Scenesetter for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) -- Johannesburg, August 26-September 4, 2002

Real Audio of Briefing

        MS. DOBRIANSKY: Thank you.

       Let me dive right in. I thought I'd say a few words about what our goals and our objectives are going into the Johannesburg summit. We see this is an opportunity for both developed and developing countries to come together with the shared vision for reducing and eradicating poverty and for fostering sustainable development. We see our vision predicated on and grounded in domestic good governance, as well as sound economic policy, as well as an investment in people. What we hope is to see a continuum -- a continuum of a process that has started, if you will, in recent times, with the Doha trade summit and the discussion about financing for development that took place in Monterrey and leading up to Johannesburg.

       I want to pick out the discussion that took place in Monterrey and financing for development, because what took place there was historic. An historic compact was embraced by the global community which, basically, called upon developed countries to provide assistance but, at the same time, to ensure that there is co- accountability, co-responsibility, by developing countries to come forward and to provide a foundation; to take assistance but to have that assistance go to its targeted need and use. In particular, developing countries in this context would provide a commitment -- a commitment for domestic good governance, for ensuring that there's transparency, rule of law, accountability on the ground; that those resources that come in that -- are, in fact, invested in people -- this is what this summit is about, in fact -- about people -- and in turn, also to ensure that there are economic -- there's economic openness and economic reform.

       That discussion, I think, was quite significant, and that financing for development leads us to Johannesburg. Johannesburg summit is about implementation.

       It's about implementation leading toward sustainable development, and sustainable development being as part of the whole package; the whole package being economic reforms, being about environmental stewardship, as well as social reforms relevant to health-related matters, to education, again, and investment in people.

       Let me make two final comments. In Johannesburg, we want to see results. Our approach will be an action-oriented one. We've begun a process months before in which we have placed a premium on partnerships; partnerships among governments, among governments and the private sector. There are a number of areas that we see as being areas that the global community has really embraced as areas that we need to step forward and that we need to ensure that action is taken by governments and by the private sector. These include the area of water, the area of energy and providing access to energy. There is an initiative we have on the table dealing with forestry, which is the Congo Basin Initiative; an initiative to end hunger in Africa. And then there are other partnerships and initiatives that we also have on the table that build upon a number of initiatives that even before this process, that we have attached a great deal of importance to. In particular, combatting infectious diseases; ensuring that education, that those sectors of the population who don't have access to education are in fact educated and provided with the facilities and training and equipment, if you will, toward that end.

       So those are some of the kinds of partnerships that we seek to focus on and collaborate with other countries. Other countries have joined on board with us. Let me make one example. Yesterday, in fact, the secretary of State had announced a segment of our water initiative, where the U.S. Agency for International Development, in tandem with the Conrad Hilton Foundation, as well as a number of other private sector organizations, have pulled together to try to provide a public-private partnership in providing potable water and sanitation services for a number of countries in West Africa, these being Ghana, Niger and Mali.

       The last point I'd make to you is, is that we see this as part of a process. There is Johannesburg, but there's beyond Johannesburg. I've mentioned some of the recent meetings that have taken place up to this time. But what is at stake here is the implementation and going forward, going forward and implementing these partnerships, building upon what is taking place not only at Johannesburg, but even fore Johannesburg, with the goal of fostering sustainable development, and with the goal of reducing and eradicating poverty.

       Let me turn it over to my colleague.

       MR. CONNAUGHTON: Thanks, Paula.

       Hi. I'm Jim Connaughton. I just wanted to supplement what Paula had to say. Even as hundreds of delegates are ironing out the final details on the text for Johannesburg, there will be thousands of participants -- actually, tens of thousands of participants, all talking about the very practical know-how, "do" steps of implementing our internationally agreed goals. Behind those tens of thousands in Johannesburg, there will be hundreds of thousands of others back in their home countries, certainly back in the United States, who all have come together around these international goals that are well articulated, well established over the last several -- many years, all working in common cause toward making specific steps -- taking specific steps in terms of concrete action in assuring that, you know, more children in the world, when they turn on the tap or when they're picking water out of their water source, will, you know, live to tell about it; that more people will have access to modern energy services, more reliable energy services, affordable energy services that help bring the kind of quality of life that we enjoy and have certainly, in the areas of agricultural productivity, areas -- fundamental areas of health. These are the places where the conversation in Johannesburg is going to be. And that's where the action's going to be.

       And we look very forward to engaging in that kind of a dialogue. It is those specific -- I mean, we've talked about partnerships: specific groups of people coming together, governments, the private sector, civil society, the academic community. And it's not just the environmental community; it's the environment community, the agricultural community, the finance community, development community. It's the charitable groups. It is those kinds of organizations that we really want to build toward these steps, and then we'll follow after Johannesburg.

       So we're very excited about where things are going, in particular as the text begins to move to the background. And we hope to bring -- we will be bringing quite a multidisciplinary delegation to Johannesburg in all the areas that I just described, so that we can have the kind of multidisciplinary development conversation that this subject warrants.

       Thank you.

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: (Off mike) -- here, and why don't we open it up to questions? We're able to take them, ourselves. Yes. (Laughs.) Go here. (Laughs.)

       Q Hi. Actually, I have two, but I'll start with the first one.

       Dr. Dobriansky, I think you can say that Zimbabwe is probably one of the nexus of good-governance and drought and famine problems. I would like to ask you to follow up on some comments made by Assistant Secretary Kansteiner yesterday. Since you're going to be in Johannesburg, and you're going to be able to be in person with top African leaders, can you tell me if the delegation has plans to meet and discuss Zimbabwe and the future of that nation and what you're going to talk about with these people?

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Well, two comments I would make. First, even before going to Johannesburg, this issue has been one that has been under intense discussion at the State Department, and one in which we want to address not only from the standpoint of the United States, but also in reaching out to other countries to join in and really to deal with what is a crucial and critical situation. I think of not only in terms of Zimbabwe, but as you know, there are a number of countries that are critically and crucially affected by the famine and the famine situation. This is a topic, as I've already suggested, which will certainly be a topic, a central topic of many of our discussions in Johannesburg, both officially and then also not officially -- when I say "not officially," meaning with the NGOs, with the businesses -- because there has to be a collaborative effort here. We would like to try to come forward with ways and means of addressing this. We do have an initiative on the table of seeking to combat hunger in Africa. We also have a famine proposal also on the able.

       So these are things that we do seek to roll out.

       (To Mr. Connaughton) Do you want to say anything --

       Q (Off mike) -- President Mbeki?

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Oh. I think I -- forgive me. I think I suggested that. Yes, in terms of not only with the South Africans, we will be having official meetings, there will be many -- as you know, many officials on the ground. We will have many bilaterals with those from the EU, those from the G-77, those who are in attendance there. And I also imagine that this will happen at multiple levels.

       Yes, sir? Why don't we come right up front here.

       Q Yeah. My name is Adu-Asare, Africa Newscast. Almost six months ago, the South Africans, who are hosting the conference, were talking about concrete commitments at the end of the summit. At the same time, we recognize that there are a number of dividing lines within all the multiplicity of people going to this conference. One of those dividing lines is that between the United States and the rest of the world in the area of greenhouse gas emission and in the area of carbon pollution, which this country is guilty of more than any other country in the world. And at the same time, this country has moved away from the Kyoto agreements.

       Is your delegation prepared to answer questions in Johannesburg about this particular issue?

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Absolutely. Let me say a few words and then I think, Jim, you certainly should, on this.

       First, let me put the issue in context, if you don't mind, and then I'm going to answer your question directly, because I think the issue of the Kyoto protocol needs to be put into context here. This conference, this summit is about sustainable development. That means we're talking about economic reform, we're talking about environmental stewardship and we're talking about a social agenda, if you will, issues relevant to the quality of life -- education, health. It's a combination of all three. That's what is unique about this forum. It's about sustainable development. It is not solely or singularly about climate change issues.

       In the environmental package, the issue of climate change is one of the issues to be discussed. In fact in all of the PrepCom meetings, the United States has expressed its path, and its path toward a common goal, a common goal here of the overall reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations. We opted, as you know, not to go the path of the Kyoto protocol, the reason being is we don't see it as being fair, we don't see it as being affordable. We stated that. We have a national plan, a plan which we believe balances the goal -- these environmental goals and objectives with economic goals and objectives here in this country.

       But to come back to the point, there is another fora, which in fact I will participate and lead our delegation to, which is the Conference of the Parties, which, by the way, was created out of Rio. The Rio conference, the Rio summit especially created a special fora within which to deal with the issue of climate change. That meeting will take place in New Delhi at the end of October, the beginning of November, in which we will continue our discussions on climate change.

       I will add to this in the broader point about the U.S. position. Two points. One, we have stated that we have a common goal and objective, which we do. We see it differently as to how to best effectively reach that goal and to achieve that goal. Secondly, we have also indicated that we the think that other countries, if they desire to pursue that path, we will pursue a constructive approach and will not, in fact, stand in the way of other countries pursuing that particular approach.

       However, having said that, in the context of the upcoming meeting, the focus is sustainable development. We have a lot of international agreements and -- excuse me -- international discussions with other countries about climate change, whether they're supporting the Kyoto protocol or whether they're not supporting the Kyoto Protocol. There has to be a collaborative effort at all levels, at the global level in the context of the framework convention, at the regional level, at a bilateral level.

       Jim?

       MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah. And what I'd like to add is at the practical level, which is where I think the real conversations should be and will be in Johannesburg, even as it relates to climate change.

       You suggest a divide. The divide is actually over whether or not there's going to be participation in the Kyoto protocol. Where there is no divide, where there is actually quite consequential common ground is the recognition, number one, that the path to addressing and mitigating the growth in greenhouse gas emissions that we see around the world, the path is through technology; the path is through technology not just in terms of mechanical technology, but technology when it comes to practices, such as agricultural practices and forest practices and land-use practices.

       In Johannesburg, the very real conversations in Johannesburg, as apart from, again, the sort of more negotiated language-based ones, the very real ones will center on those core issues -- energy, modern energy supplies, more efficient delivery of energy, how we can partner together when it comes to vehicle technology, when it comes to home- heating and cooling technology, when it comes to how municipalities organize their energy infrastructure in a way that promotes -- that maximizes efficiency and, therefore, reduces emissions. And most importantly, by the way, reduces emissions not only of greenhouse gases, which are currently benign -- people are not today, you know, affected by breathing greenhouse gas emissions -- but the real pollution that affects people today, that comes out of a number of energy sources, we're going to be having -- we need to be combatting that. That's the health risk that people face in their homes around the world today. In combatting that, we have the benefit, then, of also making significant strides in terms of addressing greenhouse gas emissions from energy sources.

       By the same token, when it comes to agriculture, in the United States of America we have had the privilege of producing more food on less acreage. That certainly is something to which the rest of the world aspires to. Highly productive agriculture means less deforestation, it means, you know, more food on less acreage, it provides for more opportunities for sequestration. It protects and preserves some of our, you know, our richest carbon sinks and sources around -- sinks around the world. So there, too, in talking about agriculture, agriculture productivity, sustainable forestry practices, we will make concrete steps and be talking about concrete actions that will help us to address this long-term challenge. So we're very pleased about that.

       And if you put on top of that the research and development agenda that everybody's interested in, you're going to see kiosks and see private meeting groups and all kinds of stakeholders getting together in Johannesburg talking about the most advanced technologies, the most advanced systems, the most advanced foodstuffs. I mean, and that's where the real action is, and that's where we can make real progress, and that's where we have the common ground.

       Q Adu-Asare. As of last night, pressure and research groups in Africa were complaining specifically about the second dividing line, which is the industrialized world versus the non-industrialized world. And in Africa-specific terms, there's a research finding that because of the global-warming conditions, the weather conditions in Africa have been affected. Hence, the famine. And the explanations the two of you have provided so far -- we have had those over and over again, but the rest of the world is not buying those types of explanations. Can you comment?

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: My comment to you is -- is that I think -- two things: First, in terms of -- you said the explanation hasn't sunk in; I think we need to do more of having discussions. I'm very struck by the fact that we have taken the position we have, yet we have extensive discussions with other countries -- those that are supporting the Kyoto Protocol and those who are not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, simply because we realize that there isn't, as Jim said, a dividing line. We have a common goal and a common objective. Where there are differences is how you most successfully and most effectively achieve that goal. There isn't simply one prescription or one path to be pursued here. In fact, in Marrakesh, during the Conference of Parties meeting, I talked about a tapestry -- that there are multiple paths; there are multiple ways.

       Jim, I think, had certainly touched upon an important area -- a area that has been addressed many times in the developing world. And that is the issue of access to technology. When President Bush, in fact, rolled out our plan and initiative here, one of the key components, in fact, was this area of technology. I found in my discussions with many countries from the developing world a great deal of interest in coming forward and discussing the opportunity to have access to these technologies, because they're critical in terms of dealing with and combating issues pertaining to climate change.

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: No? Okay, let's go on. I hope you don't mind. We're going to come here. You already spoke. We have a gentleman right up here. I think right behind you there's a mike.

       Q Parasuram, with the Press Trust of India. Can you elaborate on components of good government? Does it include also democracy? And you mentioned education. How will you ensure that the education that is given and the money that is spent is spent on good education which will prepare people for jobs and not turn them into fanatics, if they're given the wrong education?

       And secondly, on green gas (sic) emissions, sometime ago there was a lot of talk about technology being mobilized to make coal non- polluting. And of course three countries are interested in that -- the United States, India and China -- because all of them depend on coal to a very large extent. I was wondering what progress has been made in that and whether your technology will be shared with other countries.

       MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah, on the first issue, related to education, certainly we share the implication of your question. We need to have good educational systems that train citizens to be real participants in good governance. And certainly democracy is the model that we support when it comes to good governance. Governments that are accountable to their people and to a well-educated populace, even better, is the kind of vision for the world that we think is the path forward to bringing people -- bringing people into the kind of quality existence that we and other -- the other democratic nations of the world enjoy. So that's sort of a fundamental.

       Then, when it comes to your question about China, India, the United States, other countries, and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, especially in the energy sector, it is through the kinds of stable economic environment, stable political environment, and an educated population that we actually can advance the development of technologies, even in the area of fossil-fuel energy supply; that we can advance an educated population to make the breakthroughs that are coming through, they're on the drawing boards, lots of great ideas, to bring those forward and to implement them, and to do it in a way by which you actually then have a stable environment in which the long- term investments necessary to deploy that technology and to maintain that technology, you know, is in place to realize the benefits of that technology.

       So you need all of those pieces. If you don't have good government, if you don't have a stable economic environment, you invest for the short term -- and we all know the short term is the most degrading -- has the most degrading consequences. When you invest for the long term, when people feel there's a future for their children, when their children are educated and can participate in the wonders of the modern age, and with the enthusiasm that those investments are going to reap returns for them and the generations to follow, you get the real success, and the self-owned success at a local level, the self-owned success that we wish to see for the world, just as we enjoy it here in the United States.

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: I just have one footnote, and my footnote is just on the elaboration of good governance. We're talking about domestic good governance, that development does begin at home. That's been part of our vision statement. That's been part of the discussions that we've had in fora before, fora which has been held before Johannesburg. It means transparency. It means rule of law. It means an openness, a type of foundation that can provide an inducement and an incentive for investments, for ensuring that developmental assistance does, in fact, get into the desired hands.

       Let's go -- I think you had a question? Sorry. And then we'll come to you.

       Q My name is Eda (ph) from Kyoto News. I have two questions. There is a huge disappointment and criticism of absence of President Bush. How do you respond on that?

       And my second question is on the partnership. There is some criticism that the kind of process will be dominated by industries -- of interest of industries, and several asking how can African poor farmers be a partner with huge multilateral corporations of America. And how do you respond on that?

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Okay. I'll give two quick responses because then we're going to try to get your question and I think we're going to be ending.

       I will say very briefly, first with regard to President Bush, President Bush will be visiting Africa in 2003. In addition, I certainly would like to indicate -- I've mentioned the continuum of this process -- that there have been a number of meetings relevant to the whole issue of sustainable development heretofore, meaning leading up to Johannesburg. President Bush participated in the meeting on financing for development in Monterrey, in which he made some very historic announcements in that meeting. Also, the G-8 meeting was devoted to the issue of sustainable development.

       The president is strongly committed to these issues. He is sending a high-level, strong, multi-agency team being headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell. I will be involved, Jim will be involved, many of our colleagues are involved at the deputy secretary level, undersecretary level, from a number of agencies.

       And I'd like to finally say on this that, as I've already suggested, we see this as a part of process. This issue doesn't begin and end in Johannesburg. We're talking about action-oriented results. And the president has already been very engaged in these issues and plans to be engaged as we go beyond Johannesburg.

       On the other, I just simply say the partnerships are open. As I've already suggested, these are public-private partnerships. It involves businesses. It involves small farmers. It involves NGOs. It involves foundations. In fact, if you look at the recently announced partnership on water, you will find a combination of a U.N. agency with a foundation with a business with a -- (laughs) -- a small NGO. So it's really a combination; it's not just about governments.

       Yes, you had a question.

       MODERATOR: I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last one.

       Q Nancy Dodd (sp) with The Financial Times. I was trying to understand -- I was reading the public-private partnership paper that you have, and --

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Which one do you have in your hand?

       Q The ones that you all handed out, that --

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Okay.

       Q -- what's in existence now. What will we see, say, five years from now, differently? I mean, what will the U.S. be actually doing differently than it's been doing?

       MR. CONNAUGHTON: I think one of the main criticisms of the last several years, you know, has been, there's been a lot of commitments, but we hadn't -- that it hasn't had a focus on the agenda for action. We hope that what we see differently in the next five years -- that we've been able to tailor our priorities so we'll actually come up with some core areas of priority. We've identified a handful. Fortunately, they overlap significantly with the same handful that a number of other countries, and including the secretary-general of the U.N., have articulated. There's a -- you know, there's this emerging consensus around the top priorities. So number one: priorities -- a lot of action on other areas, but let's focus on some key priorities.

       Number two: really, if you will, a broad array of actions tailored to place-based situations. So obviously, providing water in regions of Africa is different than providing waters in regions of Southeast Asia -- but to have place-based programs of action toward living up to these agreed goals on which we're highlighting priorities; and then, thirdly, that we actually would have a mechanism by which we can tabulate the progress we're making; and if, in fact, you know, we find that some approaches work really well, that we can then build on that and amplify, because cost-effectiveness of funding will continue to be an imperative. And the better process we have for identifying projects that work and replicating them, the better off we are, and the better off the rest of the world is. So in those three specific ways that we can make strides in each, we will be in a much better place five years from now than where we are today.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Meaning in terms of the partnerships?

       Q (Off mike.)

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Oh, you're referring to the millennium goals?

       MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah, well, as you know, the secretary-general has the WEHAB agenda: water, energy, health, agriculture, and biotechnology -- or biodiversity -- I'm sorry -- biodiversity. That's the action-oriented piece.

       And our -- we have similar priorities. We have a focus on water, focus on modern energy, a health agenda. We are very interested in agricultural productivity, is the way we look at it in an action- oriented way, which comes with it sustainable forestry. And it's through that that you get the biodiversity piece. We haven't explicitly mentioned biodiversity because it's actually -- our focus is on the tools by which you assure biodiversity, and that's the way we have a more operational focus. But just as between the secretary- general and us, we have near complete overlap. And then, again, there are several other countries of the world that have articulated a similar bundle. Some may add oceans and coasts, some may add tourism, they might have one or two around the fringes, but that core group seems to be, you know, quite a consensus around that core set of priorities.

       MS. DOBRIANSKY: Thank you.