going to school, perpetuating the situation over time. All over the world, their salaries are simply miserable. Our objectives are: to recognize their role and their potential contribution to sustainable agriculture until they are considered a category apart from small land owners; to promote policies that generate decent employment conditions (a measure by way of a review of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21); to assure agricultural workers conditions established by the international guidelines of the International Labour Organization (ILO); to ensure the sanitation, safety and environmental standards established by Convention 184 of the ILO (only in 1997, 170,000 deaths resulted from the use of pesticides); and to eliminate child labour in agriculture, a solution that can only come from increased parental salaries.

What have been the major obstacles in effectively implementing the Rio agenda? Was there a lack of political commitment or was there also a general lack of awareness concerning the problems of sustainable development?

T.F.: Both. Above all a lack of financial resources and general apathy in this regard. Perhaps one of the main problems has also been the lack of hope among the people concerned for the the possibility of changing things. Today there is less hope than in 1992 for the possibility of solving world problems.

P.H.: In Rio, FAO did not apply enough pressure to position agriculture as one of the key issues. Nor was the writing of the agenda very transparent, since the document veers much closer to the official positions of the governments than to the rest of the partners.

What can be improved in terms of participation of civil society in UN conferences?

T.F.: This can be improved in many ways. NGOs have functioned as a vehicle for the rest of development partners to take agricultural matters to the Johannesburg Summit, in a way managing the participation space granted by the United Nations. However, much still remains to be done to improve matters of capacity and information for participation. In addition, much more time needs to be devoted for direct dialogues with the governments, as they usually have very little time to listen to our proposals. And these have to be integrated with more determination into the decision-making processes. The next step in participation is to shift the proposals from the civil society to the forefront of policy making, and very few governments have understood this up to now.

P.H.: Great confusion is arising from the use of the label “civil society” as a heterogeneous sector such as that of the development partners . Everything is too confused; concepts are mixed up without any criterion, when in reality many of these groups not only have different outlooks, but even have conflicting interests. In addition, decision-making mechanisms differ sharply. We of the syndicates, for example, function as a member-based organization through congresses. All these details have been overlooked by FAO and the rest of the United Nations.

What level of commitment do you deem necessary at Johannesburg?

T.F.: Political declarations do not stand alone: financial resources are necessary for Agenda 21, and therefore at Johannesburg the sources of these finances must be established. The developed countries are steadily reducing their Official Development Assistance (ODA). The only solution I see at this moment is to form partnerships among donors, actors and governments in order to tackle specific national and international problems. Governments want tangible results, which can be computed on their balance sheets, and funds that go directly into the projects, without losses in paperwork.

P.H.: It is necessary to establish regulations at the national level that are suitable for an international co-operation mechanism. And this is not only a matter of concern for the International Labour Organization (ILO). This has been one of the greatest errors of FAO. FAO has to commit itself more assertively to the regulations on agricultural labour. It cannot limit itself only to bringing together partners of development.

What role can NGOs and the syndicates play for sustainable development?

T.F.: NGOs have historically been the architects of the meaning of sustainable development and have been the precursors of the idea that we must incorporate a social and environmental dimension into economic development. And NGOs have to continue, together with other actors, to be the conscience of this movement, in such a way that commitments can be converted into reality.

P.H.: People have to start thinking with a different dynamic, and become aware that behind all that we consume is the work of many people. We workers in the fields know that we can contribute a tremendous amount to sustainable agriculture and our role now has to be explored and recognized.

What can networks such as the UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security contribute in this sense?

T.F.: This network is a very appropriate mechanism to implement Agenda 21 and more specifically Chapter 14, since the thematic groups can carry out important tasks in evaluating the initiatives in this sector and mobilizing resources. The collaboration between different sectors is vital for rural development.

P.H.: We of the syndicates are actors with a delicate position in these types of partnerships. At times, our nature leads us towards co-operation and other times into conflict. We constantly have to negotiate with governments as well as with the private sector. We find it difficult to make it understood at this time that we do not want codes of conduct for work but laws and guidelines. The partnerships with other sectors such as women or indigenous peoples are, on the other hand, proving highly positive. And these types of networks between partners are very important to create a flow of information.