ECO held its first of its daily press conferences Monday afternoon, with a panel of four present, Steve Sawyer (Greenpeace), Gordon Shepherd (WWF), Daniel Mitler (Friends of the Earth), and Antonio Hill (Oxfam). The press conference was packed, with media-persons having to squat on floor, indicating the interest there clearly is in a perspective on sustainable development that is at complete variance with the genial optimism exuded by, say, the Secretary General of WSSD, Nitin Desai.

"In essence, what we are seeing here in Johannesburg at this summit, is not sustainable development," claims Mitler.

He points to the absence of sufficient discussion on corporate accountability. "If we are going to have development, we must have rules that business must follow, otherwise communities will be destroyed. One of the key reasons we have not had sustainable development is due to the lack of corporate accountability."

He goes on to say that what is being witnessed in Johannesburg is "corporate greenwash." "The European Union pretends to be the savior of the WSSD but in this area of corporate accountability, it is blocking progress." Sawyer points to the fact that there are two billion people in the world ? one-third the total population ? who are without energy. If they are to be brought into the energy fold, as they must be, it should only be renewable energy.

The trouble is, as was pointed out during the question period, the renewable energy sources that we have at hand at present are extremely limited, compared to the traditional energy sources, such as oil, coal and wood. So, do we use these fossil fuels to help those deprived of energy, or wait till science and technology gives us more renewable energy? It could be a long wait. And what about nuclear energy?

There may be other problems connected with it, such as the disposal of nuclear waste, but it is both clean and renewable. Far, far fewer people have died from the operation of nuclear power plants than from coal mine disasters or oil blowouts. Some developing countries who have the necessary know-how, including South Africa and India, are going in for it. For ECO, nuclear energy is clearly a dirty word, but the reasons are not so clear.

Water is another subject, high on the agenda of WSSD, which ECO is agitated about. ECO wants more water, just as WSSD does, but it is not happy with the way the extra water will be provided. "The world is facing a fresh-water crisis, with 2.5 billion people lacking access to safe drinking water," says Shepherd, adding that this summit had agreed to providing water to those deprived of it, but not mentioned how this water would be provided. The sources of water, like the river water basins, must be managed "holistically."

He is opposed to "pouring concrete" and "sticking in pipes," by which he evidently means the building of dams and a setting up a piped water supply. Instead, he believes, among other things, in restoring wetlands, which have given way to farmlands. "Earlier, the rainwater used to soak into the soil and rivers were not channelized. The natural environment provided purified water. Now, there are flashfloods and contaminated water."

Is he opposed to dams, like the Bhakra dam in north India which was largely responsible for India's "Green Revolution," which made it self-sufficient in food and also freed the region from floods? "Before you build dams, you must look at the alternatives," is his answer. Yes, for ECO everything is about alternatives -- alternative (and renewable) energy, alternative (not piped or canal) water, alternative (without concrete) dams, alternative (not private or market driven) governance.