Don't wait for the governments to lead the movement toward an acceptable agreement on the environment," was Vandana Shiva's message on Day 1 of the WSF

". We don't want any "Global deals" that offer glass beads for gold, what we need is global commitment. Commitment to dismantling extreme wealth; commitment to keeping our water in rivers and lakes, not in bottles; commitment to protecting our biodiversity in the forest, glades, plaines and mountains, not in a list of patented intellectual property; and most of all, a commitment to reducing the burden on the poor as they struggle for a sustainable existence.

There is little dissagreement over this message among the delegates, speakers and observers here in Porto Alegre, but there is a struggle to define the model for such a commitment and a process to force this commitment on our governments, communities and industries.
Looking towards the upcomming WSSD (Rio + 10) in Johannesburg, some are seeing it as a chance to reinforce the global pact contained within Agenda 21, some are seeing it as a chance for the corporate controled global empire to lay claim to what remains of the world's resources. Once again the divisions between North and South are apparent, the Northern delegates often calling for international governance and binding agreements. But the South, having been bound for so long, sees these agreements that connect trade, environment and society, as links in the same chain that has been the agent of its enslavement by the North. They are calling for an end to export-driven development, an end to all international bodies that force froreign economies onto their nations. Selling off resources is the root of poverty in the South. Massive environmental, human and monetary expenses are incurred to extract resources that are exported en masse, rather than being directed to the needs of their people. These same resources suck energy from around the world as they are transported, processed, consumed and discarded. This is not a fair market, the South feels the guns of the north pointed at their heads and hearts as they have singed onto past "Global deals". These deals are lose-lose for the south; in exchange for corporate rights to biodiversity, they get GMO crops; in exchange for oil, gold and copper, they get war; in exchange for cash crops, they get famine and disease.

These Global deals must come to an end, and the WSSD needs to be the begining of the process. But trouble is brewing. As water is brought into the WSSD agenda, the multinationals line up to enforce privatisations as an environmental solution. The players are carving up the agenda to ensure that environmental protection means the protection of private environments. We need communal environmental protection not environmental solutions.

If you want a sample of the mood here in PA, here it is -THE EVIL EMPIRE IS RAPING THE PLANET AND RAMMING OUR WASTED RESOURCES DOWN OUR THROATS, AND WE'RE HOPPING MAD! Some people here say it politely, perhaps having been exposed for too long to the infectious sap of political dialogue. Some , like Pablo Solon of the Struggle against the Privatization of Water in Bolivia, scream it into microphones efusing spit and bile. Some brood, some shake, some smile in disbelief. After 20 years of international environmental agreements, all indicators are down. We are asking ourselves, did we choose this system of destruction or has it been forced upon us?

Speaking to a small group gathered in a corner of the youth camp (an ad-hoc community of young politicos, socialists, coomunists, facists, anachists and hedonists - 12,000 strong) Naomi Klein set down the framework for the Forum, "The question that we should try to answer here, is whether we have the wrong form of governance or just the wrong people at the helm."

Should we follow the radicalism of the south or the rationalism of the north? Should we join the WSSD, or should we snub our noses at this gathering of technocrats. Will the WSSD be the environmental Porto Alegre or the environmental Doha. Will Jo'burg host the World Summit on Sustainable Development or the Wholesale Sell-out for Supervised Destruction. These questions must be answered immediately.

The WSSD preperatory meetings in NYC and the WSF are simulaneously energising the struggle to define the process. Governments and civil society recognise that we are entering the final stretch and if we don't get it together now we may as well stay home. One need is apparent, civil society from around the world needs a central space for mobilisation on the WSSD, and there is talk that South Afican Civil Society could lead the way. They have been charged with power through the creation of INDABA (the South African civil society coalition set up to organise efforts around the WSSD)to play a major role in defining the NGO activities at the WSSD. If civil society is going to make an impact, there is an opportunity through joining and supporting INDABA in their attempts to steer the NGO Summit, in order to keep the civil society agenda out of the hands of the UN.

If we want to change the final result of this international agreement, we must change the process. Let's look to the South for leadership on this one, and perhaps we will come away with an agreement that binds the North and the South to a meaningful, lasting and caring global commitment.