Professor Jeffrey Sachs, in Room S-226, the UN Press Conference Site, December 20, 2006. (photo by Pincas Jawetz, www.SustainabiliTank.info)

There were only about 20 people in Room S-226, for the 2 p.m. Press Conference with Professor Jeffrey Sachs; but quite a few more journalists were watching at the monitors in their private cubicles. Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, former Harvard University Professor, is the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals. His press conference was probably the most relevant, to what the UN ought to do, press conference of the year. His UN advertised topic in the daily “Journal of the UN” was “on the progress in the fight against poverty and what urgent action needs to be taken to achieve the Goals.”

First something about Jeffrey Sachs himself. I do not think I could do any better then copy what Time Magazine wrote about him on April 26, 2004, when it listed him among the most influential people in the world. I kept that cut-out as I knew the day will come that I will want to use it.

OK, I do not buy the idea that we will be able to manage the CO2 scourge by putting it back underground. This is also not a main idea of Jeffrey’s thinking - it might be of the Republicans at Time Magazine, so they blew it out of proportion in what concerns Professor Jeffrey Sach’s thinking. If he allows the idea of the underground storage to be talked about in his environment at The Earth Institute, it is because there is nothing that he, as a true scientist, will close out from being investigated.

The important parts of the Time cut-out start with their inventing a new word in relation to him ECONOMENTALIST. Further, he is an enigma for them - is he a MODERNIST or an EXTREMIST? Obviously - he is neither - but he is an ENVIRONMENTALIST-ECONOMIST - and I buy the ECONOMENTALIST suggestion wholeheartedly.

Now, I would not say that I always saw things the way he saw them. Our web has taken up positions against the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals at the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 - this with basically total obliteration of the Sustainable Development concept that had its life at the UN in the ten years of the 1992 - 2002 period. I said after Johannesburg that the SD concept brought onto UN lingo at the Rio Summit in 1992, was buried at the Johannesburg Summit in 2002. I held Jeffrey Sachs responsible for this chain of events that really was a natural outcome from the push by the ruling elites of the G77 countries - the so self declared developing countries. They simply were, and are still, interested in the international funding for development, as understood by them as personal gains of the elite, and do not have the time to pause and think that if it is not SUSTAINABLE it really is no development at all. After the December 20, 2006, press conference with Jeffrey Sachs I realized that the man did see all the objections and the negatives that I saw, but he went beyond that and managed to figure out a system that will have to result in Sustainable Development in spite of the reflexive rejection of the concept by the G77 self-serving elites. He simply brings in SD by doing something for the lower and poorer parts of their populations - that is something that the leaders refused to do by themselves for their own citizens. This is revolutionary! Is this what Time Magazine meant by him being an “Extremist?”

Jeffrey Sachs came to Columbia University in New York because it allowed him to organize the EARTH INSTITUTE into a scientific inter-disciplinary organization that takes the pulse of Planet Earth. Further, with the UN in town, he saw that he might be able to link the two, and try to influence the world economy in a way it saves the future of the earth by understanding that it is the only way of getting there - It is linking the world economy with true science, and create the practical policies that may indeed lead to the results he was wishing for.

The UN ought to be the institution that looks at the holistic aspects of life on planet earth - let us dream about an Earth Security Council that looks at a Trusteeship for Planet Earth.
Jeffrey was able to make great inroads on the scientific-environmental side of things. I met Earth Institute scientists when boarding an Argentinean ice-breaker doing studies in the Antarctica, and I saw a sociologist walking the villages of Bhutan in the Himalayas. The institute’s activities involve the best scientists here, on the Columbia University campus and in the labs of the Dougherty-Lamont Earth Observatory across the Hudson river, and wherever in the field. Meetings at the institute are a good place for UN types to learn, a thing or two, if they only care to learn. The economic side is different. Here Columbia University has also other economists that plow the development area. The most famous name that comes immediately to mind is Professor Joe Stiglitz, Nobel prize in Economics, Former Leader at the World Bank and Adviser to the White House. The two do not always agree on development economics and policy, and this is not a subject for today. Here we will continue now on the topic of the MDGs.

Before going directly to the December 20, 2006 Press Conference, let we first bring here an April 30, 2004, page that is evidence of Professor Sachs trying to proselytize at the Commission on Sustainable Development at its 12th yearly meeting - that body that has yet to produce results beyond hot air and a paper trail.

The content of the above, now as the MDGs are the buzz word at the UN, and the Millennium Project that was conceived in Jeffrey’s mind, supported by the UN Development Group, and it is the UNDP contribution within the UN system, in order to map out the road map of how to get there when talking about the MDGs - all of this, is what caused the UN to bring forward Professor Jeffrey Sachs so he can tell us, the press at the UN, that the UN is doing something important. Jeffrey, the independent soul he is, may have said at the Press Conference also things the UN did not want to hear - even though he was very careful in not saying things that some correspondents were trying to put in his mouth. He clearly knows which debacles to avoid.

Important to note also that Professor Sach’s presentation was also a timely tribute to the outgoing UN Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs was introduced by the representative of the UN Department of Public Information, by saying up front that this is the end of the year and also the end of the Kofi Annan leadership at the UN, and that in September 2000, Mr. Annan led the establishing of the MDGs; Mr. Sachs, since 2002, directed a project towards the achieving of these Goals. Mr. Sachs picked up that he, as an adviser, was charged with the identification of the practical means to achieve the MDGs. “So is all aware that it is one thing to announce goals, and another thing to practically achieve them,” he said. “Achieving them will not save only millions of lives a year but would also make the world a safer place then it is today.” So, here we have not only humanitarianism, but also a hint at utilitarian security. Will this be a winning argument?

Mr. Sachs can look back and at least be happy to see that the MDGs have become organizing principles in how the donors are ready now to proceed with the development challenge - he gave them metrics, that allow for the ability to see where we stand, and what has to be done in the world in tackling poverty, disease and hunger.

The metrics that are part of the MDGs created a focus on practical steps, part of practical programs, that are quantifiable at various stages of their implementation.

Disease control programs are coming now in place in various parts of the world. President Bush has hosted last week a World Health Summit on malaria - called the global society behind the President’s Malaria Initiative; he called on US Government and US society to get behind the goal of control of malaria, a major killer disease and source of poverty. Malaria can be controlled right now with steps that call for bed-nets, spraying of insecticides and treatment of sick people in a very organized and logical way.

Professor Sachs likes to take big issues and his preferred word is - UNPACK THEM - and put them in a very logical series of practical steps. MALARIA CAN BE CONTROLLED THIS WAY BY 2010 - by this process - he says. He thinks that we are on the way to do this right now.

Similarly, the world is committed to anti-retry-viral medicine by the year 2010.

Further, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations have joined forces, recently, to promote an Alliance for a GREEN REVOLUTION in AFRICA, another of the core recommendations that came under the MDGs. A South-South cooperation was also set up regarding this topic, and Brazil is absolutely committed to help Africa with Energy needs - biofuels especially. (Strangely, this last comment, that appears in my own notes from the PC, is mysteriously missing from the official tape of the PC.)

Mr. Sachs concluded his introductory remarks by saying that we can be optimistic because there is out there a world rich in science and technology to help alleviate the problems.

——————–

From the Q&A part of the PC:

Q. About countries having committed funds to the MDGs - such as on December 18, 2006, the President of Spain announcing at the UN a $700 million commitment, China, France, the Islamic Development Bank, have pledged commitments, but who keeps track of the amounts? There is information that pledges for the Asian Tsunami were not honored! In his answer, Jeffrey said that more accurate reporting is needed and that the media look at the commitments and how they are honored. Spain, he said, suggested to arrange for the coordination of the commitments. (1) One can encourage everybody on the goals, as these create coordination. (2) Last year countries were encouraged, and agreed, to institute national development strategies - the “greens” were encouraged - the results are not in.
The coordination is done in countries themselves, through governments, and their own NGOs and civil society.

He added that the good thing about the MDGs that they are quantified and you cam measure the results. There was a slow start after 2000, and it still is slow, and we can track it by taking the measurements.

Here SustainabiliTank.info had its chance to ask our most basic question: Pincas Jawetz - “Except for the MDGs, now how do you assess the UN progress on the general aspect of Sustainable Development, Sustainable Energy, Economic Aspects of Climate Change, Global Warming - How Do You Assess the Leadership of the UNSG Kofi Annan in These Areas?”

A. It is amazing even in the fast growing countries, when you have economic development success we have not made progress, actually we have lost ground on Sustainable Development, on the Environmental side. I believe that SD will be the great challenge of next decades, we have great stress on water, on energy, on climate, on habitat, on tropical forests, on fisheries, and so forth. Species extinction … these are huge challenges the world has not yet faced up to. Like the MDGs, there are commitments that have been made, there are important treaties, the Rio treaties on the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), and the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)! By and large those treaties are not being fulfilled right now. They are not being implemented. Of cause this has not gone unnoticed by many people, but it has gone unnoticed in the broader world community, because these are processes that are slow moving, they take place at scale of decades, they are not at scale of day to day or month to month, yet the significance of what is happening is profound, and I have said at many occasions that I believe the need to integrate the MDGs with the environmental challenges and with the health challenges is one of the greatest needs right now, because they are all inter-connected, and they can’t be fulfilled unless each piece of that puzzle is in place - and they are not in place right now. Climate Change alone is still running without Kyoto, not by itself, it came close to be the answer, we will need to enter a post-Kyoto phase. There is a commitment in the world to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by the year 2010, this is a significant commitment, it is known and it is certain that it will not be achieved. A major sea mammal was announced to have been driven to extinction in the Yangtze river just a few days ago (that was the pink dolphin - SustainabiliTank.info), that is a drastic example of a pervasive process of species loss - just a few days ago. This is one of the biggest challenges to humanity and we are not fulfilling this right now. If that continues, even slow show of gains against poverty will be washed away by droughts, the tropical storms, the massive flooding, the loss of snow, melting glaciers, run-off, the mining of underground water aquifers, the degradation of desert lands, and so forth.

There is a huge - huge - agenda. I have the same feeling about this as I do about the MDGs - that there is some combination of two feelings in the world - that there is a general lack of attention - that is a tragedy. And second, for those that pay attention - often a feeling that it is too big to touch - how do we address it, too big to handle, how do we approach it? It was my feeling for all these issues, that if you “unpack it” and you look systematically, what it will take to address the specific problem of climate change, what kind of energy system changes, and so on, and what it would take to protect the ocean fisheries, what would it take to address ocean acidification, what would it take to slow or stop tropical deforestation, these are solvable problems. They are big but they actually do not brake the bank to solve them. But we run away and actually neglect them.

So I think this is a huge challenge - the incoming UNSG will have to face this challenge in a very serious way. The commitments are already there, they need to be fulfilled; they are not fulfilled and the world will suffer large consequences as a result.

Follow up Question from SustainabiliTank.info: What advise do you have for the incoming UNSG?

A. Well, I and my colleagues at the Earth Institute are working pretty much around the clock in all sorts of specific recommendations on some things. Yearly we hosted a meeting with more then a hundred major businesses when we reached a consensus on a general framework on Climate Change that shows how it is possible to teach consensus on these issues. We will publish on these issues probably in early February 2007, and to my mind it shows the solvability of these questions.

When I was last week in Brazil, I spoke with the Brazilian government about a proposal that they tabled on avoided deforestation. This is a a proposal that now, in one form or another, has been adopted by most rain-forest countries. How to create incentives to stop this rampant loss of tropical forests and all this loss of biodiversity that goes along with it, as well as the release of CO2, and this is important that Brazil tabled a very good proposal now.

I am keen to find as many practical proposals, because high-minded rhetoric does not solve problems, what solves problems are practical ways that address those goals.
I like high-minded goals by the way, I think we ought to be high-minded in this world, but I like the practical underpinnings to show the links between what we said that we will do and how we can actually do it and have my recommendations on specifics. Specially about those three treaties I said are so important: UNCBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD - all of those are now practically not being fulfilled.

Question from a Danish Journalist about Mr. Bjorn Lomborg specific targets, and the contrary - the Scandinavian holistic approach?

A. I am completely against the idea about Mr. Lomborg - that you should put Climate Change aside, and really use your $50 billion for very specific things. First he looked at $50 billion in five years at $10 billion/year. Where does he get that idea? The world has promised much more then that. So, he started with a low low number and came up with conservative answers. (1) It is not surprising. He stacked the deck to come up with his own conclusion. (2) It is a huge mistake to think that poor countries can be helped and Climate Change left ramped. You get massive droughts, water crisis, disease burden. He wants to control malaria in Africa, yet malaria is climbing up the hills now because of warming temperatures. We are getting epidemics now in areas that did not know malaria before. This idea of forgetting CC because of a few things he wants to do, is a big mistake. The reason you want to focus on CC is that the costs of taking action are much much smaller then the costs of inaction - that is the point!
We will benefit hugely if we act as opposed to what would happen if we do not act. That is why we want to do something right now. We would have massive, massive, crisis on the planet if we continue the business as usual course. That is the case for action.

On the holistic approach, there is a simple theory that if all of the donors would be like the Scandinavians, we would be done with the discussion, because of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg, have been giving 0.7% of GNP for many years by now. If everyone would do this, we would have roughly another $125 billion/year to address these problems, and that could end these massive pandemics, not eradicate these diseases, but bring them to control. This would enable Africa to have a green revolution, and give Africa food security and a platform to Africa for economic development; a basic infrastructure, it could avoid deforestation and so many good things could be done - if countries would fulfill their pledges like Scandinavian countries are doing.

In answer to another question Prof. Sachs opened: Almost all of Africa is out of track now on all goals. So why am I optimistic right now?

That is because all of the goals have practical identifiable strategies that could in a short period of time become fulfill-able. It is feasible to achieve the goals.

(1) “Previously, even though 80% of Africans are farmers, agriculture was hardly discussed by donor countries. How can you do MDGs if you do not do Africa agriculture? This is fully being recognized now!”

(2) There is now an Alliance for an African Green Revolution. 80% of the poor in many places are farmers. All of this was for years outside the foreign aid programs.
The UNSG has really stressed this anomaly. Africa could double its food production in 2-3 years, triple it in 5-6 years. The gap between current yields and potential yields is so large that high yield seeds, nutrient management, and small scale water management, can turn the situation around with dramatic results. Some African countries are now starting to recognize it. Malawi has turned to giving seeds and fertilizers to small scale farmers - for 25 years the poorest farmers in the world did not have the money for fertilizers. That is how Asia got out of its trap, and that is what Africa will have to do.

(3) I want to see MDG’s mentioned more frequent in our strategy. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has started to note inroads this year with the Mali agreement of last month. The President has now moved on malaria. At the South-South Brazil meeting, the US Administration was heavily represented, and it declared there is interest to play an important role on the MDGs.

(4) The incoming UNSG will have high on his priorities - substantively a scale-up to all the MDG activities. The High Level Panel of this September UNGA has suggested this.

(5) “I have counted above the positives. And what are the negatives in 2006?” More and more specifics came out - now the need to implement them.

The correspondent for “The Brazilians” wanted to know about ethanol fuels in Africa.
A. Biofuels, ethanol and seed based, there will be high prospects in the next few months.

On a question about corruption in Africa, Prof. Sachs got quite emotional: “Do you really believe the world has spent massive amounts of money in Africa?”
On a “per capita / per year basis” money given as aid to Africa was really tiny. Most of the money went to consultants or was spent in the donor country. There was not much money in the aid programs that corruption was a major factor in this. We at SustainabiliTank.info agree wholeheartedly with Jeffrey on this. The corruption part was in the exports of minerals, oil, and other natural resources. That money never does anything for the African poor. One could even say that in many cases there was a clear disinterest on the part of the junta in power to do anything that could create an opposition from below. Going back to the days people were being sold into slavery - this was mainly done by their own leaders - not much has change in this respect - but how do you bring this up in an organization like the so called UNITED NATIONS?

On a question about Development Prof. Sachs said that “the goal of aid is not about money, but about the tools, commodities, that help the poor people to be empowered. We must move to help specific needs like a bed-net, safe water for the village … this was not done for 20 years.” “It is painful for me - he continued - because we produce 15 volumes a year of serious material based on experience gained on location. When you actually work on the ground there are ways to get things done by the villagers. Even from the capitals people do not go to the village.” Things are changing now, as it became understood that above is the way. Lessons learned from Brazil and other countries are helping. There was no fertilizer talk for 20 years, but now even in Malawi farmers can get a bag of fertilizer. These are the practical things that can be scaled up. He pleaded: DON’T BLOW AFRICA - let’s work together , put up the sleeves and achieve the goals. THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS FOR SPECIALISTS BUT FOR ALL PEOPLE TO CARE - this has become more known now. When a celebrity gets involved, they help to bring attention of the people all over. What is important is that the people get the bed-nets, the villagers get the medicine, and the farmers the fertilizer.

Our friend from www.InnerCity.com, who is these days investigating money issues and lack of transparency at UNDP, wanted to know from Jeffrey about his pay for his work for the UN. The answer was that Prof Sachs gets now one dollar a year for being an Adviser. Indeed, in the first few years, when he developed the program, he was getting paid. Though he did not quote a figure, we assume it was $75,000/year, which is indeed very low compared to what the going rate is for this sort of work.
at SustainabiliTank.info we accept on face value the answer that this is work of love for him - or if you wish - the man found an area were he feels he makes a contribution to humanity - and this is his pay.