TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A GUIDE TO THE PROCESS TOWARDS THE U.N. WORLD SUMMIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT JOHANNESBURG, 2002
CONTENTS Foreword- Globalizing Sustainability1 Introduction2 Towards The First Earth Summit: Rio 923 1992: Taking Global Action -The Rio Earth Summit The Unced Agreements The Basics From Rio 1992 The Legacy Of Rio4 Rio + 5 / Rio + 85 2002 – Opportunities Of Johannesburg Preparing For The Earth Summit Challenges For Johannesburg6 Stakeholder Dialogues Why Attend A Un Conference Or Summit? National Preparations Global Preparations How To Attend Preparatory Meetings For The Summit How To Be Effective NGO/Major Group Papers And Statements! The World Of Brackets Media Campaigning Issue Caucuses And Major Groups Other Un Information Questions To Guide A Civil Society Response To 2002 - Key Issues17 Glossary: Agreements, Charters, Coventions, Declarations, Protocols And Treaties8 A Quick Guide To Jargon And Acronyms 9 Contact Addreses Internet Resources Beyond The Un Staying In New York
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5 Annex 6 Annex 7
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001 from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001 3 from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
from "The Future Is Now", Vol.1, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), April 2001 from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001 6 from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001 7 from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001 8 used with permission Canadian Forest Service (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs-scf/)
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
FOREWORD: GLOBALIZING SUSTAINABILITY10
“Integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.” Agenda 21, Preamble.
In September 2002 the
World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) will take place in
Johannesburg, South Africa. The concept of sustainability is to be revived. This not only implies putting the spot light on the increasing global problems and their possible solutions, caused above all through the globalization of the economy, but also to develop a sustainability concept for the new millennium. NGOs are afforded a great opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and effect change due to the following factors: Since Rio 1992, there has been a boom in the founding of NGOs above all in the developing world. In many of these countries, the legal conditions have been met for NGOs to become functional. The NGO movement has become differentiated and specialized in the industrialized as well as in the developing world. Alongside large organizations with very high membership and a more general agenda, there has also been a surge in highly specialized lobby networks and think tanks. More and more NGOs are forming coalitions with governmental, multilateral and private sector organizations in order to push their goals. The World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings in Seattle 1999 proved pivotal in that there has been a profound turn from the classic way of treating environment and development issues to more confrontational discussions over economic globalization.
For environment and development NGOs, Johannesburg presents a programmatic and strategic opportunity to coordinate the many different positions that have been developed within the framework of the WSSD process under one roof. This new orientation could therefore be directed toward the new challenges of globalization, the further development of international and financial institutions, as well as the anti globalization movement. Generally speaking, since the adoption of Agenda 21, there has been some progress made in terms of the agreements reached at the Earth Summit in Rio 1992. The boom in the growth of environment and development NGOs has greatly improved their level of participation in the decision making process on both the national and international levels. However, the attempt to assert the model of sustainable development in light of globalization has become very difficult because the international agenda is ever more focused on economic globalization as national governments present modernization policies that are based solely on economic interests. Sustainable
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
development has not yet succeeded in countering economic globalization since it cannot gain ground under the present globalization strategy, which at its core has not made room for this concept. Sustainable development should be seen as a model by which to design the globalization process in competition with those already well established models and the interests they represent.
In December 2000 the United Nations General Assembly decided to host a new World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. The 2002 meeting will be the first times ince the Rio conference in 1992 that heads of state and government from the world‘s countries will gather to assess progress on sustainable development. Besides being asymbolic event, it provides the global community with an opportunity to critically assessthe importance of international environmental political agreements and their benefits,success or impacts – positive and negative – at global, regional, national, and local levels. The World Summit on Sustainable Development provides the global community with the opportunity to take another critical look at the implementation of all that took place at Rio in 1992.
In December 2000, South African NGOs from different sectors met to discuss their response to the. The NGOs welcome the announcement that South Africa will host the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and see this as an important process through which sustainable development and poverty eradication in Africa is realised. We see our government hosting this high level international event as an opportunity to pursue our goals of equity, equality, environmental justice, poverty eradication, participatory governance and efficient utilisation of natural resources so that the lives and well -being of all are improved.
However, the immediate question for governments, the private sector and civil society as a whole is whether this will be another environment conference wrapped up in development paper or whether it will also address the other issues of sustainable development, poverty in all its dimensions, a lack of livelihoods, limited access to health care and debilitating debt? Unless the 2002 Conference addresses issues of global equity, poverty, and consumption, it will not be able to even begin to meet the needs of the present, much less lay the foundations to protect the interest and needs of future generations. Clear commitments at the international level are precisely what are needed by governments to guide and to stimulate their national level activities and to ensure compliance and implementation. The World Summit on Sustainable Development must produce concrete commitments that specifically respond to priority concerns of the South. This is essential to restore the credibility of the Rio process. Urgent measures should be taken to address the needs of the large majorities of the population, in particular women and children, who are forced to live in extreme poverty, if this is not done, globalisation will provide no lasting solutions to the essential problems of developing countries. If the World Summit on Sustainable Development is to advance the cause of sustainable development and poverty eradication, then it should, among other things, reconsider its work in relation to achieving universal access to basic services for the billions of people who currently go without these needs. In sum, developing and maintaining a sustainable development anti-poverty strategy that will work on the ground, must now be at the core of all intergovernmental interactions to address global sustainable development.
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
The goal of sustainable development will only be achieved in conjunction with a redistribution of power and resources to the poor.
January 2001 South African NGO Caucus on the World Summit for Sustainable Development.
TOWARDS THE FIRST EARTH SUMMIT: RIO 9212
1972: The Beginning: The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
The foundations for global environmental governance were laid at the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. It was the first International Forum aimed at addressing global environmental challenges. The conference was rooted in the regional pollution and acid rain problems of northern Europe. The Group of 77 and the Eastern bloc opposed what they saw as an eco-agenda. Attended by 113 countries, the Forum considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment. The Conference resulted in the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The United Nations Environment Programme The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the prominent global agency with the responsibility for the environment. It has as its main functions; promoting international environmental cooperation and recommending policies to this end; providing policy guidance for the direction and coordination of environmental programmes in the UN system; reviewing the world environment situation; and implementation of environmental programmes within the UN system. Amongst UNEP ‗s list of achievements include the initiation of negotiations on many major environmental conventions, such as the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention).
1986: Growing signs of concern: The Brundtland Report The findings of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), set up by the United Nations in 1983, were published as The Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) in 1987. This report stressed that critical and globally threatening environmental problems were emerging as a result of both poverty in the South and excessive consumption in the North. Issues of intra- and inter-generational equity were introduced. The report argued that the increasingly threatening and unsustainable consequences of development on the environment could not be addressed without significant international cooperation. It argued that the future well being of the North was not only dependent upon them changing their development trajectory towards more sustainable practises, but would fail unless countries of the South were also prepared to make changes too.iv The Commission said that the global economy had to meet people needs and legitimate desires. But growth had to fit within the planets ecological limits. They called for a new era of environmentally sound economic development.
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
In its report, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined sustainable development as "that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". The Report contains within it two key concepts; (1) The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world‘s poor, to which overriding priority should be given and (2) The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environments ability to meet present and future needs.
The Report called for strategies for integrating environment and development. As a result, the UN General Assembly decided in 1989 to hold a conference that would produce these strategies using the Brundtland Report, as a reference. Negotiations began in 1990 in preparation for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or the Earth Summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992.
1992: TAKING GLOBAL ACTION -THE RIO EARTH SUMMIT
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and is popularly as known the Earth Summit. It was the world largest environmental gathering, attracting 103 Heads of State and 179 governments. Rio established the growing recognition amongst the world‘s political leaders that cooperative global action on a number of key issues is essential. The Earth Summit produced several landmark documents to chart a course that would halt environmental destruction, poverty and inequality. The Summit marked the coming age of sustainable development – the point at which this concept moved from the environment literature to the front page, and from there into the lexicons of governments and international agencies. It empahsised that economic and social progress depends critically on the preservation of the natural resource base with effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The Conference pointed to the need for a global partnership if sustainable development was to be achieved, and that it was necessary to induce developing countries to cooperate in addressing global environmental threats. There were 8000 journalists covering the meeting, and the result were seen, heard and read about around the world. The role of Civil Society in the Earth Summit As the global environment and the international economy have become globalised, so inevitably have civil society's efforts to ensure that social, political, environmental and economic justice prevails and that disadvantaged and neglected peoples are included in global progress of decision making. In many cases Multi Lateral Environmental Agreements are the outcomes of successful alliances of governments and institutions of civil society.
NGOs have become a force to be reckoned with According to Oran. R Young (1989) NGO‘s loom large not only in processes of regime formation but also in catalysing and aggregating public pressure on officials to live up to the commitments they make. The environmental movement once concentrated exclusively on domestic concerns has become force to be reckoned with in the political dynamics surrounding international environmental governance. Throughout the UNCED process many environment and development NGO‘s actively tried to influence the outcomes of the negotiating process. They sought to influence the wording of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, of Agenda 21, of the planned agreement on financial mechanism, and of the agreement on ways to reform and strengthen international institutions. NGO‘s could influence the negotiations in two ways: (1) by lobbying during and between the preparatory meetings, and (2) by participating on national delegations.
NGOs enriched the 1992 Earth Summit The 1992 Earth Summit was indeed enriched by the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and major groups in numbers never before seen at a United Nations event. A preparatory document by the
Secretary General to the UNCED organisational session in New York (March 1992), states that ― the community on non governmental organisations could enrich and enhance the deliberations of the Conference and its preparatory process through its contribution/s and serve as an important channel to disseminate its results, as well as to promote the integration of environmental and developmental policies at national and international levels, and that it is therefore important that nongovernmental organisations contribute effectively to the success of the Conference and its preparatory process‖
Some 22 000 NGOs attended the Earth Summit Some 22 000 NGOs representatives from over 9000 organisations attended Rio in 1992 and by one account some 150 official delegations had NGOs representatives. Their involvement reflected the importance attached to the role of civil society in promoting and implementing sustainable development- a role that continues to be emphasized by the Commission on Sustainable Development and most UN environmental processes. The NGO Global Forum held a series of meetings, lectures, seminars and exhibits on environment and development issues for the public. Citizen groups from around the globe also met in Rio and produced 46 of their own alternative conventions and agreements. While they are non-binding, these agreements do express the concern that progress on environment and development issues will not be made at the government level alone. Solutions also reside with the local communities and within citizens' groups.
THE UNCED AGREEMENTS13
The Framework Convention on Climate Change establishes that climate change is a serious problem; that action
cannot wait upon the resolution of remaining scientific uncertainties; that developed countries should take the lead; and that they should compensate developing countries for additional costs incurred in taking measures under the Convention. The Kyoto Protocol, agreed by Parties to the Convention in 1997, sets specific commitments for limiting greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialised countries listed in Annex I of the Convention. It also describes a range of mechanisms that offer flexibility in the implementation of these commitments, and special provisions relating to developing countries.
The Convention on Biological Diversity aims to preserve the biological diversity of the planet through the
protection of species and ecosystems, and to establish terms for the associated uses of biological resources and technology. It affirms that states have ‗sovereign rights‘ over biological resources, the fruits of which should be shared in a ‗fair and equitable‘ way on ‗mutually agreed terms‘. More recently, governments negotiated a subsidiary agreement to the Convention to address the potential risks posed by crossborder trade and accidental releases of living modified organisms (LMOs). Adopted in January 2000, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows governments to signal whether or not they are willing to accept imports of agricultural commodities that include LMOs by communicating their decision to the world community via a Biosafety Clearing House, a mechanism set up to facilitate the exchange of information on and experience with LMOs. In addition, exported commodities that may contain LMOs are to be clearly labelled.
The UN Convention to Combat Desertification, agreed in 1994, acknowledges that the struggle to protect drylands
will be a long one with no quick fix. The causes of desertification are many and complex, ranging from international trade patterns to the unsustainable land management practices of local communities. One of the fundamental problems associated with the CCD concerns the unbalanced pattern of interests between the different parties. The Convention paid particular attention to the need for a participatory approach, bringing in NGOs from the South into the negotiation process. Although dryland degradation may be widespread throughout the world, it has failed to attract the kind of international support promised for tropical forests. This lack of interest translates into a lack of funds and, consequently, the Convention has been given low priority by both affected and donor countries.
Agenda 21 outlines an ‗action plan‘ for sustainable development, covering a wide range of specific natural
resources and the role of different groups, as well as issues of social and economic development and implementation. Agenda 21 seeks to combine two strands of development action: one which focuses attention on improving the access of the poor to the resources they need for survival and development; and one which concentrates on management of these resources. These two strands need to be better linked to ensure that antipoverty programmes include an element of natural resource management, and resource management programmes include improved access to resources for the poor. Agenda 21‘s influence since UNCED is difficult
from "The Future Is Now", Vol.1, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), April 2001
to quantify, but it remains the most authoritative (and probably the most convoluted) guide to sustainable development. Two main shortcomings have become clear since Agenda 21‘s inception: first, its recommendations and sources of funding have not been adequately considered; second, there is no attempt to set priorities – everything seems equally important. Despite these reservations, it should be seen as a valuable first step in a process to refine international co-operation towards a more sustainable world.
The Rio Declaration comprises 27 principles for guiding action on environment and development. Many address
development concerns, stressing the right to, and need for, development and poverty alleviation; others concern the rights and roles of social groups. Principles concerning trade and environment are ambiguous. The Rio Declaration has been invoked in national law in various contexts, and principle 10 provided a basis for subsequent negotiation of the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information.
The non-legally-binding Forest Principles represent the remains of the first wave of blocked attempts to negotiate a convention on forests. They emphasise the sovereign right of countries to exploit forest resources along with various general principles of forest protection and management. A succession of intergovernmental fora under the Commission on Sustainable Development has formulated proposals for action, but the process has been tortuous. A UN Forum on Forests has been created which will facilitate implementation of agreed proposals for action, and ultimately will consider the need for an international legal regime.
The UN Commission on Sustainable Development was established to play a central and catalytic role in promoting
implementation of Agenda 21. Its annual work programme has focused on elements of Agenda 21 and, more recently, on issues such as tourism, energy and transport which were not specifically addressed at UNCED. It has been criticised as an ineffective ‗talkshop‘, and (particularly in its first four years) for deliberating on issues dealt with in more detail in other fora. At the UN Rio +5 Conference in 1997, a new work programme for the CSD was agreed which addressed some of these criticisms, but its lack of influence in global politics remains a widespread concern. However, the CSD has initiated some useful discussions on elements of sustainability, and its lack of decision-making capacity can be understood as allowing more open dialogue and greater flexibility in involving civil society organisations.
Some basic weaknesses of UNCED14 Despite the achievements of the UNCED process, there were, however, basic weaknesses and failures. Among these were: Lack of commitment to resolving structural problems The refusal or inability of Northern governments to commit themselves to a reform of international economic relations or structures, or to initiate a new North-South economic dialogue. This meant that there was no commitment to resolve structural external problems that weigh heavily on a majority of developing countries
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
(particularly the poorer ones), such as external debt, a review of structural adjustment policies, low and falling commodity prices and the trend of a decline in terms of trade, and the poor position of developing countries in the world financial and trading systems, all of which result in large outflows of economic resources from the South or in opportunities foregone. As a result of the inability of the UNCED process to place these basic items prominently in Agenda 21, the items that dominated North-South negotiations became the pledge for 'new and additional financial resources' (with Northern countries pledging to strive to meet the earlier commitments for aid to reach 0.7% of their GNP) and the pledge for implementing 'technology transfer' (at least for environmentally sound technologies). These two items are a poor substitute for more basic reforms to international economic relations. Given the situation, they however became the 'proxies' or symbols of the North's commitment to help the South in a new global environment-development partnership.
No compromise Even though 'technology transfer' was prominently discussed during the UNCED process and is given high profile in Agenda 21, in reality the Northern governments made it clear that the protection of the intellectual property rights of their corporations would not be compromised. This would effectively render technology transfer (even if only of environmentally sound technology) on favourable terms by and large inoperable. Nevertheless, on the insistence of the South, Agenda 21 did incorporate some reference to the need for technology transfer, and for intellectual property rights not to hinder the process. A similar principle was established in the Convention on Biological Diversity. The language and references in both cases are however guarded and ambiguous and relatively weak, although the acceptance of the principle provides grounds for fuller development in the follow-up of UNCED.
Soft on Multi national Corporations The downgrading of the need for regulating transnational corporations and big commercial interests. As pointed out clearly by the NGO community, the big corporations are the main actors in generating environmental problems such as pollution, resource depletion and unsustainable production and consumption patterns. The UNCED process sidelined this role, and did not result in action proposals for regulating or disciplining the behaviour of big corporations. Thus, the most important action required for sustainable development was omitted, and an opportunity for making the main economic actors more responsible and accountable was missed. This rendered many of the Agenda 21 proposals 'toothless' or much less susceptible to implementation.
No Commitment to sustainable consumption patterns The refusal by Northern governments, particularly the United States (whose delegation notably declared 'Our lifestyles are not up for negotiations'), to effectively commit themselves to changes in lifestyles as part of the move towards sustainable consumption patterns. Thus a crucial element in the reduction of waste of natural resources was side-lined. Despite the many action proposals on environmental problems, there was relatively weak real commitment by both North and South to resolving many of the problems. As a result of not wanting to have constraints put on their growth or development opportunities, Southern governments were not forthcoming in agreeing to disciplines on resource depletion, in particular on deforestation. There was resistance by Northern governments to place effective environmental safeguards on the
development of genetic engineering, or to develop better international regulations on the transfer of hazardous products, projects and activities to the South. The commitment by Northern governments (especially the United States) to reduce emission of Greenhouse Gases was inadequate to the task of dealing with climatic change.
What about equity? Given these weaknesses, the concept of sustainable development remained controversial. Whilst there was general agreement that progress on the environment had to be accompanied by development, the place and role of equity, the need for reforms towards more equitable international relations and institutions as well as equitable ways of combining environment and economy nationally, were not agreed upon. Thus whilst the role of equity was implicit, it was not explicitly elaborated at UNCED. This opened the strong possibility of its being sidelined in the follow-up process.
Martin Khor - extract from Effects of Globalisation on Sustainable Development after UNCED, Third World Resurgence No. 81/82, May/June 1997
THE BASICS FROM RIO 199215
During the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, there was reason to believe that the way was being paved for a sustainable future where social, environmental and economic issues were being linked together resulting in the adoption of different documents and conventions, some legally binding. The best known of these are:
Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biodiversity and Agenda 21. Agenda 21 proves
the most encompassing as it links together all the different levels for a socially and ecologically just world.
In the wake of the Rio 1992 conference, criticism could be detected from all sides of the NGO spectrum owing to the inability shown by governments to combine development and environmental issues with economic growth and globalization. The adopted conventions are legally binding and indeed lead to further development in this area, however, the most important element of Rio 1992, namely Agenda 21, remains nothing more than a declaration of intent and its implementation rests solely on the good will of each country.
This becomes evident with regards to the
UN Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD),
established just after Rio 1992. The main objective of the CSD is to assure the followup procedure to the Rio 1992 conference as well as to oversee the implementation of the national and international agreements. The CSD is one of the nine functional
Commissions of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the General Assembly and has next to no decision-making
United Nations. This Commission is subject to the
powers. The CSD cannot adopt any legally binding agreements or conventions.
Since this Commission depends upon information obtained from the different governments by way of their national reports, it becomes difficult for it to do its own job properly, namely to supervise the implementation of the Rio 1992 resolutions. Still, the CSD has a pilot role to play in terms of the entire UN system since the participation of the NGO community is so all encompassing. Above all, the new
Major Group Concept of
Agenda 21 adds to the contribution of NGOs and other stakeholders. The dialogue and cooperation between governments and NGOs have improved to the point where it has become possible for NGOs and other civil groups to take part in some of the informal discussions as well as in the actual negotiations . Generally, Rio 1992 gave a good impulse to the further development of international environmental law. Six conventions came out of Rio 1992 some of which have been converted into the next and more decisive phase, namely protocols, from which point they would become ratified in their respective countries:
Convention on Climate Change, including the Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gas reduction. Convention on Biodiversity; including the Cartagena Protocol on the security of biodiversity.
(The EU and others endeavor to ratify this protocol before WSSD) —The
(Here as above, the goal has been set for ratification before WSSD)
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
Convention on Desertification; to date this convention has been ineffective for lack of a financing
mechanism. A revitalization could take place by expanding the thematic coverage of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). —The
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which was signed by Germany and the
USA on May 23, 2001; the POPs convention takes the lead on the ban of at least 8 of these dangerous organic substances including the insecticide DDT. The implementation of this ban in Southern countries is faltering due to lack of financial means. —The Convention —The Convention
on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. on Prior Informed Consent. Convention for the Protection of Forests failed. Many ideas, among others a
The attempt to create a
Convention on an International Environmental Liability Law were not seriously discussed. For
discussion it would be well worth it to draw up a series of national minimal environment liability regulations in order to prevent a ―liability dumping‖. This would have to include an obligation for international cooperation in the case of violation by the Parties. Furthermore, there is the need to clarify liability when it comes to transboundary activities and claims. Also in the wake of Rio 1992, and apart from the above-mentioned conventions, a so-called ―soft law‖ was established. Examples for this are the guidelines of the World and
Commission on Dams and the World Bank
OECD guidelines of foreign investments and lending. However, these guidelines are non-binding and
clearly show the limits of this new approach. There are no new conventions on the table for Johannesburg. Nonetheless, it is much more important that the ratification processes for some of the existing conventions and protocols be finalized and that a regulatory framework for the resulting outcomes, as well as for resolution of conflict be found. In addition, the institutional and financial obstacles that presently hamper the implementation process must be removed.
THE LEGACY OF RIO16
LOCAL AGENDA 21s
One of the most significant innovations in addressing urban environmental problems since the Rio Conference in 1992 has been the emergence of a new kind of initiative – the Local Agenda 21. Although more common in Europe and North America, there are growing numbers of cities with Local Agenda 21s in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term was coined in Agenda 21, which called on local authorities to undertake ‗a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on a Local Agenda 21 for their community‘ through which they would meet the other goals in Agenda 21. Local Agenda 21s are about ‗good governance‘ for environment and development. At their best, they provide a means by which environmental issues become more integrated within the planning and management of an urban area. They combine meeting human needs with good practice in resource use and waste management, but within development plans rooted in local priorities and an understanding of local ecological context. They usually involve the production of a particular document – the Local Agenda 21 – but this should be developed through a broad, inclusive consultation process that seeks to draw in all key interests (‗stakeholders‘) and to develop agreement between different (conflicting or competing) interests. Local Agendas 21s can help address limitations in local development planning and environmental management, especially where citizens, community organisations and NGOs feel that these represent their needs and encourage their participation. They also have some potential to integrate global environmental concerns into local plans. But there are three major limitations:
effectiveness depends on accountable, transparent and effective local government (although they can also
become a means for promoting these qualities) and most national governments are reluctant to allow local governments sufficient power and resources to be effective;
Local Agenda 21s have difficulties in ensuring adequate attention to less obvious environmental issues
such as the transfer of environmental costs to other people and other ecosystems, both now and in the future;
Local Agenda 21s have difficulty engaging with and addressing the needs of the most deprived urban
dwellers, although they are typically most at risk from local environmental health burdens such as inadequate water, sanitation and waste management. The very name Local Agenda 21 implies international engagement. Organisations such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) have made a concerted effort both to draw attention to the importance of local authorities in the international arena, and to create a network that can support new local initiatives. If international support for Local Agenda 21s is to be successful, it is important that:
governments and international agencies give more support to their development and implementation;
consultation processes inherent to Local Agenda 21s be employed to increase stakeholder participation in
relevant international funding decisions;
means be found both for financing initiatives emerging from Local Agenda 21s, and for evaluating
If international support for Local Agenda 21s is to be successful, it is important that:
governments and international agencies give more support to their development and implementation;
consultation processes inherent to Local Agenda 21s be employed to increase stakeholder participation in
relevant international funding decisions;
means be found both for financing initiatives emerging from Local Agenda 21s, and for evaluating
SUSTAINABLE TRADE The importance of integrating trade and environment objectives into policy-making has grown vastly in importance since the first hesitant discussions in the Brundtland Report in 1987. Both Agenda 21 and the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) speak of trade and sustainable development – but these high-level political statements of intent have not prevented policy deadlock within the WTO and other negotiating arenas. At the international level, discussions on trade and sustainability now focus around the WTO – its rules, remit and implications. The debate has often become polarised into a stand-off between ‗developing countries and development versus developed countries and environment‘. It is clear that the central message of the Rio Summit – that sustainable development requires the integration of social, economic and environmental dimensions of decision-making – has not become instinctive in the world of trade policy. At the root of the conflict is the feeling that, despite its multilateral, rules-based nature, the WTO is effectively run by rich countries, and in the interests of rich countries. The failure of the WTO‘s Seattle Round to reach a successful conclusion is seen by many as the result of this division. Meanwhile, as multilateral trade policy negotiations struggle to come to terms with the complex relationship between trade and sustainable development, social and environmental factors are becoming increasingly important to market access for many export-oriented businesses in the South. This is driven by a combination of commercial expectations and regulatory requirements. Although these higher standards are sometimes associated with premium prices in export markets, they are often simply an ‗entry ticket‘ rather than a source of added value for producers. Many producers and countries fear that eco-labelling and other social market instruments are a barrier to market access rather than a source of competitive advantage. These fears are heightened by the complexity of existing product regulations and labelling. Meanwhile, many developing countries have a comparative advantage in certain ―sustainable‖ products but are unable to grasp export opportunities due to a lack of capacity. There is a crucial need for a positive response to these concerns through guidance to stimulate sustainable trade, through import facilitation, information sharing and capacity building services. This guidance needs to include the following critical elements:
from "The Future Is Now", Vol.1, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), April 2001
demand: Consumer preferences for social and environmental values will often need to be cultivated
through creative public education and social marketing.
local awareness raising and involvement: The awareness of producers and other local stakeholders
has to be enhanced, through carefully targeted workshops and other initiatives at local and national sector level, backed up by clear and accessible information on market requirements and opportunities.
in process and product innovation: Moving to sustainable patterns of trade requires investments of time,
commitment and finance, and new support mechanisms for producers and other agents involved in trade.
improvement: Crucial to stimulating sustainable trade is the need to find ways of rewarding producers
and traders that invest in more sustainable business practices, and to enable entrepreneurs in the North and South to build markets for sustainable products.
standards: If producers and communities in developing countries are to capture the benefits of
sustainable production and trade then they will need to be fully involved in shaping the standards. This will help to address suspicions of ‗green protectionism‘.
governance: Sustainable trade requires different forms of governance for international trading networks,
which ensure greater transparency and accountability of commercial transactions, and enable participation and involvement from hitherto marginalised stakeholders. The Johannesburg Summit provides an opportunity to re-establish the links between the trade and sustainability policy debate and the realities of global trading relationships. Looking ahead, the priorities are to rebuild the trust so badly damaged at Seattle and assemble the issues to make real trade-offs possible. This will mean reforms of the WTO to ensure internal and external transparency and accountability; much can also be done at the national level to open up trade policy and make better links with other policy areas. Sustainable development must also become part of all aspects of the WTO agenda. The time has come for the WTO to articulate that the end purpose of trade liberalisation is sustainable development. Much work needs to be done in looking at the real sustainable development impact of existing as well as future WTO agreements.
CORPORATE SOCIAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY Globalisation is putting corporations at centre stage. This has encouraged corporations, their stakeholders and others to consider their potential roles in eliminating poverty, building accountable systems of governance and ensuring environmental security. Companies are being subjected to unprecedented scrutiny from NGO campaigns, the media, consumers and investors, on a range of social, environmental and ethical issues. Many of these campaigns focus on multinational or global companies‘ operations in developing countries, underscoring the direct links between production in the South and consumption or returns on investment in the North. This greater awareness of the impact of business on environment and development in the South is not restricted to Northern consumers, nor indeed to multinational corporations. Local campaigns against poor working practices and environmental performance are on the rise in many Southern countries. Yet in many export sectors the greatest pressure for change comes from Northern buyers further down the supply chain seeking to protect their brands, and imposing codes of conduct on their suppliers, or introducing private certification regimes as a result.
The rise of these initiatives among large companies has been dramatic. The language of corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSER) has entered the lexicon of mainstream business, and there is a burgeoning corporate consultancy sector providing advice to large corporations on reputation assurance, stakeholder dialogue and designing and implementing codes of conduct. Although many of these initiatives are intended to improve environmental performance and social conditions in developing countries, southern perspectives on corporate social and environmental responsibility are not adequately represented in current debates, and there are few mechanisms which enable southern stakeholders to inform and influence corporate policy and practice. Critical voices are starting to question the verifiability of the commitments that companies propose and the extent to which they genuinely assist sustainable development. Two tightly inter-linked questions appear central to progress on bringing CSER initiatives in line with sustainable development goals: Who decides? Beyond the basic policy framework, decisions in international trading chains are taken on the basis of commercial relations. Those with the strongest position are able to determine the terms of trade, not just for price and quality, but also for social and environmental dimensions. Who benefits? Social and environmental improvements can be a ‗double-edged sword‘, bringing technical improvements at the cost of socio-economic setbacks for some social groups. As trade liberalisation progresses, expands the supply base and places severe deflationary pressure on producer prices, suppliers – for example, in the food or garment sectors – can find themselves in the position of investing to improve performance, while receiving lower prices for their goods. Aligning these two questions will require a much broader conception of a company‘s stakeholders than is currently the norm. For CSER to work in favour of sustainable development, corporations will need to take account of the interests of many constituencies that they have not traditionally dealt with, including vulnerable and marginalised groups. They will also have to come to terms with complex trade-offs and dilemmas. For example, should a mining company avoid operations in an area of rich biodiversity to prevent damage to this natural resource, or are the employment and foreign exchange earnings foregone more significant? Answering these complex questions and harnessing corporate social and environmental responsibility for sustainable development will require greater investment in research, capacity building and partnerships between corporations, the state and NGOs in North and South.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT Most of the world‘s urban population is now in Africa, Asia and Latin America; so too is most of the urban poverty. Urban areas also concentrate a high proportion of resource consumption, waste generation and greenhouse gas emissions in virtually all countries, and future levels for all these will be strongly influenced by the scale and form of urban development. However, urban centres also offer potential advantages for combining healthy and safe living conditions with resource-conserving, waste-minimising patterns of production and consumption.
Well-managed cities contribute much to strong and adaptable regional and national economies. Cities reduce the cost of meeting the basic needs of many of the world‘s low-income citizens as high densities and large
population concentrations usually lower costs per household for the provision of infra-structure and services. The concentration of industries should reduce the unit cost of making regular checks on plant and equipment safety as well as on occupational health and safety, pollution control and the handling of hazardous wastes. Cities can also set new standards in resource conservation and waste minimisation. For instance, the concentration of production provides more scope for minimising wastes or reusing or recycling them. In addition, well-managed cities can greatly reduce the dependence of higher-income groups on private automobile use. Making sure that these opportunities are secured in an increasingly urbanised world is one of the key challenges of the twenty-first century. A further challenge will be to ensure that the rights of the urban poor are recognised and that they can form more effective relationships with local government and other decision-makers. Environment and development policy for cities should be integrated into wider regional concerns. Resource flows and waste streams into and out of any city show a scale and complexity of linkages with rural producers and ecosystems which demonstrates that ‗sustainable urban development‘ and ‗sustainable rural development‘ cannot be separated. The linkages can be positive in both developmental and environmental terms. Demand for rural produce from urban enterprises and households can support prosperous farms and rural settlements, where environmental capital is not being depleted.
The interactions and linkages between city and countryside are increasingly recognised as central factors in processes of social, economic and cultural change. In both cities and countryside, a significant proportion of households rely on the combination of agricultural and non-agricultural income sources, often involving the migration of one or several members over varying periods of time, or commuting between built-up and peri-urban areas. In addition, many urban enterprises rely on demand from rural consumers, and access to urban markets and services are crucial for most agricultural producers.
Getting urban issues onto government/donor agendas
Both urban poverty reduction and urban environmental issues have received a low priority from most development assistance agencies and many national governments. This reflects a long-established belief that development problems would be more easily addressed if people remained in rural areas where they can grow their own food. It misses the key economic role of well-functioning urban systems and reflects an inaccurate assumption that urban populations are privileged with government expenditure on basic services. Urban areas (especially major cities) may receive above-average levels of public expenditure on infrastructure and services but a large proportion of the urban population does not benefit from this. Effective urban interventions depend on effective and accountable urban governments – but urban governments remain weak in most countries. The scope for success is greatly increased in countries with effective decentralisation programmes and where local democracy is strong. Another key part of the context for urban development is increased private sector involvement in the provision of basic services and infrastructure (such as roads, public transport, water, sanitation and waste management).
In addition, governments and international agencies do not give appropriate support to the many ways in which cities are built ‗from the bottom up‘. The informal sector remains critical for employment and livelihoods for many of the lowest-income urban residents, and many citizens also develop ‗informal sector‘ solutions to their housing needs.
CLIMATE The International Panel on Climate Change was established to investigate growing concerns that human activities might be affecting the global climate – and it has helped to generate a considerable degree of consensus on climate change. This growing consensus encouraged the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, while the 1997 Kyoto Protocol added mandatory reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other powerful greenhouse gases, with an overall target of a 5% reduction from 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. But countries differ in their ability or willingness to forego carbon emissions in favour of global benefits, especially since 70% of all carbon emissions have been contributed by the USA, EU and the former USSR. Moreover, each country has its own priorities, for example China has abundant coal deposits that it wishes to burn, while the USA is not as enthusiastic as Europe about pricing gasoline so as to reduce consumption. The stated objective of the 1992 convention was to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Although the Kyoto targets are far below the 60-80% emission reductions needed to achieve this, they did establish the principle that business as usual is not acceptable. Kyoto also laid the groundwork for future agreements based on the spread of technologies and other innovations (such as tradable permits to pollute) that will make it easier for countries to comply with more rigorous emission targets. The apparent inevitability of continued climate change and the likelihood of particularly serious impacts on particular countries or regions suggest more attention should be paid to adaptation -investing in limiting the loss of property and threat to livelihoods and in being able to respond rapidly and effectively when extreme weather events occur.
ENERGY The World Energy Assessment recently stated that the productivity of one-third of the world‘s people is compromised by lack of access to commercial energy, with an additional third suffering economic hardship and insecurity due to unreliable energy supplies. At least two billion people, mainly in poor, rural areas, lack access to electricity. This does not mean that they do not use energy, but that they can only utilise it in very inefficient forms, and often in ways which are damaging to both human health and the environment. Inferior fuels such as charcoal, crop residues and cow dung make up about a quarter of the world‘s total energy consumption, and three-quarters of all energy used by households in developing countries. A recent World Bank analysis shows the costs of such fuels: the urban areas of China alone lose about 20% of potential economic output because of the effect on human health of inferior energy use. In India, indoor air pollution from dirty fuels causes as many as two million premature deaths a year. However, the liberalisation of energy markets, shifts away from large- scale energy projects by donors, and the emergence of grass-roots
initiatives to secure energy provision all point to the possibility of more decentralised and cleaner energy infrastructures which are more likely to serve the needs of the poor. It is a mistake to assume that the poor cannot or will not pay for energy. In both North and South, energy companies are aware that their ‗social contract‘ depends upon delivering on-demand, clean, safe and unobtrusive energy, and there is evidence of willingness to pay for it. At present, costs for inefficient energy sources often entail much higher prices per kilowatt than is incurred by richer consumers who benefit from subsidised grid energy. Schemes in Bangladesh and India have demonstrated that users will pay for decentralised energy provision, often through extension of credit through microcredit initiatives. However, international agreement to support these approaches has been minimal. The Intergovernmental Group of Experts, convened by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, has made little progress in developing a framework for the promotion of these approaches. A key challenge is to shift from a carbon-based energy strategy towards one that makes increasing use of renewable energies. If the Southern ‗driver‘ for renewables is energy poverty and the need for ‗off-grid‘ energy for livelihoods and economic growth, the Northern driver is environmental concerns. WSSD should offer ways to bring these agendas together.
SOILS Fertile soil and water are the two natural resources of most immediate importance to development. Although soil is a ‗renewable resource‘ in that good farming practice and pasture management maintain its structure and fertility, the world‘s stock of good soil is declining – through soil erosion, salinisation, deforestation, desertification, pollution and conversion to urban or other uses. Falling soil fertility threatens continued agricultural production in many parts of the developing world. In Africa, soil fertility decline is reducing the capacity of farmers to meet national food needs and increasing their vulnerability to crop failure. In West Africa, this has been aggravated by the marked decline in rainfall and harsh droughts experienced since the late 1960s. Farmers seek to maintain the fertility of their soils through a variety of means – for instance through the use of different nutrient sources, choice of crops and use of different patches within the landscape. Typically, farmers focus limited supplies of soil nutrients on small plots where high value crops are sown, while lesser value crops allocated lower quality land. While recognising that soil degradation is a risk to poverty and livelihoods, local diversity favours more decentralised, participatory approaches over seeking general solutions through national policies. These approaches seek the best means to help farmers and pastoralists (especially those with very limited land resources) enhance broader livelihood opportunities while enhancing soil fertility and building up assets. This requires a combination of macro-policy shifts and forms of intervention well tailored to the needs and constraints of particular farmers and settings. It has often been hard to integrate national policies which affect soils management, because they span many different ministries. It has also been hard to inform national level policy debate by local field experience and perceptions. There are too few channels for information flow and communication linking bottom-up and topdown processes. These should now be strengthened, to create systems of ‗soil security‘ for those who depend most upon this fundamental asset.
WATER The future availability and quality of global freshwater supplies is a matter of increasing concern as populations grow and demand rises. The primary issues facing governments and societies are resource scarcity and resource degradation. In many countries growing demand for water to provide domestic supplies, to feed populations and to service export agriculture, industry and commerce is causing increasing scarcity in and pollution of the water environment. In addition, in many of the world‘s regions with the highest population growth rates, physical unavailability of water is periodically exacerbated by droughts, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. As resource scarcity increases, competing economic uses may become a cause for conflict at a local level (such as the irrigation-pastoralist interface in the Horn of Africa) with negative effects on the livelihoods of the poor. While there have been few instances of ‗hot‘ conflict over water resources shared between countries, inter-basin competition for resources between countries may increase and should be addressed by the international community. The challenge facing planners is to ensure that the poorest have access to sufficient quantities of water, not simply for consumption, but to combine with other assets in order to furnish sustainable (rural and urban) livelihoods. Freshwater ecosystem resources are a significant component of rural livelihoods throughout the world, but they are probably of greatest importance in semi-arid regions, in terms of food security. Not only do rivers and lakes constitute abundant sources of protein in areas where it may be in short supply, such as the West African Sahel, but they may also represent concentrations of biodiversity within their region. However, they are subject to multiple threats through habitat destruction, upstream water abstraction, chemical and thermal pollution, the introduction of alien species and excessive harvesting. Future management of both surface and groundwater resources will increasingly need to include measures to control pollution from industrial, domestic and agricultural processes and the degradation of natural forest cover and rangeland environments. However, good local practice in water management allied to supportive national policy can reduce the gap between water needs and supplies. Indeed, the inefficiency with which water resources are used and managed in most commercial agriculture, industry and urban areas (often allied to underpricing) gives great potential for effectively increasing water supplies without drawing more on finite reserves. Good management is often the cheapest means of ‗increasing‘ supplies. The constraint is not so much water availability as the capacity to manage it effectively. Current moves towards a global effort at addressing the problems are being prepared for the December 2001 International Conference on Freshwater to be held in Bonn, Germany. Key issues should include identifying the best means of meeting the water needs of poorer groups within a broader policy framework of a ‗sustainable water cycle‘ linking conservation, supply, use and reuse. Consultation across a range of stakeholders and livelihood systems and between urban and rural ‗water environments‘ will be necessary.
FORESTS Only a fraction of the world‘s natural forests are being managed in ways which allow current yields of all goods and services to be sustained. Many policies, laws and markets still reflect only the forest values of dominant groups and notably timber or land reserves. Pursuit of these values alone is frequently the cause of local disenfranchisement and consequent poverty. Markets for timber and land do not encourage long-term maintenance of forests by local stakeholders, but support asset stripping, usually by external interests.
The overall trend remains towards deforestation – the annual rate of deforestation of 13 million hectares from 1990-95 for tropical forests appears to be on the increase. Any long-term deforestation trend has worrying ecological consequences – and in many places it also brings a serious loss of employment, income and consumption goods for rural settlements and small towns. However, deforestation does not necessarily imply soil erosion or reduced water retention – this depends on the use to which the land is put, the quality of its management, and its spatial relation to remaining forests. There is a global trend towards stabilisation – presenting the possibility of a mix between intensively managed forests, plantations and agro forestry for products, and natural forests for environmental services. Forestry policies can contribute much to poverty reduction if they enable local shareholders to be effective forest managers, through improving the security of their access to forest goods and services. This can imply that the state must transfer (or return) the control of forest resources to local people and accountable local institutions. Alternatives include binding partnerships between local groups and forestry corporations. This requires, on the one hand, measures to restrain the power of those in whose hands forests are largely concentrated and who are looking for short-term gains. On the other, it requires incentives – for instance, market-based instruments such as certification and fair trade - to influence corporations seeking positive longterm investment. Achieving security of forest environments, and supporting sustainable livelihoods for those who draw on forest resources, are thus not so much technical exercises as political processes. Recent assessments of forest problems reveal considerable consensus on the significant challenges for making the transition to sustainable forestry. They could be summarised in one challenge: to build the institutions necessary for sustainable forestry. Such institutions will centre around multi-stakeholder processes, agreed principles and criteria for forestry management, a mature mix of regular and market-based instruments building on recent practice.
BIODIVERSITY Biodiversity sustains livelihoods and life itself. An estimated 40% of the global economy is based on biological products and processes. Human dependency on biodiversity is nowhere more keenly felt than in the communities of people who live in close association with it, drawing upon the enormous range of biological products and services to meet their daily needs. Most of the volume and range of the world‘s biological diversity is to be found in the tropics. For example, there is more biodiversity on one tiny island off the coast of Panama than there is in all of Great Britain and a mere 7% of the Earth‘s surface holds between half and three quarters of the world‘s biodiversity. Many of the countries located in the tropical zone are economically poor and bear the costs of its continued existence but benefit the least. Powerful industrial interests are using these biodiversity rich countries as reservoirs of biological and genetic resources to develop new products such as crop varieties, drugs, biopesticides, oils and cosmetics or as sources of other ‗goods and services‘, such as timber, wild animal skins and ‗clean‘ air. Biodiversity provides the range of resources necessary for maintaining natural resource productivity and good nutrition and is implicated in mediating those environmental processes in soils, forests, wetlands, agroecosystems, rangelands and coastal zones that sustain livelihoods. However, plant and animal diversity is most valuable in supporting dynamic and complex livelihoods. A diverse portfolio of activities based on the
contributions of wild and agricultural biodiversity (such as crop cultivation, harvest of wild plant species, herding, fishing, hunting) can help sustain rural livelihoods especially in the face of adverse trends or shocks. On a global scale, the rapid changes in biological diversity may threaten the maintenance of fundamental ecological processes on which we all depend for our survival. The clearance of forests contributes to the destabilisation of the world climatic system and the erosion of plant and animal genetic diversity undermines the potential of agriculture to adjust to future pest epidemics and changed circumstances. In the past, attempts to curb biodiversity loss involved setting up protected areas to which access is restricted. These management measures did, however, have negative effects on many peoples‘ livelihoods. For example, the Maasai of the Serengeti Plains in Tanzania, dispossessed of their lands, have been forced to migrate elsewhere, sometimes causing serious conflicts with agriculturalists in other regions of Tanzania. Recognition of the need for multiple actions at all levels, from local to global, led to the formulation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This Convention was negotiated with a view to combating these biodiversity loss trends by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity. It provides a legal framework for countries to develop policies, strategies and action plans, and to co-operate in protecting property rights and other interests on the basis of the equitable sharing of costs and benefits. Thus, it has to deal with several complex and politically explosive trends. Prominent among these is biosafety. Negotiation of a Biosafety Protocol under the aegis of the CBD in 2000 means that the UN should oversee rules governing imports of genetically modified (GM) foods. Governments will be within their rights to ban imports of GM seeds and crops, if they believe these threaten the environment or people‘s health. Biosafety and TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are also issues on which the global movement towards free trade has clashed with groups expressing concerns on environmental, health and labour standards during the Seattle WTO conference in 1999. However, the Biosafety Protocol does not address means to ensure safe experimentation with GM crops, which is taking place on an increasingly wide scale in developing countries. The CBD and related issues, such as bioprospecting, TRIPs, and GM crops are at the centre of the environmental debate.
A new approach to wildlife conservation?
Over the last 20 years, over-extended government ministries have been unable to provide sufficient resources for wildlife conservation. At the same time there has been a growing realisation both from the conservation movement and within development theory of the importance of understanding the needs and perspectives of local people. This influenced a shift in international conservation policy. Some programmes based on participatory approaches to wildlife management were initiated in Africa in the 1980s. These have provided both inspiration and models for a wide range of participatory wildlife management projects and initiatives around the world. More recently the CBD emphasised three equally important objectives: conservation, sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits – thus reinforcing the role of local people in wildlife conservation and management.
BIOTECHNOLOGY Decades of selective funding to transform the biological sciences have fuelled a technological revolution in which life processes can now be engineered for commercial ends. Bacteria can be genetically modified to make human proteins and utopian cloning techniques make possible the duplication of millions of copies of a single
plant. Genes can be recombined to yield new organisms, products and processes that fit into an industrial mode of production. In this context, life itself is acquiring new meaning and is viewed as a strategically important raw material for new bio-technologies such as genetic engineering, tissue culture and enzyme technologies. The new biotechnologies and bio-industrial products are expected to play a key role in the restructuring of prevailing systems. Two thirds of all biotechnology companies are focused on therapeutic or diagnostic applications and one in ten is applying biotechnology in food and agriculture. With few exceptions, scientific and technical capacity in the biosciences is centred on high-income nations, with transnational corporations being the leading players. As a result, bio-technology research focuses little on the food and health needs or interests of poor people and nations who have little or no purchasing power. Farmers, consumer and environmental organisations in the developed world also point out that the priorities of the biotechnology industry do not always coincide with those of the wider society. Transnational corporations seek continued access and monopoly control over the biological and genetic wealth of developing countries. The extension of intellectual property protection, including patents, on the resulting products they market usually fail to take into account the informal contributions of indigenous peoples and farmers to the maintenance and development of genetic diversity through years of cultivation and husbandry. Developing countries point to the interdependency of all nations and argue that sustaining biological diversity depends on their getting a fair share of the benefits derived from the bio-technological use of genetic resources that originated within their borders. However, the monetary and other values of current flows of genetic resources from the South to the North are not matched by an equitable transfer of funds and appropriate technologies from North to South.
FARMS AND AGRICULTURE Although modern agriculture has successfully increased yields in many parts of the world, it has relied on technologies and practices not generally accessible to the poor. Some 1.9 billion people still rely on agricultural systems that remain largely unimproved with very low yields. With the number of hungry and malnourished people currently exceeding 800 million, the dual challenge is to produce more food at lower cost without increasing the extent of agricultural land, and to increase the income and livelihood options of all rural people.
What is Sustainable Agriculture?
Sustainable agricultural systems emphasise management – and knowledge-intensive technologies, and biological relationships and natural processes over chemically intensive methods. It integrates the use of a wide range of resource-conserving technologies for pest, nutrient, agro-forestry, soil and water management. By-products or wastes from one component or enterprise become inputs to another. As natural processes increasingly substitute for external inputs, so the impact on the environment is reduced.
More from Less
There are three types of benefits from sustainable agriculture: 1} A sustainable food system means that more food is produced from fewer external inputs, thereby reducing dependence on exogenous technologies and subsidies, and value is added locally through agro-processing and marketing, thus retaining economic surplus in the countryside. 2} More food is produced by production systems that work with, rather than against the natural environment, thus enhancing biodiversity and natural processes of regeneration.
3} More poorer producers or poor rural dwellers have access to productive technologies or income and employment possibilities, contributing to overall poverty reduction and diversified rural livelihoods. The greatest output increases have occurred following a transition to sustainable agriculture in rain-fed agriculture largely missed by ‗modern‘ agriculture. In the so-called Green Revolution areas, yields can be maintained or even increased following substitution of knowledge and management intensive technologies for external inputs. And in industrialised agricultural regions, yields may come down slightly, but farmers‘ economic margins often improve. In these three types of areas, poor farmers have benefited substantially from the transition. But even though more than two million farmers are now farming sustainably in many parts of the world, these remain relatively small ‗islands of success‘. New programmes of action are required to turn these ‗islands‘ into ‗continents‘.
MINING AND MINERALS From the aluminium in the microchips powering the Internet revolution to the abandoned mines polluting streams, the mining and minerals sector touches the lives of many – in positive and negative ways. Despite yielding the minerals that set in motion the ‗new economy,‘ this sector faces a number of critical challenges. Over one quarter of all developing and transitional economies generate at least 10% of GDP from mining and at least 40% of their foreign exchange earnings from mineral exports, but these economies, as a group, have been less successful than others in moving along the path of economic development. At the community level, mining and mineral processing have important economic and social impacts. On the positive side, mining projects can bring jobs, infrastructure, modern medicine and other benefits to remote regions. However, these benefits may well be inequitably shared – or partly or wholly offset by damage done to existing livelihoods and cultures. Moreover, if communities are not perceived to have been treated fairly, mining can lead to new social tensions, and resistance to mineral development, sometimes erupting in violence. As world population grows, the demand for land increases for many uses, including conservation of biological diversity, recreation, farming, and watershed which are often seen as competing with or inconsistent with minerals development. Uncertainty over the ability to access land for mineral development imposes serious risks to industry, local communities and indigenous peoples who all have vital interests in how land is used and who makes the decisions. In many cases, legal regimes are unclear, contradictory and poorly administered. On the environmental front, the impacts of mining are visible and can result in profound, often irreversible destruction of ecosystems. Indeed, mining operations have the potential to impact seriously the environment at every stage of the life cycle from exploration to closure (and rehabilitation). The environmental impacts of minerals extend beyond the mine site to include the damage caused during the manufacture, transportation, consumption and disposal phases. All of these concerns are exacerbated by the fact that individual consumers do not generally buy minerals per se, the industry is characterised by little vertical integration and minerals markets are anonymous, which leads to an economy-wide problem of a disconnect between production and consumption. Thus, there is little or no room for consumers to make choices – or companies to be rewarded – for good practice in production.
The Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) Project
In 1998, ten large mining companies formed the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) as a leadership exercise seeking to explore how the industry could contribute to sustainable development. A year later, these companies – through their membership in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) – commissioned IIED to carry out an independent two-year project of participatory analysis seeking to understand how the sector as a whole could make this transition. Operating in full independence from the industry, the Project has set its foundations on the participation of the widest possible cross-section of groups holding a stake in the sector. In this way, MMSD aims to integrate some of the issues facing the mining and minerals sector at the global level with the target of proposing an agenda for change. The Project is unprecedented in many ways, including its geographic scope, and the great diversity of people, institutions, and cultures with which it interacts. The central product of MMSD will be its Final Report which will document the state of the mining and minerals sector from the perspective of the transition to sustainable development and propose an agenda for future change in that direction. The Final Report will be published in March 2002 and will be available to participants at the Johannesburg Summit.
TOURISM International travel and tourism is one of the world‘s biggest and growing industries. Developing countries currently have only a minority share of the international tourism market (approximately 30%) but the industry is growing (by an average of 9.5% per year since 1990 compared to 4.6% worldwide). The tourism industry makes important contributions to the economies of developing countries, particularly to foreign exchange earnings and employment. The economic significance of tourism varies greatly, with those economies most highly dependent on tourism tending to be small island states. The World Tourism Organisation defined sustainable tourism as ―leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems‖. Since then, the major – but not exclusive – emphasis of the tourism industry has been on environmental sustainability. Following the 1992 Earth Summit, the World Tourism Organisation and the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) produced Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Tourism. Myriad certification, environmental management and rating schemes now exist – both nationally and internationally, but again the focus has largely been on environmental issues. Relatively little attention has been paid to the social and economic aspects of sustainable development and even less to the role of tourism as a contributor to poverty reduction. Yet tourism currently affects the livelihoods of many of the world‘s poor. Indeed, in most countries with high levels of poverty, tourism is a significant part of the economy. Out of 12 countries accounting for 80% of the world‘s poor (living on less than $1 a day), tourism is important in nearly all. Sceptics would argue that tourism, driven by foreign private sector interests, is not an activity suited to poverty elimination, that economic benefits are not maximised due to high level of foreign ownership, high leakages and few linkages, and that it imposes substantial non-economic costs on the poor, in terms of displacement, lost access to resources, and cultural and social disruption. However, many of the disadvantages associated with tourism are actually characteristics of growth and globalisation.
The industry agenda is evolving – both independently and in response to NGO campaigns for ―fair trade‖, ―responsible‖ or ―ethical tourism‖. The World Tourism Organisation has put considerable energy into the sustainable tourism agenda and developed a Global Code of Ethics for endorsement by the UN. The private sector is taking a leading role in developing many new sustainable tourism initiatives. Tourism has continued on the international UN agenda since the Rio Earth Summit and the CSD in April 1999 urged governments to ‗maximise the potential of tourism for eradicating poverty by developing appropriate strategies in co-operation with all major groups, indigenous and local communities.‘ At the WSSD, the poverty focus needs to be stressed in the current debate as a balance to the considerable effort made to address the green agenda.
Rio+5, the name given to the special UN General Assembly session, was held in New York from June 23-27, 1997. It reviewed and appraised the implementation of Agenda 21, and other commitments adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development. Rio+5 had the following objectives: —To revitalise and energise commitments to sustainable development —To frankly recognise failures and identify reasons why —To recognise achievements and identify actions that will boost them —To define priorities for the post-97 period —To raise the profile of issues addressed insufficiently by Rio
However, this major UN follow-up conference was seen as a major disappointment by most observers. Unable to reach agreement on a self-standing political declaration that was to be a popular-style summary of the outcome, delegates substituted a Statement of Commitment as a preamble to the final document. In six brief paragraphs, Governments reaffirmed Agenda 21 and the principles adopted in Rio, and recommitted themselves to the global partnership established there.
Inadequate proposals from the North According to Johanna Bernstein from the Brussels based, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), one of the central failings of Rio+5 was the lack of clear time-bound concrete targets and commitments. In 1997, there was a distinct lack of convergence between the force of public opinion and the degree of corresponding political will to engage in concrete commitments. She argues that, Rio+5 clearly revealed a lack of understanding of the conceptual framework of sustainable development. This factor, combined with key political factors, resulted in the fact that the Northern environment agenda did in fact dominate Rio+5 discussions. Many Northern governments brought forth lengthy proposals, which were wholly inadequate in their total lack of focus on the development concerns of developing countries. The Northern-environment focus of Rio+5, led to insufficient and inadequate discussions of the development dimensions. Rio+5 lacked a meaningful overarching vision, and this in turn deprived the process of a framework within which a more strategically focused review could have been carried out. Instead, efforts were directed towards keeping up with the minutiae of complex negotiations, instead of addressing the larger and more important question of what vision for the future does the international community actually want to promote. The Rio+5 preparatory process was simply inadequate to engage national capitals, key stakeholders, the UN system, and to carry out the necessary preparatory work that is needed to ensure a successful outcome. The Rio+5 preparatory process was not carried out in a strategic or focused manner, with most of the meetings discussing the same issues over again.
Rio+8 -The Copenhagen Forum
Rio+10 Earth Summit 2002 will be an opportunity for the NGO community to reintegrate environment and development and to put the development back in the sustainable development agenda. To build alliances with global civil society to prepare and intervene in the Earth Summit 2002 process, the Danish ‘92 Group took the initiative, with the help of the Danish Government, to bring together over 70 NGOs from around the world. To assist help the next major UN follow-up conference to revitalize the Rio-process, the Rio+8 Copenhagen NGO Forum established a platform for the points of views considered to be the most important to representatives from NGO‘s around the World. The Copenhagen meeting is part of a global movement aiming at enabling civil society and governments to: _ Re-acknowledge a common responsibility for the global problems. _ Re-acknowledge and act on the economic, social, environmental and political implications of ‗Sustainable Development‘. _ Specifically, the Forum will provide an opportunity for NGO‘s from the North, East and South to: _ Establish a common and action-oriented approach to a specific set of issues; _ Analyze critically the international structures and institutions. Representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from 50 countries in every corner of the world met in Copenhagen to prepare for a world summit on sustainable development called for by governments at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Their message was clear: The international institutional framework, as it is today, is not adequate to achieve sustainable development (defined as meeting human development needs while preserving environmental resources for present and future generations). The NGOs at the meeting in Copenhagen, found that this imbalance must be addressed as part of the summit in 2002. The NGOs developed concrete proposals. They assert that some new arrangement redressing a widening imbalance between rich and poor countries must come out of a new summit. They assert that development and poverty eradication should be at the top of the agenda for the summit in 2002. They were of the opinion that sustainable development is not t about attending to a few environmental problems considered to be important by countries in the North. The summit should arrive at action-oriented decisions aimed at solving problems important for people in the developing countries. These countries need clean water for all without exhausting water resources. People in their countries must be able to feed their populations and trade products without depleting the land base and without loosing small farmers. They must develop sustainable energy sources. Most important, developing countries need the resources and institutional capacity at the national level to accomplish these goals. At the meeting, the NGOs developed concrete strategies related to these needs. The full version of the Rio+8 ‗Strategy Draft‘, and document on Climate Change, Freshwater, Food, Forests, Institutions and development can be found on the website www.rio8.dk
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
2002 – Opportunities of Johannesburg18
The Johannesburg Summit provides a unique opportunity to discuss globalization under ‖our terms‖. Three Points to Consider: —Many heads of state and government are planning to attend the Johannesburg conference. Therefore, the WSSD is not likely to become a meeting of Ministers of Environment and Development, often marginalized within their own political systems, but will bring together governments on a higher level. —Owing to the North-South conflict, the South African venue proves highly symbolic. The natural beauty of the African continent and especially through the significance of its former president, Nelson Mandela provides the appropriate symbolism to set the stage to allow for all these still unresolved issues to be turned into concrete resolutions. This is the chance combine environment and development with South Africa providing the imagery. —For environment and development NGOs Johannesburg provides programmatic and strategic opportunities. Since the NGO community has grown, differentiated and specialized itself during the last decade, the WSSD is now opening the door to combine all the different processes and discussions under one programmatic umbrella. This new approach can be used to achieve the new challenges of globalization, the further development of international economic and financial institutions and players within the framework of the anti globalization movement.
A ground breaking political media event, great substantial breakthroughs through the initiative of heads of state and government and the programmatic and strategic strengthening of the civil society cannot be realized if not holistically: each one being a constituent part of the other. There is great risk that the opportunities to emerge as a result of the WSSD will simply end up as yet another UN conference without results. This will lead to more disillusions and helplessness in face of all the great global challenges. Criteria for Success in Johannesburg: —Adopt relevant political decisions; not only resolutions. —Give new impetus to the discussion on the sustainable shaping of globalization and the reshaping of the UN system. —As the mobilization of society and media begin, this will help to keep the relevant issues in the spot light over the next years. It is important that all governments ratify
before the Summit and that all international conventions adopted in the opportunity to increase the pressure on
Rio and afterwards should be provided with sufficient financial support for their implementation. Especially for NGOs this is of great importance as the World Summit provides
their own governments thereby increasing their own chances for success.
The Debate on Globalization
In addition to this ongoing process, in the narrower sense, the growing debate on globalization provides the framework for the Johannesburg Summit. A direct result of the occurrences at the WTO meeting in Seattle in
1999, is that the attention of civil society and the NGO community has shifted from the Rio conventions towards the institutions responsible for economic globalization, the international development banks, the International Monetary Fund and trade agreements. These discussions have been able to gain public attention
only due to the controversial backing away from the
Kyoto Protocol by the USA. Even if the debates on globalization cannot be integrated fully into the WSSD
process, it is clear that the Johannesburg Summit has to deal with the connection between sustainability and globalization in order to gain political momentum. Possible results could be: —A statement from the heads of state and government on globalization and sustainable development which focus on poverty reduction as one major issue. —An institutional agreement between UNEP and the WTO focused mutual consultation. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism could be used as base to go by. —A proposal for multilateral economic institutions to develop environmental and development friendly guidelines for foreign investments and export credits.
Since the agenda for the Johannesburg Summit is still open the enormous political opportunity this provides cannot be overstated. According to the wishes of the developing world, the agenda for Johannesburg should only be agreed upon after the revision of Agenda 21 through the PrepComs in spring 2002. Furthermore, the EU would like to lay down the main issues at the meeting of the 56 th UN General Assembly at the end of 2001. Heads of state and government have the ability to push those issues on the official agenda. The question as to which issues will be pushed very much depends on the political situation in September 2002. During the Rio+5 conference in 1997, most decision makers were more focused on the upcoming
Conference on Climate
Change than on the revision of Agenda 21. Therefore, it is vital to ascertain as to what extend the debate on
globalization can be integrated into the official agenda and to prepare substantial decisions in this area. If this is impossible or if the opposition of single countries against this discussion within the official conference is too high, the risk that this debate will be fought out on the streets will only increase. To sum it up, a success package for Johannesburg would constitute: —Ratification and implementation of all Rio conventions including the Kyoto and the Cartagena protocols. There must also be a discussion on budget and the thematic expansion of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in order to secure the implementation of those international agreements in Southern countries. —The WSSD should be used for the closing of current loopholes in Agenda 21 through a declaration from all participating countries. This holds true, for example, for energy policy. This could be based on the German proposal from the
Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Sweden in 2000. Such a declaration should also include
proposals for improvement in financing such measures. Nevertheless, Agenda 21 should not be open for renegotiations.
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
Dependent upon the results of the Financing
for Development conference, the respective governments must
be bound to their resolutions through a supportive mechanism of the CSD. In addition: —Reform of the Global Environmental Facility (changing the decision making procedures analog to the ozone fund), as well as financial and political build up of GEF‘s mandate. —Continuation of the debt relief initiative; strengthening the criteria for sustainable development. —Joining the discussions on Global
Public Goods for the development of new financial sources.
ON THE WAY TO JOHANNESBURG19
The World Summit on Sustainable Development should not be seen as a single event, taking place next September in Johannesburg, but rather as a longer process that has already begun with the first Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2001. This first PrepCom led to the following results: —The Summit will take place from September 2-11, 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa. —The preparations for the Summit will include the local, regional, national, and international levels in cooperation with an official UN preparatory meeting. —A revision to assess the implementation progress of Agenda 21 should take place order to provide room for the discussion of new and controversial issues. —A large number of reports from different UN institutions and programs will be provided prior to the Summit to support this process. —Donor countries should provide more financial assistance to developing countries in order to guarantee the participation of representatives. —Governments have agreed to take into consideration the results of relevant international conferences such as the third Conference
before the 2002 Summit in
on Least Developed Countries, the Financing for Development Conference of the Parties to different global UN conventions in order to prepare for the WSSD.
and other Conferences The
Financing for Development Conference plays an especially decisive role because socalled ‗hard‘
topics such as trade and finances will be discussed for the first time under the umbrella of the UN. The main goal is to find solutions for the permanent financial crises most of the Southern countries find themselves in. The range of issues on the agenda goes from the future role of public and private financial capital flows to institutional reforms of the global financial system. The quality as well as the quantity of official development aid is also part of the agenda to support and promote sustainable development in those countries. The FfD agenda includes the following topics: —Mobilizing domestic financial resources for development. —Mobilizing international resources for development: foreign direct investment and other private funds. —Trade. —Increasing international development cooperation. —Debt. —Addressing systemic issues; enhancing the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems to support development. The governments of developing countries demand the international conference on
Development for the following reasons:
—The traditional official development assistance (ODA) is mired in crisis and drifting ever further from the goal of '0.7 per cent'.
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
—The international private capital flow (including direct and portfolio investments) have mushroomed without the majority of the developing world having benefited from them. —The financial crises of the past years indicated an increased need for regulation and harmonization within the global monetary and financial system. As part of the preparations for the FfD conference, it has become very clear where most of the conflict between developing and developed countries lies: while the
G77/China are talking about the great historical
significance of this conference for the future of development assistance and want to address not only financial issues but also the whole structure of financial markets and the international trade system. Developed countries such as the USA and the EU are hovering quietly in the background. For them, mobilization of domestic resources should be at the center of all ongoing discussions. Questions regarding a new structure of the international financial architecture should be – if discussed at all – on the very bottom of the agenda. As with all conferences under the umbrella of the UN, it is questionable if the FfD conference in 2002 can be internationally effective and if so, in what way? Governments from industrialized countries who eventually have to decide on their willingness to give financial assistance are not showing much enthusiasm at this point. Instead they are focusing more on mobilization of domestic resources in developing countries or referring to the importance of the private sector. The still very open agenda does not inspire much confidence that this will change on the one hand, but it provides a great opportunity, especially for the NGO community to bring their concrete proposals and issues to the table on the other. In addition, the FfD conference should be more directly linked to the WSSD as both would greatly complement each other. For example, within both processes lies the central question regarding not only financial development but also sustainable development. Therefore, industrialized countries must think about restructuring global resources; and they must also keep in mind environmental issues while making their legal demands. There are quite a number of well-defined concepts already in existence such as the introduction of global taxes, or the until now relatively vague discussion on
Global Public Goods (GPGs). This discussion has gained more ground since the publication of the book
"Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21 st Century" by Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grundberg and Marc A. Stern; edited by UNDP 1999.
Global Public Goods are defined as goods that can be used beyond
national boundaries, such as peace and security, but also an intact environment, health, financial stability, knowledge or information. A more precise definition has not yet been elaborated. Producing a more concrete definition constitutes, ironically, a dilemma because if something is a Global question: who gets to decide on that? Furthermore, the general consensus is that global markets fail to provide the available GPGs in a fair and equal manner in times of ecological, social and economic crisis. The authors of the book are therefore calling for stronger international co-operation between countries and regions as a counterbalance to the global markets for the distribution of GPGs.
Public Good, then that begs the
Institutional Reform for Environment and Sustainability
It is generally known and accepted that the existing UN institutions for environment and sustainability are only partly functional. Despite the more than 200 existing multilateral environmental agreements and various
secretariats with their respective connection to the UN system, the governance structures within international environmental policy remain ineffective, badly coordinated and under financed. The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) headed by the former German Environment Minister, Klaus Töpfer was created during the first Summit on the Environment in Stockholm 1972. Until today UNEP depends on voluntary financial support; it does not have any operative authority and is politically isolated due to its location in Nairobi. The lack of financial resources leads to temporary employment, which puts of many qualified candidates. Therefore, UNEP is not only lacking personal but cannot even guarantee long term planning. Since the UNEP has no operative authority, the organization is not able to organize pilot programs for the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements in developing countries. The Nairobi location cannot be disputed with Southern countries because the UNEP is the only UN institution in Africa. Therefore, the Nairobi location must be technically better equipped and better integrated into other international institutions. The reform of the UNEP, which should be discussed prior to the Johannesburg Summit could consist of the following: —The system of yearly voluntarily financial support should at first be voluntary with the prospective of longer term financial commitments and finally establishing mandatory dues. —UNEP‘s status should be changed from a UN program into an UN subsidiary organization. —UNEP should have the exclusive competence to work out new multilateral environmental agreements. —Creation of a mechanism for conflict resolution between different existing environmental agreements within UNEP. However, in order to preserve the institutional uniqueness of the great variety of already existing environmental agreements as well as to further institutional innovation, subordination under the UNEP umbrella seems neither desirable nor practical. —Creation of operative competencies to carry out environmental projects in Southern countries. —Stronger coordination between UNEP and the CSD within the ongoing CSD process. —Strengthening the multi-stakeholder character of the CSD. The same is true for the UN Development Program (UNDP), which should also become a UN subsidiary organization. Industrialized countries should, prior to WSSD, provide more financial support for environmental projects in Southern countries. Not only the afore mentioned also an improved and more expansive financed center of all ongoing discussions. Another international body with an unclear future is the CSD. Beyond WSSD, this UN Commission on Sustainable Development should continue to organize annual meetings on the Ministerial level. It should concentrate on: —Presenting concrete issues to be discussed at the sessions. —Focusing on new and urgent issues, that have not been sufficiently discussed or left out of other bodies. —Reduction in the tendency to use ―agreed language‖ in the event that a new consensus cannot be found. —Creation of opportunities for external stakeholders to bring new proposals into the multi stakeholder dialogues. —Relinquish its character as an ―environmental‖ commission for sustainable development and instead integrate other issues into the dialogue by encouraging Ministers from other sectors to participate.
Financing for Development conference but
Global Environmental Facility (GEF) should be in the
In spite of the admitted awkwardness of the CSD process, it is essential that all the relevant players be directly integrated into the discussions as this promotes efficient sharing of responsibility. There are quite a number of interesting questions that arise when discussing these suggested reforms: concerns, which cannot be solved on the international level through reforming the UN. These are concerns that have to be addressed on a national level. To what extent are governments willing to let their citizens and civil society participate in the decision-making process? One cannot demand such an involvement on the international level if on the national level there are no opportunities for such involvement.
The Creation of a World Environmental Organization
The idea of Germany and France among others to develop the UNEP into a
Organization would be a long term endeavor as well as a diplomatic risk.
The developing countries are arguing strongly against the creation of a new organization that would deal only with environmental issues. The US is also strongly against the creation of a new and expensive UN institution. The same reasoning is used to counter Klaus Töpfer‘s idea to create a
World Organization on Sustainable
Development by combining and strengthening UNEP and UNDP. The mistrust toward new organizations, the
lack of financial support and the unclear mandate of such a ―world government‖ for sustainable development prevent any further discussions.
Challenges For Johannesburg20
For the last 30 years, the effects of unsustainable growth, environmental degradation and poverty have contributed to a renewed emphasis on environment and development as a global collective issue and not simply as the concern of sovereign states. In part, this is motivated by a concern that environmental disasters might prove as devastating as war, but also by the recognition that the majority of environment and development related problems cannot be solved by one country acting alone.
Not enough progress
The international community's response to the environmental crisis has paved the way for a framework in which to co-manage the world‘s natural resources in a manner that will aim to avert environmental catastrophe. Internationally, co-operation and legality offer the only hope to protect the global commons. According to French (2000) there are more than 200 international environmental treaties that already exist. However, while the interlinkages between environment, development and the economy have been recognised as far back as the 1972 Stockholm environmental conference, all too little progress has been made toward the integration of environmental dimensions into global development and economic policies.
Institutional framework has weakened
The post Rio era has seen a flurry of multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEA‘s), however, the institutional framework has progressively weakened. The trend in environmental negotiations remains one that has been unable to establish the rules for future governance of natural resources in a manner that will apply equally to the rich and the poor.
Many words, but little action
According to Jonasson little real progress or substantial decisions have been seen, since 1992, and at least not enough to meet the environmental needs xiv . There are a lot of nice words but far too little true political commitment leading to action. Despite UNEP‘s impressive list of international governance achievements, as little as two years ago, many developing countries diagnosed UNEP as being ineffective and irrelevant. The system is corrupted by ongoing battles amongst the secretariats of the scattered conventions to maintain the status quo over their own turf, which has led to a dilution of the environmental agenda.
Underdeveloped environmental instruments
Many of the UN‘s environmental instruments are underdeveloped and tend to be double edged swords - their global vision often tends to penalise the poor countries by putting additional stress on under-resourced developing countries and few of them stipulate stringent commitments and effective enforcement for developed
countries. A 1999 statement of shared concern, coordinated by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi, India, argued that the trend in environmental negotiations have not been able to establish rules for future governance of natural resources in a manner that will apply equally to the rich and the poor.
Learning to live together - equally
For ten years, the United Nations negotiations have repeatedly floundered on the linked questions of international fairness and global environmental security. One is how quickly must the dependency on growth and wealth be switched away from unsustainable consumption of nonrenewable resources? The other is precisely how will this task be equitably structured between and within the nations of the world in the socially polarised conditions of economic deregulation and instability? The United Nations community faces an enormous challenge in the coming century- learning to live as one interdependent world. Global environmental negotiations can only be based on a prerequisite of global equity in which long lasting agreements are reached that are based on the twin linked principles of global environmental protection and global equity.
If the UN is to strengthen its efforts for a long lasting global partnership to address and solve global problems, it will have to gather the political will to change the global inequity in consumption patterns and to establish an equitable and sustainable basis for sharing the global natural resource base. Repeated above One of the greatest challenges to building an environmentally sustainable future is the creation of appropriate institutions to support that vision. There is a need for governance frameworks that allocate rights and enforce responsibilities for environmental management at the appropriate level: local, national, regional or global. Such frameworks must enable the participation of all stakeholders in environmental decision-making, and include mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability. These are the challenges that must be concluded at The World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
The Habitat II Conference in 1996 made significant breakthroughs in involving Major Groups. At the Conference in Istanbul the process was split into two Committee one was for negotiations and Committee two was a series of half-day Dialogues between Major Group groups. The reality was because the negotiations were going on in Committee 1 the level of participation from government officials was low and the input in to the negotiations was zero. The idea of the Dialogues was taken up and promoted by NGOs for the UN General Assembly Special Session to Review Rio Implementation meeting in 1997. The General Assembly agreed in November 1996 and asked each of the Major Groups to prepare for half-day Dialogue sessions on the role they have taken in implementing Agenda 21. The CSD Dialogues in 1997 were also held at the same time as negotiations and were in most cases poorly attended by government officials and Major Groups alike. Nevertheless it was written into the work programme of the CSD next five-year programme of action that there should be Dialogues. The topic for the Dialogues for 1998 was agreed to be industry and the then Director of the UN Division on Sustainable Development Joke Waller Hunter brought together the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development for Industry, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions for Trade Unions and for the NGOs the CSD NGO Steering Committee. Under her leadership a new formula was agreed. This included the breakthrough that the negotiations would
not take place during the
Dialogues. Each Major Group was to consult and produce a starting paper on the sub themes of: Responsible Entrepreneurship; Corporate Management Tools; Technology Cooperation and Assessment; Industry and Freshwater.
These papers were to be given out as UN background papers before the CSD Intersessional in March that year so Governments would have time to reflect on them as they discussed each issue for the first time. One of the more important by-products of this approach by all Major Groups is that it caused ‗peer group‘ review within each Major Group. Another important outcome was that comments that in the past were made by a group to governments in the corridors now could be made in a ‗creative‘ forum where governments could hear the reasons for and against and challenge them within the official process. When the Dialogues started at the CSD some governments were unhappy about the idea that they had to listen to Major Group groups and saw this as an encroachment on governmental space. The success of the Dialogues in part was due to the chairing by the then Philippines Minister of the Environment, Cielito Habito, who challenged the Major Groups on what they were saying and caused peer group review between Major Groups as well as with governments. This led to the birth of the first really dynamic model for engaging the different Major Groups
in a UN ongoing process. The NGOs efforts in preparation for the Dialogue were based on the work of the Task Force on Business and Industry (ToBI) NGO Coalition who campaigned for an effective review of industry voluntary initiatives. The third year Dialogue Session addressed Tourism and to better focus the NGO CSD Steering Committee suggested that the papers should be four pages and adopt the following structure: Problems; Solutions; Institutional responsibilities; Possible partnerships.
The active involvement of Simon Upton, the then New Zealand Minister for the Environment during the preparatory process saw the Dialogues succeed again. Through his office a meeting was convened under the chairing of David Taylor (New Zealand Government) in London where representatives of all the Major Groups were brought together at the end of March to see what they might agree on. This was followed by a meeting chaired by David Taylor on the behalf of Simon Upton the night before the CSD to see if after consultation the agreements would hold. The outcome from the CSD Dialogue sessions has been important in setting up ongoing work. It has also helped build some trust between Major Groups. This was an enormous leap in Major Group involvement in the United Nations. Instead of the work and expertise of the Major Groups being part of a sideshow, or having to work exclusively in the corridors, we are now seeing the work incorporated into the preparations for the negotiations. For the Summit there are two Dialogues being planned during the preparatory process at the January and the June Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings. There will also be Dialogue sessions with Heads of State at the Summit itself. Minu Hemmati from
Stakeholder Forum has brought out a book on Multi-Stakeholder
Dialogues called: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict: Multi-stakeholder Process for Governance and Sustainability (Earthscan) - this can be ordered on the www.unedforum.org web site.
chapters 12 to 22 used with permission: "Briefing for Participation in the Earth Summit 2002" by the Stakeholder Forum For Our Common Future, ed. Felix Dodds, January 2002
Why attend a UN Conference or Summit?
Firstly: Participation in the Earth Summit process is
not a substitute for working at local, national or
regional levels on the issues. It is rather a very useful complement to the work done at other levels. It provides information on what your government is saying at the international level, and an important global forum for communicating concerns of constituencies at home. International meetings offer an opportunity to place governments' policies in front of their peer group, i.e. other countries. The review of Agenda 21 implementation will give Major Groups an opportunity to highlight their government‘s failures and successes. It may be that certain governments have indeed done very good work and highlighting that can have a good impact on change with your own government. There will also be an opportunity to influence the government to sign up to policies that they mightn‘t have wanted to domestically. The Summit process does offer the opportunity to maintain pressure on governments and international organisations and to strengthen the goals of your organisation. One of the great things about UN meetings is the access you have to Heads of State, Ministers and top civil servants. It is equivalent to being allowed onto the floor of your parliament. You can walk up to any country desk and talk to the relevant civil servant. The Summit also offers the possibility of creating 'alliances' within and between Major Groups and governments. These can be powerful for lobbying and in the implementation phase.
Get a clear sense of your own objectives: What you'd like; Why; What you are prepared to give away and what is absolutely essential) and the reasons Why you've not secured the objective to date (is it because of government policy; personalities; resource issues; other factors or a mix of the above). Knowing your own interests well is essential if you are to negotiate effectively with others.
Try to understand the perspectives of those with different views (not only the what, but the why). Sometimes the information you get illuminates possible ways forward, sometimes it helps clarify what the best negotiating tactic might be. Think about all the actors in a process - other NGOs, delegates, business, international organisations, the secretariat. Even if you can't speak directly with someone in a key position, you can piece together a lot about their position from an informed dialogue with others. Keep a list of the key governments and what their position is as the meeting starts and what it changes to by the end. This should of course enable you to see what progress you have had in influencing them.
Try to engage by focusing on who you can work with and within what limits. Being clear about the limits helps avoid disappointment and frustration or charges of dishonesty. There are many reasons for attending a UN Conference and Summit in this section we will look at four in particular. These are: To Lobby: Another section will go into depth on this. Many people assume that everyone going to a Summit is interested in lobbying their government or other governments. This isn't true in fact a relatively small number of Major Groups actually lobby. To Learn Learning how the international process works can be a first step to understanding how to be able to use it effectively for putting pressure on your government to implement the outcomes. To work with other NGOs The space around a UN Conference or Summit process allows for NGOs or other Major Groups to spend time with colleagues in building a coalition around an issue that may or may not be on the agenda. This activity can be part of a longer-term campaign to bring an issue on to the agenda or to work with others on a future regional or global campaign. To exchange information This helps clarify issues, sharing ideas, sharing the agenda for later debate, developing contacts and trust as well as sending international messages. A lot of people who are attending UN Conferences or Summits are doing this to show what they have been doing or to see what others are doing. This space offers a great opportunity for show and tell in what is basically an ideas festival To organise events Many Major Groups organise events with speakers to influence the negotiations, to highlight an issue or to highlight action or lack of it by their government. Do
not organize your events during
the time the negotiations are going on - people will not come and you should be spending the time lobbying. If possible try and host a meeting with a government or other Major Groups eg industry, trade unions, local government. This will help build contacts and may be more press worthy. Forms to book rooms are available on the following site: http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/major_groups/preregistration.html
The possible outcome document from a UN Conference or Summit can be a Plan of Action and a Political Declaration. These are soft law documents and indicate a governments support for a set of policies but are not legally binding. See Annex 2 on Agreements, Charters, Conventions, Declarations, Protocols and Treaties.
If you are going to attend a UN Conference or Summit process then you should ensure that you have been active nationally before you go. This would include:
Lobbying your government: It is important that before you go to any of the preparatory meetings that
you contact your government and make it clear what issues you want them to raise. They may agree with your position, in which case you should work with them to put pressure on other governments when you attend the meetings. If they disagree then you will need to start a dialogue to change their view. It is also important to know on what basis they are taking that view. Is it Government policy or is it in the area of civil service decision making. You may want to utilise parliament to put pressure on the Government over particular positions they are taking.
Identify officials: It is very important to understand that there is a difference between civil servants and
elected government Ministers. In international negotiations there are often grey areas and officials, particularly for countries with small delegations, can do a lot in drafting particular policies in those areas. If you disagree with the political party in power do not treat the officials as if they are a member of that party. They are not. It is very important to try and meet the officials and get to know them in a friendly atmosphere. This should be done through official meetings where you are with perhaps other Major Groups asking the government to explain their policies. But it should also be done over coffee where you can have more informal discussions. You should also request a meeting with the Minister before crucial international meetings so they can hear direct what the views are of different Major Groups.
Working with others: For a UN Conference or Summit it is likely that many Major Groups will be
attending and your organisation should link into any preparatory work being done. They should also find out what meetings are being planned on the issues you are interested in. If you can agree joint positions among or even between stakeholder groups then governments are more likely to take notice. The broader the basis of any coalition the more likely it is that the views will be listened to by governments.
National Reports: All Governments should be producing a National Report, which should identify what
they have done to implement Agenda 21 and the 1997 Further Programme of Action. The opportunity that such a review offers is not just to look back at what has or has not been done, but in many cases to look at issues for the first time. A proper National Report process may set in motion work that should have been done before but hasn't. A two-way dialogue is usually the best objective. Even if an NGO is after something the government is unlikely to be able to support, developing a good set of working relationships will produce a better climate for movement at some time in the future. It also means there's more likely to be a reasonable discussion of issues. No one wants
to be frozen out - either at home or in an international meeting - because they've completely lost the ability to communicate on an issue. Remember that the government negotiators are talking about NGOs just as NGOs are thinking about which government negotiators are ones that can be worked with or not! Some good resources to enable a review of Chapters of Agenda 21 are on the www.earthsummit2002.org web site. If possible you should arrange for a group of NGOs or fellow staff who are not going to the preparatory meetings to be available should something come up at the meeting that needs action in the capital. This could be the governmental officials taking a strong line that they shouldn't or that you want a particular line to be highlighted to the press. If possible you should also do a background briefing for the press on what is likely to happen at the meeting before you go so that if they get something from you while you are there they understand what it is about. Remember to take with you the email and telephone details of your key press contacts.
The agreement from the General Assembly on Earth Summit 2002 is that there should be a series of processes that feed into the global PrepCom meetings. These include Regional Eminent Peoples meetings, Sub Regional and Regional Government meetings as well as Government sponsored issue meetings. In addition to this certain UN Agencies have been looking at what action they have taken. Each chapter of Agenda 21 has a Task Manager whose responsibility it is to produce a review of Implementation of that chapter. These are in many cases representatives from UN Agencies or Programmes. The Secretary General's Report on progress to implement Agenda 21is available on www.johannesburgsummit.org and different Major Groups will also be producing assessments and position papers. All of these will feed into the second Global Preparatory meeting in January 2002. The Preparatory meetings for Johannesburg have Stakeholder (Major Group) Dialogues built in to them. These Dialogues are a way by which governments can hear and question Major Group views. Stakeholder Forum (formerly UNED Forum) have produced a review of over twenty multi-Major Group processes the report can be found on the web site www.earthsummit2002.org/msp. A more detailed version will come out as a book by Earthscan in January 2002. (order forms on www.earthsummit2002.org and www.stakeholderforum.org)
Governments: The negotiating body for the Summit will be made up of all UN member States each will be
represented by delegations from capitals backed up by their UN Mission representatives based in New York. For some of the smaller countries the delegation will be made up entirely by Mission representatives. Key Governments or blocks that you need to be aware of are:
European Union: The EU will have two relevant Presidencies during the Summit preparatory process and
the Summit itself. For the three preparatory meetings it is Spain (January to the end of June) and for the Summit it will be Denmark (July to the end of December). The further you move into the negotiations the more difficult it is to get the European Union to promote your ideas. They have to persuade 15 countries that something is a good idea and this is more difficult as the text moves to bracketing (where there is still disagreement). The only country that will talk in the negotiations will be the Presidency. The European commission staff play a key role behind the scene, particularly in areas where the Commission has competence, eg agriculture.
The European Union and The Federal Government of Germany22
On the February 6, 2001 the Communication ―10 Years after Rio: Preparation for the World Summit for Sustainable Development‖2 was adopted under the collective initiative of the EU Commissioners for Environment and Development, Margot Wallström and Poul Nielson. According to this Communication, the EU will pursue the following strategic goals: —Greater global equity and an effective partnership for sustainable development. —Stronger integration and coherence of environment and development on an international level. —A clear agreement on environment and development goals to revive and enhance the Rio 1992 process. —Effective measures on a national level with strict international supervision. Much of the above is EU jargon (integration, coherence, partnership) and needs explanation, which partially emerges as can be seen by the suggestions made afterwards by the EU: —Protection of those natural resources important for economic growth. —Combine environmental protection and poverty reduction. —Sustainable globalization. —Strengthening responsible governing and the participation of ordinary citizens on national as well as international levels.
The Communication of the European Commission is the basis of negotiation for any further discussions in the European Parliament within national governments. It also constitutes the definite decision of the EU Council of Ministers to determine the European position. Within the EU, the Federal Republic Germany will pursue the following: —Sustainable energy use (During its ninth meeting, the CSD had sustainable energy as its main focus but no concrete goals were reached). —Water. —Poverty Reduction. —Environmental standards with regards to foreign investments made by the German government should be brought more into the foreground of the dialogue.
To further this a general working group was formed by the Federal Ministry of Environment (BMU) and the Federal Association of German Industry (BDI). In light of the upcoming UN
Conference on Financing for
Development (FfD) taking place in Mexico in 2002; the main topic of discussion should focus on the
responsibility of international business toward the concept of sustainability. Direct foreign investments, so the argument goes, are four times higher than governmental development aid. Within the EU, Germany is also keen to create a World
Environmental Organization to:
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
—Strengthen the already existing structures provided by the UN and the CSD. —Form a World
Environmental Organization making use of these already existing structures.
—Respect the already existing structure in Nairobi.
The Federal Government of Germany is, in conjunction with the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Ministry for Environment, is working very closely following the guidelines provided in the EU Communication. The weight of the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs would certainly help to define the German position but, it is still unclear at this point how closely they will commit to the preparation of the Johannesburg conference.
Unlike the EU, the USA still finds itself at the beginning stages of defining where it stands. The State Department will most likely inhere a coordinating role. Under the co-ordination of the State Department, an interagency working group meets once a week to discuss, much like in the EU, the aims of the WSSD. It seems that the main goal of the USA is to avert the demands for more financial aid made by Southern countries. Apart from this, the basic strategy of the USA will resemble that of the EU. The common membership in the UN-ECE Region will in itself provide for close cooperation in the preparatory phase. Nevertheless, as we approach the end of 2001, there will be a US position with regards to each one of the issues under discussion. From the US point of view, some framework conditions have changed since Rio 1992:
—Economic globalization. —New technologies, for example biotechnology as a potential for sustainable development. —The greater role of the private sector; judging by the continuous talks between the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council on Sustainable Development, there are a number of voluntary private initiatives that can be presented in Johannesburg. —The support for Kofi Annan‘s ―Global Compact‖ idea.
G77 and China: The Chair of G77 in 2002 is Venezuela, this will be the fifth year in a row that a country
from OPEC has been Chair of G77. This means that with Climate Change being an issue for the Summit there may be difficulties with G77 on this issue. G77 has over 140 countries to coordinate and very diverse economies and interests.
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
In the first set of preparatory meetings individual countries from G77 or sub groups within G77 may make statements such as AOSIS – The Alliance of Small Island States, with 42 members and observers. Within G77 certain countries tend to take a leading role Brazil, Egypt, Iran, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Africa.
Similar to the USA, the informal affiliation of developing countries known as
G77/ China still finds G77/China to be
themselves in the orientation phase. Without visible progress in the area of financing sustainable development and the implementation of the agreements made in Rio, one cannot expect the position of the very forthcoming. For
G77/China, the conclusions to be drawn at the Financing for Development conference in Mexico,
where the future of development aid will be discussed, will play a major role on how they will position themselves. Only if the industrialized countries show themselves willing, within the framework of this conference, to commit additional funds for sustainable development, will they be ready to discuss environment issues.]]
JUSSCANNZ – The non-EU industrialized countries meet as a group to discuss various issues; they are
Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway, and New Zealand. Iceland, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea may also attend meetings. It doesn't often work as a formal negotiating group more as an ad hoc group.
Bureau: Governments have elected ten countries, two from each of the UN Regions to manage the Summit
process these are: Brazil Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti; Canada Richard Ballhorn; Czech Republic Jan Kara; Egypt Ahmed Ihab Gamaleldin; Indonesia Emil Salim; Jamaica Diane Marie Quarless; Nigeria Ositadinma Anaedu; Japan Kiyo Akasaka; Romania Alexandru Niculescu; South Africa has an Ex officio member Chris Badenhorst Sweden Lars Goran Engfeldt;
UN Secretariat: For the Summit process it was decided not to set up a separate secretariat but to utilise the
secretariat from the CSD and to make it bigger. The Secretary General of the Summit will be Nitin Desai who has been made the Secretary General for the Summit. The Director of the Secretariat is Joanne DiSano. Within
the Secretariat there is also a Major Groups focal point who is Zehra Aydin. The responsibilities of the Secretariat will include: Preparing the background documents; Producing a web site to promote the Summit; Analysing the national reports; Producing promotional material for the Summit; Producing negotiating text out of the discussions; Servicing the negotiations; Accrediting Major Groups. The Secretariat can play a very important role in drafting the original text that governments start negotiating around. For the Summit process to be a success this text needs to be as rich with ideas mentioned as possible. There can be a tendency in secretariats generally for the first text to be handed to governments to be too bland and middle of the road. If governments then start negotiating this the outcome is likely to be poor. In the Habitat II process the secretariat text was rejected twice and they in each case had to virtually start again. A strong political Bureau in these cases is very important.
UN Agencies, Programmes and Funds: Agenda 21 identifies work to be done by many UN Agencies,
Programmes and Funds. They will produce material in addition to any Task Manager Reports (these appear as Secretary General's Reports), which will highlight the work they are doing. For the Summit UNEP is taking a key role but also WHO, UNDP, UNESCO and FAO are also doing work for the Summit.
Major Groups/Stakeholders: During the 1990's we have seen an enormous increase in the number of
NGOs that are accredited to the UN and active in the UN Conference processes. In 1946, there were only 4 NGOs accredited; by 1992, this had grown to 928 and by the end of 2000 this had increased to 2091. The following table reviews the number of ECOSOC recognized NGOs before and after each Review of Consultative Status:
Number of ECOSOC Recognized NGOs before and after each Review of Consultative Status
Category A or I or Year General Status
Category B or II or Special Status Register or Roster Total
1946 1949 1950 1968 1969 1992
4 9 9 12 16 41
0 77 78 143 116 354
0 4 110 222 245 533
4 90 197 377 377 928
Sascha Müller-Kraenner and Nika Greger : "From Rio To Johannesburg ", Heinrich Böll Foundation, October 2001
(Peter Willetts 1999: 250)
The rules that govern NGOs involvement within the UN Economic and Social Council are based on an ECOSOC resolution from 1996. Starting with the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and followed up by the conferences on Human Rights, Population, Social Development, Women, Human Settlements, and the Food Summit we saw a large influx of NGOs. They also brought a new generation of organisations and individuals into the UN, who saw it as a vehicle to highlight their concerns and a place to put pressure on their governments as well as other governments.
How to attend Preparatory Meetings for the Summit
In order to participate in a UN Conference or Summit then your organisation needs to be accredited to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) or to the Conference itself. The advantages of going through requesting accreditation to ECOSOC
at the same time as getting
accredited to the Summit process is that it allows you to attend any of the UN Commission meetings and General Assembly meetings in the future. If you are already accredited through ECOSOC then you only need fill in a preregistration form, as all those already accredited to ECOSOC will be automatically accredited to the Summit. This form can be found at http://www.johannesburgSummit.org/html/major_groups/preregistration.html If you just accredit to the Conference or Summit then you will only be allowed to attend the preparatory meetings for that event and afterwards your accreditation will not continue. The form for doing this can also be found on the same web site. To start the process for accreditation to Eco Soc you need to go to the web site http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/documents.htm to download the relevant form and on that site is also a model application to help you understand how to apply. There are three levels of accreditation to ECOSOC these are General, Special and Roster:
Privileges / obligations Relevance to the work of ECOSOC Are in consultative status with ECOSOC Designate UN representatives Invited to UN Conferences Propose items for ECOSOC agenda Attend UN meetings Circulate statements at ECOSOC meetings Can speak at ECOSOC Circulate statements at ECOSOC subsidiary bodies' meetings Can speak at ECOSOC subsidiary bodies' meetings Must submit quadrennial report
General All areas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2000 words Yes 2000 words Yes Yes
Special Some areas Yes Yes Yes No Yes 500 words No 1500 wordss Yes Yes
Roster Limited yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No
Taken from UN web site
YOU MUST ACCREDIT UNDER AN ECOSOC ACCREDITED NGO OR HAVE APPLIED FOR ACCREDITATION TO THE SUMMIT.
You must write to the UN to inform them that you are going to attend at least
three weeks before you intend
to be there. This should be done on your organisations headed notepaper or that of the organisation that is wishing to accredit you. Depending on the number of NGOs accrediting for the CSD, it is possible that a special desk will be set up at the UN Visitor‘s Entrance for the first day. If this is not the case, you can collect your pass from the Pass Office at the northwest corner of 45th St and 1st Ave (behind the blue door). You will need to take the following with you: —your passport —a copy of the accreditation letter you sent —a copy of any reply you received (if you have received any) If you are arriving early, it‘s worth accrediting then, to avoid the queues of the first day. The deadlines to submit participant lists are:
—PrepCom II -------------7 January 2002 —PrepCom III ------------4 March 2002 —PrepCom IV ------------6 May 2002 —Johannesburg 2002 -5 August 2002
Your pre-registration will be complete only after you receive confirmation from the Summit Secretariat that all necessary forms and lists have been received. To send your letter requesting accreditation you should fill in the form on the web site and all organisations in consultative status will receive a
password from the Summit
Secretariat to pre-register online. If you have not received your password from the Summit Secretariat, write to Summitregister@un.org. You can pre-register to all or any of the events PrepCom II, PrepCom III, PrepCom IV, and the Summit.
How to be Effective!
Before you arrive:
—Discuss the agenda of the meeting within your NGO/Major Group group and among others in your field. A well-organised back up by other NGOs/Major Groups in your country can mean pressure being put on the government at home as well as in New York. You may want to set up a rapid reaction group who can take action on an issue within your parliament or with national news-papers. —Make sure you have a copy of the latest text that is being discussed. This will be on the UN web site. —Decide the issues your NGO/Major Group wants to focus on, and think about the outcomes that you would like to see. —Contribute to the preparation of the Issue Caucus papers or Major Group preparations - this is usually done by list servers; —Send your views on the issues to the Missions of key governments in New York (see list at the end); —Send off your accreditation details at least three weeks before the meeting; —Bring with you if you can a mobile office - computer, printer, telephone; —If you can meet with key governments to discuss your position in the week before.
At the Preparatory Meeting:
—Work with the NGOs/Major Groups present - it‘s impossible for an individual to cover everything; —The NGOs or some other Major Groups eg women usually organize a morning meeting before the negotiations start; This is where you can quickly find out what is happening and you can also share your information and who the key players are; —In some negotiations the NGOs will operate ‗floor manage‘ there job is to take notes on the negotiations and report back to the next NGO morning meeting; They also help the lobbyists to know who is saying what on a minute by minute basis and therefore it helps their ability to target the right countries; If you are new then this is a good thing to volunteer to do to get a feel for who the key government people are; —Contribute to the agreed NGO/Major Group position papers - these tend to carry more weight than individual Major Group/NGOs‘ papers; —Talk regularly to your government‘s delegation - tell them your priorities, and suggest text amendments; —Work with the NGOs/Major Groups on your government‘s delegation; —Target other governments: - Not in a block: It is easier to persuade one government to take your ideas than a block. So target countries that tend to act singularly this would include Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and the USA - if your country works in a block you will need to convince more than your own government to adopt your amendments, eg EU=15 - Countries with Economies in Transition are also a possible target.
Be aware of the considerable pressures on delegates and their interests. If an NGO/Major Group tries to take account of the pressures in the day and shares the occasional bit of information which might be of use to the delegate - as well as getting their own point across, this makes a stronger relationship. —Make informal contacts with the delegations. Much of the lobbying work happens informally. The impact of September 11 th may restrict access to parts of the building. Key places are the: Vienna Café; Delegates Lounge (this is meant to be only for delegates but you may go with a delegate wearing either a yellow (Head of delegation), red (a member of a delegation) or blue (an intergovernmental organization accredited to the General Assembly); Delegates Dining Room; Corridors; Back of meeting rooms; Main cafeteria; Government Missions.
Lobbying is fun but can seem very daunting for a beginner. It is important to remember a few rules.
1. When you meet a government official give them your card and ask for theirs; 2. The main discussion is often very procedural and can be a bit boring and so government delegates are often really pleased to be asked to go for a coffee; 3. Don't approach if there speaking/country card is up; 4. They are interested in finding out what Major Groups think and also what is happening in the corridors; You can help them with this; 5. When giving some information about what you want you need to be very specific. If you want text in a particular place then produce material that shows where it should go. If you are down to brackets understand what they mean (see bracket section); 6. A rule of thumb: if you are spending more time with your own group than with government officials then review your work pattern; 7. If you have a team of people lobbying agree who will talk to whom, governments don't want to be lobbied by loads of people over the same issue. But do let them know how many organizations support your view. It is useful if you are working on an issue to have people assigned to look after the EU Presidency, G77, countries which have single decisions; 8. If you have a problem with some governments invite them all to a meeting to discuss your idea. This can be in the building or if it is early in the process then for drinks or dinner. This also applies the other way round - if governments like your idea try and bring together a coalition; 9. Try to be positive all the time; 10. Every day try and extend the number of countries you are talking to; 11. At some point a list of people attending the meeting will come out - keep an eye open for this as it will help you identify people you should see;
12. If you are coming in early for one of the PrepComs then try and organise meetings the week before with Governments you haven't met before eg ask to see them at their Mission; 13. If you‘re on a Government Delegation, especially for the first time, there‘s a lot going on and it can be easy to miss important information. Ask for a copy of the Government brief. You should not let anyone see this otherwise your government will not only not trust you but you will have negatively impacted on them trusting anyone to come on the government delegation in the future; 14. If there are other NGOs on your government delegation then try and share out the tasks between them. Try and find other NGOs on other government delegations and work with them; 15. It is important to realise that if you are on the government delegation that you will need to play a key role in helping the government understand what is happening from the Major Groups but also it would be important to share information you hear on the floor. It can be easier for opposing government delegations to talk to a Major Group representative as an intermediary to move ideas forward. 16. Do not at any point sit in a government seat unless you are on a government delegation; 17. The good negotiator tries to be aware of the forces at play, able to understand and respond appropriately (eg just because someone starts shouting, no need to respond in kind). 18. The good negotiator is also thinking not just about the meeting at hand, but the ones to follow - putting in place the building blocks that lead to sustainable results. This isn't just thinking about the words on paper, but also the relationships and the networking (again don't overlook business, secretariats, international organisations etc). 19. It is quite possible that the negotiations will not end on the date or time indicated, plan to stay if you can until the Sunday in case they work through the Friday night.
NGO/Major Group Papers and Statements!
There are a number of ways in which a Major Group can participate in the Summit negotiations. These include:
Individual NGO/Major Group Position Papers — Your organisation will arrive with a position on
the issues that you are prioritising for the Summit and these may be in the form of background papers or focused points that you want governments to look at. For the Second PrepCom in January it is likely that many groups will come with broad papers and only when we get down to text negotiations will the papers become more specific. The UN will provide tables for organisations to put their papers on. Although this is a good place to distribute your material it is as important to meet with government officials and give the material to them personally and discuss your ideas.
Agreed NGO/Major Group Position Papers — In the lead up to the Preparatory meetings Major
Groups will try and agree a joint position paper. Because they represent a wide range of NGOs/Major Groups and their constituencies, they tend to carry greater weight with governments. As we move forward through the preparatory meetings you will be putting forward text amendments. The usual format is to reproduce the Government text with NGO/Major Group amendments in bold. It helps the delegates understand what you want added and where.
Oral Statements — ECOSOC-accredited NGOs/Major Group may ask to make a brief oral statement to the
meeting. These are at the discretion of the Chair and with consent of the members. The CSD process has allowed a great degree of contributions from Major Groups during the negotiations and it is expected that will be the case for the Summit process. Usually coordinated joint statements by a group of NGOs or Major Groups will be more likely to be allowed than individual NGOs. The statements are most effective if they are brief (less than 5 minutes) and substantive in nature. Ten copies of your statement must be given to the secretariat for the interpreters. If you want your statement given out to the governments, you cannot give it out yourself, then 300 copies should be given to the Secretariat staff. You can also put extra copies on a table in the room with other statements.
The World of Brackets
As the negotiations progress the text becomes cluttered with brackets. These represent what has not yet been agreed. If you are involved with the negotiations it is very important to understand that there are many different types of brackets. These include: It is important to understand the nature of why a bracket was put in place if you want it to be removed. Brackets will look the same in the text but they could be any of the following:
Alternative brackets are alternative text for the same issue and may revolve around a substantive
disagreement but tend to be similar wording for the same issue.
Contentious brackets are there because of fundamental disagreement over a particular section. Suspicious brackets are used when one group thinks the other is up to something with a section or a
phrase and so the brackets are put in until it becomes clearer.
Tactical or Trading brackets may be put in by one country to enable them to trade them with another
bracket in another section or in another area. it is important to understand what might be traded to be able to unlock these brackets.
Uncertain brackets are put where no one was quiet sure what the proposed text meant or why the brackets
were placed there in the first place.
Waiting brackets are put when governments are waiting for instructions from capital on what to do. Weary brackets usually put in when negotiations go on into the early morning and are put there when
people get too tired to negotiate effectively. (drawn from Fiona McConnell' explanation in the book The Biodiversity Convention A negotiating History. Fiona McConnell was Vice Chair of UNED UK from 1993-1997 and before that was chief negotiator for the UK Government in the Rio preparatory process)
This section was written by Michael Strauss. The goal of all NGOs‘ activities in the WSSD process will be to increase public awareness and pressure on political leaders in order to influence the positions of governments and the decisions that are made at the Summit. One of the most effective means for achieving that is by building public constituencies through broad and accurate media coverage. The U.N. press corps represents a tremendous potential communications resource. There are over 200 correspondents regularly covering the U.N. in New York, from over 120 major newspapers, magazines, television networks and radio stations, that serve virtually every country and geographical region. That number will increase as the Summit approaches. In New York, the U.N. journalists' offices are mostly clustered on three floors, in a section of the Secretariat and Conference buildings. This Press Area is technically restricted to those with U.N. press credentials [no, that is not the same as an NGO who writes a newsletter]. And, as with all things these days, security checks are stricter. Still, journalists themselves are usually fairly relaxed about visitors – provided those are respectful and discrete. That means, for example, that an individual can usually place advisories or press releases in the reporters‘ postboxes on the 4 th floor, or go to a scheduled interview with a particular reporter. However, roaming the press offices is not advised. And posting notices of any type on the walls is definitely not a great idea. Gaining media coverage at the U.N. is very desirable, and it is possible – but it is not easy. A fast look at the press post-boxes will reveal that each reporter receives 40 or 50 items per day – press releases, advisories, newsletters, background documents. Most of these are competing for the same, very limited, print or broadcast space. Remember, these are the same journalists who are at the U.N. reporting on issues like war and peace, drought, refugees and famine. Attempting to reach journalists at the U.N. should be done with an understanding that most reporters are not specialists in your field and therefore require a clear explanation of the issues, yet their time is extremely limited. The most important rule is to make sure your statement identifies issues that are newsworthy, and presents them in a clear, focused way. There are a several useful methods to gain the media‘s attention :
Media Advisories –
Announce your event in only a few words, on one page, that explain what it is, who is involved, and when it is taking place. Identify who is sponsoring the event. Let the press know if credentials are required [at the U.N. they are – outside press must apply for accreditation from DPI, in advance ].
Press Releases –
These need to present a clear, focused description of an event or action., in at most two pages. A journalist‘s requirements are very specific. An effective press release should be: —Complete – It should inform what the activity is, when and where it is happening, who is involved, and why it is significant. It should include some provocative quotes. —Clearly
written – It should cleanly explain information in a direct style, much like a news article. It should
not sound like a dissertation or a political treatise. It should also not use much scientific, political or technical jargon. —Concise – Two pages should be the most for a press release, written in a readable font [12 point is preferable, 11 point is pushing it]. The page should be well spaced, without too many fancy graphics. If it needs to have graphs or charts, put them on a background document.
Press Conferences –
The most comprehensive way to convey a message to the press is, of course, a full news conference. These allow a broad framing of an issue, statements by expert speakers, and direct questions by journalists. Yet it is often difficult to attract New York reporters to most ordinary sustainable development press conferences – and even more so at the U.N. Regular ‗outside theU.N.‘ reporters are rarely following U.N. issues, and U.N.-based reporters are overwhelmed with major political events. Over the past few years, NGOs active at the U.N. have discovered that by organizing press conferences and media activities in coalition, they can be far more effective at gaining the press‘ attention. Press conferences presenting speakers from a northern and a southern NGO, an environment and a social or development organization, a major NGO and a local one have been able to reach a broader potential journalistic audience. If these can be held at one of the venues close to the U.N. press corps offices, they have a far greater chance of succeeding. There are two such venues : the official U.N. Press Conference Room ( S-226 ), and the lounge of UNCA – the U.N. journalists association. Each of these require special permission, or the payment of a fee. Both are best organized with a coalition of NGOs, and the assistance of an experienced media coordinator.
NGO Media Coordination for the Summit
Because the plethora of voices at U.N. conferences, each competing for media attention, often has the effect of cancelling each other out , NGOs have discovered that it can be far more effective to present their issues to the press as a coalition. A number of the leading NGO coalitions will therefore work together on strategies for media, to try to achieve a maximum level of media coverage for the PrepComs and the 2002 Summit The
International Media Advocacy Project [IMA] will help coordinate communications for a broad
coalition of the NGOs active at the WSSD. The Project will advise NGOs on how to promote their positions on policy issues, organize media events, and publicize national and global environment and sustainable development activities. The IMA will be active at the Summit and at all preparatory meetings. It will cooperate closely with the Summit Secretariat and U.N. DPI to obtain for NGOs optimal access to official media facilities and the U.N. press corps. Working with NGO coalitions, the IMA will:
news conferences and background briefings by leading NGOs on active Summit issues press releases and media kits covering all Summit issues, from a broad range of of NGO experts in specific issue areas, from all geographical regions.
and their political status. —Help produce
environment, economic development, and social justice NGOs. —Arrange interviews —Provide websites, —Suggest story special events. If your organization would like to cooperate in the coalition media activities, or requires advice on other press areas, contact : Michael Strauss, Earth
calendars and media advisories.
ideas to journalists, and seek cooperation with individual news organizations on coordinating
International Media Advocacy Project 211 East 51 Street, 3C New York, N.Y. 10022
tel: 1 212 355-2122 email@example.com
Issue Caucuses and Major Groups
The preparation for Earth Summit 2002 has many different coordination bodies. The list that we give here is as best as we can at this point. As Agenda 21 identifies nine Major Group groups we will list the coordinating bodies within those groups. (emails and web site required)
Business and Industry:
The two main industry groups the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (Contact: Jack Whelan jack.Whelan@iccwbo.org) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (Contact: Claude Fussler firstname.lastname@example.org) have combined to form the Business action for Sustainable Development (BASD). Business Action for Sustainable Development will be the first time the world's major business organizations have coordinated their activities for a Summit on sustainable development. It has been formed to ensure business rallies its collective forces for the second UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg in 2002. Its aim is not to create yet another organisation but rather to create a network among business groups, whether international, sectoral or regional, in the months leading up to the Johannesburg Summit. They hope this ensures the world business community is assigned its proper place in preparations for the Summit and that we are seen at the event itself to be playing a constructive role. The messages will be straightforward: a business-like emphasis on action and not merely process; an openness to partnership with other players in a wide variety of sustainable development initiatives; and a commitment to openness and accountability all round. Put simply, our message going into the Earth Summit in 2002 is that business is part of the solution to sustainable development. Web site: www.basd-action.net
Children and Youth
There are different youth initiatives for the Summit process these are the key ones. Ms. Julie Larsen United Nations Association of Canada Tel: 613-232-5751 Email: Julie@unac.org http://www.youth2002jeunesse.unac.org/ Mr. Leif Holmberg Borgholm Secretariat (follow up to Borgholm Youth Summit)
Tel: 46-8-5517-1930, or 46-70-229-2425 Email: email@example.com
There are two organisations coordinating for the Farmers these are: Via Campesina (Ms. Nettie Weibe,) The Via Campesina is has movement of peasant and farm organizations from all the alternative areas of the world committed to solidarity and determination to move forward in the defence of people of the land and in the building of better living conditions Tel: (306) 966-8979 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web site: www.virtualsask.com/via/ International Federation of Agricultural Producers IFAP was established in 1946 to secure the fullest cooperation between organizations of agricultural producers in meeting the optimum nutritional and consumptive requirements of the peoples of the world. It works to improve the economic and social status of all who live by and on the land. (Mr. David King) Tel: 33-1-45-26-05-53 Email: David.email@example.com Ms. Nora Ourabah Email: NoraOurabah@ifap.org Web site: www.ifap.org
The Indigenous Peoples organizations around the Commission on Sustainable Development have been coordinated by. Contact: Carol Kalafatic (firstname.lastname@example.org) The American Indian Treaty Council and Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (email@example.com) The Earth Council runs an Indigenous Peoples web site. Web site: www.earthcouncil.org
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) ICLEI is the international environmental agency for local governments. ICLEI's mission is to build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in global environmental and sustainable development conditions through cumulative local actions. Building a worldwide movement requires that ICLEI functions as a democratic, international association of local governments. Serving a worldwide movement requires that ICLEI operates as an international environmental agency for local governments. More than 350 cities, towns, counties, and their associations from around the world are full Members of the Council, with hundreds of additional local governments participating in specific
ICLEI campaigns and projects. As a movement, association, and agency, ICLEI continues to work towards its environmental and sustainable development goals. firstname.lastname@example.org. Contact: Konrad Zimmerman Web site:www.iclei.org
There are numerous NGO Coalitions or Issue Caucuses these include:
1. Sustainable Development Issue Coalition
The Sustainable Development Issues Network for 2002 (SDIN) is a collaborative effort among civil society networks and nongovernmental issue caucuses aiming to improve communications and access to information on sustainable development issues. In particular, the initiative aims to improve communications among NGOs engaging in the World Summit on Sustainable Development, drawing especially upon the Internet, the worldwide web as well as person-to-person relationships to share knowledge and organize for action. The Issues Network evolved out of discussions among NGO issue caucuses and major groups seeking methods and vehicles to increase their effectiveness in contributing to the global dialogue on sustainable development policy at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and other relevant intergovernmental arenas. The Issues Network is not meant to compete with or replace the networking and organizing efforts of other NGO bodies, but instead aims to assist and promote the efforts of civil society networks working on sustainable development issues in various fora. In this sense, SDIN is not another "network" per se but hopefully a useful tool of NGO networks. This body is coordinated by three NGO Coalitions these being: ANPED - Northern Alliance; Pieter van der Gaag email@example.com Environment Liaison Centre (ELCI): Barbara Gemmill (firstname.lastname@example.org) Third World Network: Chee Yoke Ling, email@example.com Web site to be launched in 2002
This has been coordinated by the Danish 92 committee. Their website‘s objective is to increase the participation and political influence of NGOs in a number of developing countries prior to the Johannesburg Summit in 2002. The Danish 92 Group holds the view that Johannesburg Summit is the greatest chance in many years to redirect public attention and popular commitment towards sustainable development. The Johannesburg Summit may serve to place social, economic and environmental issues and solutions on the world agenda in ways favouring both the poor and the environment. This website is part of a framework project entitled ―Project of Danish Support for Increased Participation of Southern NGOs in the Rio+10 Earth Summit‖ conducted by three Danish NGOs, MS, Ibis and WWF-Denmark, on behalf of the Danish 92 Group. The project is sponsored by Danida (the development department of the Danish Foreign Ministry).
The Project‘s main aim is to boost the participation, in terms of quality as well as quantity, of the South‘s civil society in the preparation for, participation in and follow-up of the Johannesburg Summit in 2002. It particularly focuses on furthering an inclusive public debate in each country in order to substantiate the negotiating positions of the governments concerned. The project involves NGOs and social organisations in 30 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The purpose of the website is for these NGOs to be able to share information; to communicate with each other; to make their documents and political proposals for the Johannesburg Summit available to others; to debate issues concerning the Johannesburg Summit. The website will also be a forum for sharing ideas on how to lobby governments, develop strategies for information campaigns in the different countries, and in other ways prepare well for the Johannesburg Summit. The project was inspired by the Rio+8 Roundtable Forum in Copenhagen convened by the Danish 92 Group, where 70 NGOs participated. The majority of the participants were from the developing world, and they asked the Danish NGOs to support their preparations prior to the Johannesburg Summit in 2002. Furthermore the Rio+8 Conference found it crucial that the NGOs return to their role as pathfinders and mediators between people and governments in international negotiations. A part that they performed rather well in 1992. The NGOs should once again act in a visionary, idealistic and political fashion in preparation of the summit. The project‘s aim is to pay more attention to the support of awarenessraising and mobilisation, which may help create the momentum for binding international cooperation, bringing about the necessary political will among decisionmakers. The political aim could be the so-called New Deal, which must be able to combat poverty and tackle global sustainable environmental problems through greater political will, force, financial resources and institutional capacity to implement existing international agreements and rules. Contact: Hans Peter Dejgaard (firstname.lastname@example.org) Web site: www.rio10.dk
This network grew out of the Rio+8 Conference held in Denmark in June 2000. The conference addressed a series of issues
3. NGO CSD Steering Committee
The Steering Committee used to be the main network around the CSD. In 2001 a number of issue caucuses, the Northern Caucus and the Women's Caucus left the Steering Committee. The remaining members have been involved over the past year in trying to organize a South Summit in Algeria and some national meetings to review Agenda 21. It has a series of issue caucus that work on the different issues that are being addressed by the CSD. It is not a political for and does not itself have policy. These are developed by its issue caucuses. Contact: Esmeralda Brown (email@example.com) Web site: www.csdngo.org/csdngo
African NGO Coordination Group:
The South African NGO Community have created a Civil Society Indaba which will be the body responsible for advancing civil society input and participation in the World Summit on Sustainable Development to take place in Johannesburg in September next year. It will contribute to not only the logistics of the civil society space but also the policy agenda of civil society towards the summit.
Email: Solomzi Madikane firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com Web site: www.worldsummit.org.za
International Council for Scientific Union (ICSU) is a non-governmental organization, founded in 1931 to bring together natural scientists in international scientific endeavour. It comprises 98 multi-disciplinary National Scientific Members (scientific research councils or science academies) and 26 international, single-discipline Scientific Unions to provide a wide spectrum of scientific expertise enabling members to address major international, interdisciplinary issues which none could handle alone. ICSU also has 28 Scientific Associates. The Council seeks to break the barriers of specialization by initiating and coordinating major international interdisciplinary programmes and by creating interdisciplinary bodies, which undertake activities and research programmes of interest to several members. A number of bodies set up within ICSU also address matters of common concern to all scientists, such as capacity building in science, environment and development and the free conduct of science. The Council acts as a focus for the exchange of ideas and information and the development of standards. Hundreds of congresses, symposia and other scientific meetings are organized each year around the world, and a wide range of newsletters, handbooks and journals is published. The principal source of ICSU's finances is the contributions it receives from its Members. Other sources of income are the framework contracts from UNESCO and grants and contracts from UN bodies, foundations and agencies, which are used to support the scientific activities of the ICSU Unions and interdisciplinary bodies. The total budget of the whole ICSU family amounts to over 15 million US dollars a year.
One of ICSU's greatest strengths, however, is the time contributed freely by the thousands of scientists committed to the objectives of the Council. Contact: Thomas Rossvell (Secretariat@icsu.org) Web site: www.icsu.org
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) works to ensure that the issues that trade unions worldwide are concerned about are brought forward in the discussions on sustainable development. The ICFTU has taken part in all the CSD meetings and all the Major Group Dialogue Sessions since 1992. Contact: Lucien Royer (Lroyer@compuserve.com) Web site: www.icftu.org
The CSD Women's Caucus is picking up the challenge of the process towards 2002, aiming to ensure gender mainstreaming of all decisions to be taken. The caucus is a working group of women and men who are interested in and working towards the mainstreaming of gender into sustainable development policies and practical implementation strategies.
The caucus works towards the recognition and adequate action on genderrelated aspects of sustainable development issues by providing information and research as well as lobbying on recommendations based on upto-date analyses and consultation within the caucus. The CSD Women's Caucus grew out of the 1991 Miami Conference, organized by WEDO, and its outcome document Women's Action Agenda for a Healthy Planet. The women's caucus meets at the CSD Sessions, organizes side events and takes part in other caucus to ensure gender mainstreaming of NGO work. We lobby on the basis of position papers developed beforehand, make statements in negotiations and work on line-by-line amendments to text being negotiated. In between CSD Sessions, caucus members communicate via email, phone, fax, and post. It operates an open list server to prepare our positions and lobbying strategies, networking globally with interested organisations and individuals. The caucus as assigned tasks to its members. For example, organizing the morning meetings and linkages to the UN for the Dialogues.is being coordinated by WEDO. Contact: June Zeitlin WEDO firstname.lastname@example.org Web site: www.earthsummit2002.org/wcaucus/csdngo.htm
Caucuses that may be involved with the Summit process:
Caucus on Aging: Virginia Hazzard (email@example.com) and Peter
Corporate Accountability: Jagjit Kaur Plahe (plahej@Wva.org.au) and
Pieter van der Gaag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Education: Trevor Harvey (t.Harvey@farn-ct.ac.uk) and
Energy: Rajat Chaudhuri (email@example.com) and Deling
Climate Action Network: firstname.lastname@example.org
Forests: Miguel and Simone Lovera (email@example.com)
Freshwater Action Network: Danielle Morley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
GEF Network: Jan-Gustav Strandenæs (email@example.com) Health and Environment: Claudia Strauss (WITNewYork@aol.com)
Human Settlements: Dr Sandra Hernandez-Colon
International Coalition for Sustainable Production and Consump-tion:
Jeffrey Barber (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Chee Yoke Ling (email@example.com)
Legal and Institutional Issues: William Pace (firstname.lastname@example.org)
NGO Taskforce on Business and Industry (ToBI): Jeffrey Barber
Older Persons: Perry Walker (email@example.com) and Virginia
Peace: Nancy Finneran (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Theresa Fitzzgibbon
Science and Technology: Irini Sarlis (email@example.com) Social Development: Carol Lubin (firstname.lastname@example.org) Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems: Linda Elswick
Sustainable Communities: Ibrahim Magdi (email@example.com
and Karen Onthank (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Tourism: Nina Rao (email@example.com) and Frans de Man (re-tour@
Transport: Walter Hook (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Bambang Susantono
Other U.N. Information
Food and drink. There are several restaurants in the UN, the Cafeteria in the Secretariat is on the first floor,
south annex, south side of the building. There is also the Delegates Dinning Room on the 4 th Floor and a Staff Dinning Room at the top of the escalators (4 th floor in the Secretariat Building). There are cafeterias in the DC1 building, 3rd floor and in the UNICEF building, ground floor.
Banking facilities. ATM machines are by the escalators in the Secretariat Lobby. Chase Manhattan Bank is
on the 4th floor of the Secretariat building (S-0462). Hours are 9.30am - 3.30pm.
Post Office. Located in the Secretariat building basement, through the glass doors at the base of the escalator.
You can purchase UN stamps in the visitor's area of the General Assembly building.
Telephones. Internal calls can be made from any phone. For ‗963‘ numbers, dial ‗3‘ and the last four
numbers. For ‗906‘ numbers, dial ‗4‘. Local calls (beginning with ‗212‘ or ‗718‘) can be made from the phone booths outside the larger Conference Rooms. For other calls, there are phones in the visitor area of the GA building. It would be useful to buy a telephone card from a newsagent as this is the cheapest way to telephone abroad. These cannot be used by the telephones near Committee Room 4.
Medical Service. Secretariat building, room S-0557, ext 3.7090. DPI NGO Resource Center. Lots of information, plus some computers. In the basement by the library,
which is located on the basement level of the Dag Ham-marskjold Library.
The Dag Hammarskjold Library. This occupies a three-storey building on the south side of the UN.
Mon - Fri 9a.m. - 6p.m. (Photocopiers.)
Photocopying and Computers. NGLS and DSD provide a photocopier and computers for NGOs in one
of the small conference rooms. You will need to supply your own paper. To photocopy outside the UN you need to go to Kinko's on 48th Street (btw. 1st and 2nd Ave). They also have computers for hire.
Other Buildings and Facilities. UNDC1 and UNDC2 are two adjoining buildings located on the
northwest corner of 44th St. and First Ave. Many UN program departments and some specialised agencies have offices in the buildings. For example you will find UNDP, INSTRAW, FAO and the IMF in UNDC1. UNESCO, DSD and WHO are in UNDC2. UNICEF is also on 44th Street.
ANNEX 1 QUESTIONS TO GUIDE A CIVIL SOCIETY RESPONSE TO 2002 - KEY ISSUES25
General Process and Modality questions for NGO preparations for 2002
1. What measures are suggested for a civil society review of the local, national, regional and global implementation and development effectiveness of the international process emanating from UNCED in 1992? 2. How should the civil society preparatory process for World Summit on Sustainable Development be structured to best reflect the voice of the poor and marginalised sectors of our society? 3. What are the frameworks that are needed to ensure the meaningful participation of civil society during the global preparatory process? Which NGO structures are best suited to facilitate this process? 4. How can civil society organisations use the World Summit on Sustainable Development ‗opportunity‘ to strengthen and build crosssectoral environmental and developmental alliances that will be critical for the local implementation of global agreements? 5. What is the critical path for forging new global NGO alliances that will be essential to the success of 2002 and beyond?
World Summit on Sustainable Development, Proposed Preparatory Process for 2002
National Late 2000 - Spring 2001 National preparations will coordinated by governments and national multi-stakeholder committees for sustainable development - to begin to define national agendas and undertake a review of progress. Public consultations and meetings, previous National Reports to the CSD and National Strategies for Sustainable Development will all help to inform this process. The UN CSD has suggested four national activities, in particular countries are asked to define
4- 5 national targets (by April 2001) to take domestic sustainable development forward. Regional Spring - Winter 2001 Regional meetings of governments and other major groups will seek to build consensus over critical issues for progressing regional sustainable development - identifying areas of priority action and highlighting local examples of good practice. The processes will be informed by roundtables of regional experts, which will seek to highlight problems, solutions and priorities, as well as to set targets. Sub-regional processes may also contribute to this process.
Southern Priorities for Earth Summit 2002, Workshop organized by the Heinrich Boell
Foundation and the Stockholm Environment Institute, Brussels, June 16-18, 2000. Discussion Paper prepared by Johannah Bernstein, Stockholm Environment Institute, June 5, 2000..
Global Late 2001 – Summer 2002 Immediately after the ninth CSD (15th –27th April 2001) the first Global Preparatory Committee (Prep Comm I) meeting will take place. The UN Secretary General will produce a global report on progress for the second PC, as well as reports on the outcomes of the regional and national review processes. By 2002 UNEP is planning to produce Global Environment Outlook 3 – a thirty-year review on global environmental issues. Other intergovernmental and international institutions will also input to the process, along with major groups. UNED FORUM Earth Summit 2002 Explained (2000)
The Larger Policy Goals for 2002
6. What are the key political and strategic considerations for breaking the North-South divide? 7. How can southern concerns be more effectively promoted at and reflected within the 2002 political agenda? 8. What can be done to generate greater political will on the part of both developed and developing countries to respond more effectively to the new generation of
from "Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002", Heinrich Böll Foundation, January 2001
global survival issues? 9. What action is needed to raise the sustainability imperative on the international political agenda? 10. What is the overall strategic vision and focus that should be articulated for 2002 and how can southern concerns be better reflected within that vision and focus? 11. What are the desired southern priority outcomes for 2002 and the factors, which may impede the realization of those desired outcomes? 12. What should be the scope of the ―‖forward-looking strategic political agenda‖‖ for 2002 and what elements are necessary to ensure that southern concerns are reflected within that new political agenda? 13. What are the new globalisation challenges that should be addressed by 2002 and how to ensure that the goal of poverty eradication is duly elevated onto the 2002 agenda? 14. How can the policy wisdom surrounding the sustainable development debate be translated into concrete operationalisable political action at the highest level that reflects the southern sustainability agenda?
Framing the Environmental Concerns
15. What are the new and emerging environmental issues that should be addressed at 2002? 16. How should these new and emerging issues be framed, i.e. in the form of new legally binding instruments, soft-law instruments, etc, and what are the key strategies to ensuring that these issues are duly elevated on the political agendas of the world?.
17. What are the elements of the policy recommendations that should be developed to promote these new and emerging environmental issues? What are the potential roadblocks and the strategies for overcoming them? 18. How to ensure that the policy recommendations are grounded in the best possible science, that reflects not only western scientific knowledge systems, but the traditional knowledge systems of indigenous peoples and local communities of the South? 19. How to ensure that the global and local dimensions of the key new and emerging environmental concerns are duly linked?
Framing the Development Concerns
20. What are the key priorities southern development concerns that must be addressed at 2002? 21. What are the key elements of the new and emerging development-related policy recommendations? 22. What are the key strategies needed to elevate the political importance of poverty
eradication within the sustainability agenda at 2002? 23. What are the key consumption and production issues that should be raised and the elements of new and innovative policy recommendations for promoting those issues? 24. What are the key debt issues that should be raised and the elements of new and innovative policy recommendations for promoting the debt issue at 2002? 25. What are the key ODA issues that should be raised and the elements of new and innovative policy recommendations for promoting more effective development cooperation? 26. What are the key investment related issues and the elements of new and innovative policy recommendations for promoting a new global framework for sustainable investment to ensure the long-term interests of local and national communities? 27. What are the strategies for ensuring the necessary technological leapfrogging in developing countries? 28. What are the strategies for promoting the development of innovative economic instruments?
The Global Governance Challenges
29. What are the key concerns and priorities regarding global environmental governance and institutional reform? How to reconcile the inherent weaknesses in global governance systems with the growing urgency of widespread poverty and ecological decline in the south? 30. What are southern concerns as regards the strengthening of UNEP? 31. What are southern concerns as regards the establishment of new global governance bodies, such as the proposed World Environment Organization, the Trusteeship Council for the Global Commons? 32. What are the specific southern concerns as regards enhanced linkages between the different environment treaty regimes and together with the new regimes established by the world summits of the 1990s? 33. How to ensure that the sustainability imperative becomes the overarching policy goal of the entire UN system? 34. What are the key southern concerns as regards establishing better linkages between the Bretton Woods Institutions and the UN bodies responsible for the promotion of sustainable development, and ensuring that the inherent contradictions between the various environmental, economic, monetary and trade regimes are addressed and overcome? 35. How to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the reform of global governance systems? 36. How to ensure that the issue of equity is more actively promoted within the systems of environmental diplomacy? 37. Which principles of ―‖good governance‖‖ should underlie the reform of international
institutions responsible for the promotion of sustainable development?
Agreements. Charters, Conventions Declarations Protocols and Treaties
These have been taken from the UN web site http://untreaty.un.org/english/guide.asp to ensure their accuracy.
The term ―agreement‖ can have a generic and a specific meaning. It also has acquired a special meaning in the law of regional economic integration. (a) Agreement as a generic term: The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties employs the term ―international agreement‖ in its broadest sense. On the one hand, it defines treaties as ―international agreements‖ with certain characteristics. On the other hand, it employs the term ―international agreements‖ for instruments, which do not meet its definition of ―treaty‖. Its Art.3 refers also to ―international agreements not in written form‖. Although such oral agreements may be rare, they can have the same binding force as treaties, depending on the intention of the parties. An example of an oral agreement might be a promise made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one State to his counterpart of another State. The term ―international agreement‖ in its generic sense consequently embraces the widest range of international instruments. (b) Agreement as a particular term: ―Agreements‖ are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matter than ―treaties‖. There is a general tendency to apply the term ―agreement‖ to bilateral or restricted multilateral treaties. It is employed especially for instruments of a technical or administrative character, which are signed by the representatives of government departments, but are not subject to ratification. Typical agreements deal with matters of economic, cultural, scientific and technical cooperation. Agreements also frequently deal with financial matters, such as avoidance of double taxation, investment guarantees or financial assistance. The UN and other international organisations regularly conclude agreements with the host country to an international conference or to a session of a representative organ of the Organisation. Especially in international economic law, the term ―agreement‖ is also used as a title for broad multilateral agreements (e.g. the commodity agreements). The use of the term ―agreement‖ slowly developed in the first decades of this century. Nowadays by far the majority of international instruments are designated as agreements. (c) Agreements in regional integration schemes: Regional integration schemes are based on general framework treaties with constitutional character. International
instruments that amend this framework at a later stage (e.g. accessions, revisions) are also designated as ―treaties‖. Instruments that are concluded within the framework of the constitutional treaty or by the organs of the regional organisation are usually referred to as ―agreements‖, in order to distinguish them from the constitutional treaty. For example, whereas the Treaty of Rome of 1957 serves as a quasi-constitution of the European Community, treaties concluded by the EC with other nations are usually designated as agreements. Also, the Treaty of Montevideo of 1980 established the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA), but the subregional instruments entered into under its framework are called agreements.
The term ―charter‖ is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organisation. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organisation of American States of 1952.
The term ―convention‖ again can have both a generic and a specific meaning. (a) Convention as a generic term: Art.38 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice refers to ―international conventions, whether general or particular‖ as a source of law, apart from international customary rules and general principles of international law and – as a secondary source – judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. This generic use of the term ―convention‖ embraces all international agreements, in the same way as does the generic term ―treaty‖. Black letter law is also regularly referred to as ―conventional law‖, in order to distinguish it from the other sources of international law, such as customary law or the general principles of international law. The generic term ―convention‖ thus is synonymous with the generic term ―treaty‖. (b) Convention as a specific term: Whereas in the last century the term ―convention‖ was regularly employed for bilateral agreements, it now is generally used for formal multilateral treaties with a broad number of parties. Conventions are normally open for participation by the international community as a whole, or by a large number of states. Usually the instruments negotiated under the auspices of an international organisation are entitled conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969). The same holds true for instruments adopted by an organ of an international organisation (e.g. the 1951 ILO Convention concerning Equal Remuneration for
Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value, adopted by the International Labour Conference or the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the UN).
The term ―declaration‖ is used for various international instruments. However, declarations are not always legally binding. The term is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations. An example is the 1992 Rio Declaration. Declarations can however also be treaties in the generic sense intended to be binding at international law. It is therefore necessary to establish in each individual case whether the parties intended to create binding obligations. Ascertaining the intention of the parties can often be a difficult task. Some instruments entitled ―declarations‖ were not originally intended to have binding force, but their provisions may have reflected customary international law or may have gained binding character as customary law at a later stage. Such was the case with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The term ―protocol‖ is used for agreements less formal than those entitled ―treaty‖ or ―convention‖. The term could be used to cover the following kinds of instruments: (a) A Protocol of Signature is an instrument subsidiary to a treaty, and drawn up by the same parties. Such a Protocol deals with ancillary matters such as the interpretation of particular clauses of the treaty, those formal clauses not inserted in the treaty, or the regulation of technical matters. Ratification of the treaty will normally ipso facto involve ratification of such a Protocol. (b) An Optional Protocol to a Treaty is an instrument that establishes additional rights and obligations to a treaty. It is usually adopted on the same day, but is of independent character and subject to independent ratification. Such protocols enable certain parties of the treaty to establish among themselves a framework of obligations that reach further than the general treaty and to which not all parties of the general treaty consent, creating a ―two-tier system‖. The Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 are well-known examples. (c) A Protocol based on a Framework Treaty is an instrument with specific substantive obligations that implements the general objectives of a previous framework or umbrella convention. Such protocols ensure a more simplified and accelerated treaty-making process and have been used particularly in the field of international environmental law. An example is the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer adopted on the basis of Arts.2 and 8 of the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. (d) A Protocol to amend is an instrument that contains provisions that amend one or various former treaties, such as the Protocol of 1946 amending the Agreements,
Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs. (e) A Protocol as a supplementary treaty is an instrument that contains supplementary provisions to a previous treaty, e.g. the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. (f) A Process-Verbal is an instrument that contains a record of certain understandings arrived at by the contracting parties.
The term ―treaty‖ can be used as a common generic term or as a particular term that indicates an instrument with certain characteristics. (a) Treaty as a generic term: The term ―treaty‖ has regularly been used as a generic term embracing all instruments binding in international law concluded between international entities, regardless of their formal designation. Both the 1969 Vienna Convention and the 1986 Vienna Convention confirm this generic use of the term ―treaty‖. The 1969 Vienna Convention defines a treaty as ―an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation‖. The 1986 Vienna Convention extends the definition of treaties to include international agreements involving international organisations as parties. In order to speak of a ―treaty‖ in the generic sense, an instrument has to meet various criteria. First of all, it has to be a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties. Secondly, the instrument must be concluded by states or international organisations with treaty-making power. Thirdly, it has to be governed by international law. Finally the engagement has to be in writing. Even before the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the word ―treaty‖ in its generic sense had been generally reserved for engagements concluded in written form. (b) Treaty as a specific term: There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms ―treaty‖ as a title for an international instrument. Usually the term ―treaty‖ is reserved for matters of some gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as ―treaties‖ are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Cooperation. The use of the term ―treaty‖ for international instruments has considerably declined in recent decades in favour of other terms.
A quick guide to jargon, acronyms, etc26
ACC Administrative Committee on Co-ordination - the UN Secretary Generals Cabinet AOSIS The Alliance of Small Island States, with 42 members and observers. BASD Business Alliance for Sustainable Development Bureau The Bureau of the CSD is composed of the Chair and representatives
of the other five regional
groupings of member states.
The Bureau for the Summit is composed of the Canada, Sweden, Japan, Indonesia (Chair) Jamaica, Brazil, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Egypt and Nigeria - Ex Official South Africa.
CARICOM (Caribbean Community): Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados,
Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago.
Chair The Chair is responsible for facilitating progress in the work of
the Summit or CSD, and serves from the end of the previous CSD until the end of the CSD or Summit Different Chairs may be elected for other informal
CAN Climate Action Network CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCD Convention to Combat Desertification CEDAW Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women CITES Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species COP Conference of the Parties - to a Convention CPD Commission on Population and Development C Soc Dev Commission on Social Development CSD The Commission on Sustainable Development. 53 Member States governments make up the Commission, which meets annually.
Observer states and non-members (such as the EU) are also permitted to attend.
CTE (WTO) Committee on Trade and Environment DAW Division for the Advancement of Women
DESA The Department for Economic and Social Affairs is responsible
for many of the UN Commissions that are dealing with reviewing implementation of the outcomes from the Summits and Conferences of the 1990s. The Under Secretary General that heads DESA is Nitin Desai.
DPI U.N. Department of Public Information DSD The Division for Sustainable Development. A division of the U.N.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, concerned with sustainable development issues. The DSD acts as the Secretariat for the CSD.
EC European Commission ECA (UN) Economic Commission for Africa ECE (UN) Economic Commission for Europe ECLAC (UN) Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean ECOSOC U.N. Economic and Social Council. EIT Countries with Economies in Transition, i.e. those in Central and
ESCAP (UN) Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. ESCWA (UN) Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. EU The European Union, which works as a group at the CSD in addition
to the actions of the European CSD member states. It has permanent observer status at the CSD. During the first six months of 2002 Spain will hold the Presidency followed by Denmark.
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FDI Foreign Direct Investment G-77 and China The Group of 77 and China was the original group of the so-called
non-aligned states. It is in effect the negotiating bloc of the negotiating countries and seeks to harmonize the negotiating positions of its 140 developing-country members. Venezuela will Chair G77 next year. Oil producing countries have chaired the last three years for G77.
GA (UN) General Assembly GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GEF The Global Environment Facility. The multi-billion-dollar GEF
was established by the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the UN Environment Programme in 1990 to fund
" Briefing for Participation in the Earth Summit 2002" by the Stakeholder Forum For Our Common Future, ed. Felix Dodds, January
environmental programmes, especially in the South and the EIT
GPA Global Plan of Action High Level Segment The Ministerial-level part of the CSD where most significant
issues are decided.
IACSD Inter Agency Committee on Sustainable Development ICC International Chamber of Commerce ICFTU International Confederation of Free Trade Unions ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ICPD International Conference on Population and Development ICSU International Council for Science IDT International Development Target IFAP International Federation of Agriculture Producers IFF International Forum on Forests IFI International Financial Institution ILO International Labour Organization Intersessional The official between-sessions meetings of the CSD, IMF International Monetary Fund ISO International Standards Organization IULA International Union of Local Authorities JUSSCANNZ The non-EU industrialized countries meet as a group to discuss
various issues; they are Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway, and New Zealand. Iceland, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea may also attend meetings.
LDC Least Developed Country MAI multi-lateral Agreement on Investment Major Groups The term used in Agenda 21 to describe nine sectors of society
fundamental to achieving sustainable development. The Major Groups are: Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous People, Non-governmental Organisations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Communities, and Farmers.
MEA Multi-lateral Environmental Agreement Member State A nation that is a member of the U.N.
NGLS (UN) Non Governmental Liaison Service North The current widely used term to describe developed, industrialised
OECD The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Plenary A meeting of the whole of the CSD or Summit preparatory meeting,
where formal decisions are taken.
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants PrepCom Preparatory Committee - the name given to the meeting to negotiate
for a summit
Regional Groups The five regional groups meet privately to discuss issues and
nominate Bureau members and other officials. The regional groups are Africa; Asia; Central and Eastern Europe (CEE); Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC); and the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG).
SDIN Sustainable Development Issues Network Side Event An open, lunchtime or evening event, (e.g. panel presentation)
usually related to the issues being negotiated.
SIDS Small Island Developing States, especially important in relation
to the Barbados Plan of Action for SIDS.
South The current widely used term to describe developing countries. Square brackets Used during negotiations to indicate that a section of text is being
discussed but hasn‘t been agreed. See separate list.
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme. UNEP United Nations Environment Programme. UNDCSD United Nations Divisions for Sustainable Development - acts as
secretariat for the CSD and World Summit in 2002
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special session (Rio + 5) WHO World Health Organisation Working Group A sub-group of the CSD/ Summit, tasked with drafting language
for the final documents.
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development WSSD World Summit foe Social Development WTO World Trade Organization
Contacts and Addresses
Key UN Missions
Brazil (Summit Bureau Member): 747 Third Avenue, 9 th Floor, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 372 2600
Canada (Summit Bureau Member): One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, 14 th Floor, New
York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212848 1100 Web site: www.un.int/canada
China (Key G77 Country): 350 East 35 th Street, New York. NY 10016
Tel: (1) 212 655 6100
Columbia (Ex Chair of CSD): 140 East 57 th Street, 5 th Floor, New York. NY 10022
Tel: (1) 212 355 7776
(Summit Bureau Member): 1109 Madison Avenue, New York. NY 10028 Tel: (1) 212 535 8814
(President of the EU July to Dec 2002): One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 855 Second Avenue, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 308 7009 Web site: www.un.int/denmark
Egypt (Summit Bureau Member): 304 East 44 th Street, New York NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 503 0300
France (key global player): One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 245 East
47 th Street, 44 th Floor, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 308 5700
Germany (Ex Chair of CSD): 871 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 940 0400
India (Key G77 Country): 235 East 43 rd Street, New York NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 490 9660
(Summit Bureau Member (Chair)): 325 East 38 th Street, New York. NY 10016 Tel: (1) 212 972 8333
Jamaica (Summit Bureau Member): 767 Third Avenue, 9 th Floor, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 935 7509 Web site:www.undp.org/missions/jamaica
Japan (Summit Bureau Member): 866 United Nations Plaza, 2 nd Floor, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 223 4300
Malaysia (Ex Chair of CSD): 313 East 43 rd Street, New York. NY11017
Tel: (1) 212 986 6310
New Zealand (Ex Chair of CSD): One United Nations Plaza, 25 th Floor, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 826 1960
Nigeria (Summit Bureau Member): 828 Second Avenue, New York NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 953 9130
Norway (Non Block Country): 825 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Tel: (1) 212 421 0280
Pakistan (Key G77 Country): 8 East 65 th Street, New York, NY 10021
Tel: (1) 212 879 8600
(Summit Bureau Member): 573-577 Third Avenue, New York. NY 10016 Tel: (1) 212 682 3273
Russia (key global player): 136 East 67 th Street, New York. NY 10021
Tel: (1) 212 861 4900
South Africa (Summit host): 33 East 38 th Street, 9 th Floor, New York NY 10016
Tel: (1) 212 213 5583
(President EU until June 2002): 823 United Nations Plaza, 345 East 46 th Street, 9 th Floor, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 661 1050
(Summit Bureau Member): One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 583 2500 Web site: www.un.int/sweden
(Non Block Country): 633 Third Avenue, 29 th Floor, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 286 1540
(progressive African country): 336 East 45 th Street, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 949 0110
(key global player): One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 745 9200
(key global player): 799 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017 Tel: (1) 212 415 4000
Venezuela (Chair of G77): 335 East 46 th Street, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 557 2055
UN addresses in New York
UN Development Programme: 1 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 906 5000 Web site: www.undp.org
UN Environment Programme: 2 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 8144 Web site: www.unep.org
UN Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat): 2 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 5464 Web site: www.unchs.org
UNCTAD 2 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 4319
UN Division for the Advancement of Women 1 United Nations Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 3139 (outreach Chief: Amina Adam) Web site: www.un.org/esa
UN Division for Social Development 2 UN Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 3175 (Focal point for NGOs, Mr Yao N'Goran Web site: www. un.org/esa
UN Division for Sustainable Development: 2 UN Plaza, New York. NY 10017
Tel: (1) 212 963 8811 (Zehra Aydin Sipos; Major Groups Focal Point) Web site: www.un.org/esa
NGO Unit in DPCSD: (For accreditation) 1 U.N. Plaza, DC1-14th floor
Tel + 1 (212) 963 8652 Fax + 1 (212) 963 9248 or 963 4114 Hanifa Mezoui e-mail: email@example.com
Pass Office: (To collect your U.N. pass) NW corner of 1st Ave and 45th St (blue door) UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service: 1 U.N. Plaza, DC1-1106, New York. NY 10017
Tel +1 (212) 963 3125 Fax + 1 (212) 963 8712 email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web site: www.unsystem.org/ngls
Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future (formerly know as UNED Forum): www.earthsummit2002.org and
World Summit on Sustainable Development / UN website:
South African Government 2002: www. joburgsummit2002.com European Union: www.europa.eu.int Group of 77: www.g77.org Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: www.oecd.org UN Sustainable Development Site www.un.org/esa/sustdev IISD Linkages
(incl. Earth Negotiations Bulletin) www.mbnet.mb.ca/linkages
UN Daily Journal www.un.org/docs/journal NGO Link (lists UNHQ events) www.ngos.net/events/upcoming The Heinrich Boell Foundation: www.worldsummit2002.org Soth African Civil Society Secretariat: www.worldsummit.org.za
Beyond the UN
From JFK/LaGuardia Airport. Shuttle buses there are shuttle buses from all the New York Airports they will take
you into Manhattan. From JFK it costs $13. The bus takes about an hour and arrives at 42nd Street. From LaGuardia it costs $10. The bus takes about 40 minutes and stops at 42nd Street as well.
Taxis these are also available from the airports, they are more expensive. The flat
rate from JFK to anywhere in Manhattan is $30 (+ tolls and tip). It is possible to take the subway from JFK; to do this you take a courtesy bus to the subway station. The subway ride takes about 1 1 /2 hours, but only costs $1.50. They are building a train link to the airport, which might be finished in 2002.
Transportation in Manhattan Taxis these are easily hailed on the street. Official license cabs are painted yellow a
light on the roof of the vehicle indicates that the taxi is available for hire.
Subways these are a fast means of travel and you can buy multiple tickets if you are
going to be in New York for a while. This saves on the wait. Most of the trains go North to South in Manhattan. Cross-town trains run between Grand Central Station and Times Square on 42nd St.
Buses are not so fast, although they can be a good way to see New York. There are
also more cross-town services than on the subway. The fare for one ride on a sub-way or bus is $1.50. You can use tokens or a ‗Metrocard‘. On the buses you can also use exact change, coins only.
Metrocards are the most economic means of buying tickets, and allow you to transfer between subways and
buses. There are three purchasing options a: weekly pass ($20); single-ride Metrocard allowing you to load on as much or as little money as you like (a 10-ride card gives you one extra ride free); one-day pass. Day-Metrocards are available at vending machines, and at street-level vendors, but not at the subway ticket booths.
Staying in New York
Here are some suggestions of places you might consider staying at in New York.
Big Apple Hostel
119 West 45th Street tel. 212 302 2603 Shared: $28 Private: $75
Murray Hill Inn
143 E. 30th St, btw Lex/3rd tel. 212 683 6900 Single/Double $125
4 West 31st Street tel. 212 268 2900 Single/Double $125
230 East 51st Street tel. 212 355 0300 Double: $130; Triple: $155
49 West 44th Street tel. 212 840 3080 Single/Double: Feb. $199; Apr. $249
NGO Flats (Mr. Edelman):
212 E. 51st St (btw. 2nd and 3 rd Ave) tel. 212 688 6769 or fax 355 0938. Approx. $150 for large studios
224 East 47th Street Tel. 212 756-9600 Single: $72 Double: $86 (no tax charged)
Millennium UN Plaza Hotel
44 th Street at First Avenue. Tel (1) 212 758 1234
www.millennium-hotel.org $149 per room per night
Manhattan East Suite Hotels
Tel: (1)1 800 20 Suite Ext98 Web site www.nyt.mesuite.com Manhattan Riverside Tower Hotel $95 for a person per night Doubles $100 Suites $110-$130 Tel: (1) 1 800 724 3136
New York Hotel Discounts & City Guide http://www.worldexecutive.com/cityguides/new_york/ Comprehensive list of hotels is arranged by price. Each listing has telephone and fax numbers, and several include prices on rooms or suites. New York accommodations online - discounts on reservations http://www.newyorkhotelsonline.com/save/newyork-save.htm Priceline.com - Name Your Own Price for airline tickets, hotel rooms, groceries, new cars, home finance and more! http://www.priceline.com/ New York City hotel reservations, discounts, savings, deals http://www.express-res.com/ Discount New York City Hotel Reservations. Check out our free service for NYC hotel reservations with great discounts. Take a look. Specials from $99 www. Hotres.com Hotel Hotline in New York 130 hotels from $69 a night www.hoteldiscount.com A small selection of lower priced accommodation close to the U.N. All rates are daily, + 13.25% tax except for flats.: