|
Published by
the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Vol. 22 No. 18
Friday, 8 February 2002
WSSD PREPCOM II HIGHLIGHTS:
THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2002
Delegates met in a morning Plenary
to hear presentations from Indonesia and South Africa about
preparations for PrepCom IV and the Johannesburg Summit. Sustainable
development governance was discussed in an informal consultation in
the afternoon, concluding consideration of the Chair’s List of
Issues and Proposals for Discussion.
PLENARY
Vice-Chair Kiyotaka Akasaka
(Japan) invited Indonesia and South Africa to make presentations on
the arrangements for PrepCom IV and the Summit.
The Indonesian delegation
presented a video on preparations for PrepCom IV to be held at the
Jakarta Convention Center from 27 May to 7 June 2002, noting that:
logistical information is available on their website:
www.pc-wssd.com; and as World Environment Day is 5 June, there will
be an exhibition parallel to the meeting from 4-7 June.
The South African delegation made
a presentation on preparations and logistics for the WSSD,
describing in detail the various formal and side events, as well as
social and cultural activities at Summit venues in Johannesburg. He
noted the significance of the "cradle of humankind" event
planned for invited leaders, who will gather at an archeological
site "at the dawn of a new Century." He also explained
facilities to be provided for UN delegations and NGO participants,
and opportunities for interaction during the Summit. Additional
details are available at www.joburgsummit2002.com.
INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS
PrepCom Vice-Chairs Lars-Göran
Engfeldt (Sweden) and Ositadinma Anaedu (Nigeria) co-chaired the
open-ended informal consultation on sustainable development
governance, which was based on an informal paper they circulated on
Thursday, 31 January, containing questions to guide discussion. The
"non-cluster" on governance from PrepCom Chair Salim’s List
of Issues and Proposals for Discussion was also considered
during this session. Co-Chair Engfeldt opened the session and
introduced a panel of speakers who described their experiences with
ongoing institutional reforms.
Sarbuland Khan, Director, ECOSOC
Affairs and Coordination Division, DESA, discussed reforms within
ECOSOC, drawing attention to recurring themes in the process such as
mobilization of resources and achievement of results at all levels.
He identified ECOSOC as the fulcrum where the regional dimension can
be integrated by promoting coherence among the UN, international
financial institutions and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Alvaro Umaña, Director, Environment and Sustainable Development
Group, UNDP, identified problems in integrating all three pillars of
sustainable development such as fragmented sectoral approaches to
development and compartmentalized agencies that compete instead of
cooperate.
Adnan Amin, Director, NY UNEP
Office, described the evolution of UNEP and its International
Environmental Governance process, and discussed the document to be
negotiated at the Seventh Special Session of the Governing
Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Cartagena, Colombia.
Qazi Shaukat Fareed, Director, Office of Interagency Affairs,
described the reform of the Administrative Committee on Coordination
(ACC), identifying challenges in institutional restructuring
processes.
In response to the presentations,
CANADA noted that ECOSOC had not provided coordination and
integration with the CSD’s work, and also expressed concern that
an ad hoc approach could not command resources or commitment.
KENYA enquired about what is envisioned as the result of the
International Environmental Governance and sustainable development
governance processes, and BOLIVIA enquired about the relationship
between UNEP and the WTO, and UNEP’s view of sustainable
development governance. EGYPT enquired about how the three
sustainable development pillars could be integrated at ECOSOC,
particularly as the Bretton Woods Institutions operate at "arms
length" from the UN.
ECOSOC highlighted its
contributions to the CSD’s multi-year programme of work and noted
the opportunity to enhance coherence through the International
Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) provisions relating to
the Bretton Woods Institutions. The Office of Interagency Affairs
noted that heads of agencies prefer dynamic and flexible networking,
and the existence of opportunities to provide substance to the
Office’s information exchange system. UNEP reiterated the
anticipated outputs of the International Environmental Governance
process, stated that the WSSD’s challenge was how to integrate the
International Environmental Governance equation into the Summit
process, and drew attention to UNEP’s work on trade and
environment with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
and its Memorandum of Understanding with the WTO regarding potential
future conflicts in this area.
Co-Chair Anaedu invited comments
on the Co-Chair’s informal submission of sustainable development
governance questions, underlining that the Co-Chairs were not
responsible for the addendum on the governance
"non-cluster" annexed to the List
of Issues and Proposals for Discussion.
In the ensuing discussion,
Argentina, for the G-77/CHINA, stated the Group’s wish not to
comment on the "non-cluster," preferring instead a
reference in the Chair’s Report to the informal consultations
initiated by the Vice-Chairs, and emphasized the need to determine
objectives before the approach. He also emphasized: institutional
linkages at the international level; the potential, but unrealized,
role of regional commissions; possible involvement of the UNDP
country offices in national sustainable development strategies; and
development of general principles for national governance. He said
the proposal for an international sustainable development court had
far-reaching implications, and good governance was not a recognized
pillar of sustainable development. Spain, on behalf of the EU,
supported discussions on sustainable development governance and
urged consideration of: governance at national, regional and
international levels; instruments to evaluate proposals and execute
measures undertaken at these levels; FfD outcomes to reinforce
measures for WSSD follow-up; the role of regional commissions; and
instruments to support capacity building and technical assistance on
national level governance.
NORWAY urged: strengthening of
existing institutions and improving how they work separately and
together; identifying the areas of sustainable development
governance focus; and building capacity for national level
governance in developing countries. POLAND proposed consideration
of: local and subregional governance; bilateral cooperation; UN
agency coordination; and a sustainable development code. SWITZERLAND
called for extending stakeholder involvement to include monitoring
and support on implementation, changing the CSD focus and method of
work, and addressing new challenges such as globalization, new
communication technologies, and genetics. CANADA emphasized linking
CSD work to activities in the UN system, particularly those of
regional commissions, and said that countries without good
governance tend not to receive ODA, but rather disaster relief or
military assistance. EGYPT said that developed country commitments
must also be monitored and enforced, and with SOUTH AFRICA and
CANADA, called for increased participation of ministers other than
those of the environment. EGYPT and CANADA opposed any new fourth
pillar of sustainable development.
CHINA called attention to: Agenda
21 implementation means; national differences in regards to
indicators; and problems associated with integrating the
International Environmental Governance discussion into the WSSD
process. HUNGARY concurred with the G-77/ China in regards to
referencing the governance "non-cluster," and called for a
clear conception of governance and consideration of institutional
setting and cooperation, including with other non-UNCED
international agreements. He also noted the dilemma of parallel
planning processes caused by national sustainable development
strategies. The US underscored the legitimacy of the International
Environmental Governance process, recognized the three pillars of
sustainable development, proposed focusing on the effectiveness,
efficiency and rationale of the CSD, and stressed: the role of
national governments in providing a suitable environment and
infrastructure for sustainable development; effective institutions;
science-based decision making; access to information; stakeholder
participation; and access to justice.
TANZANIA called for: strengthening
and supporting the CSD in order to integrate policies, limit overlap
and strengthen implementation; improving interdepartmental
coordination for programmatic links within the UN system;
strengthening regional institutions, particularly commissions; and
providing UNEP with a strengthened, predictable financial base.
BOLIVIA shared their progress on
national governance since Rio and urged caution in creating new
structures when there is no capacity or resources to carry out
duties. JAPAN agreed that good domestic governance is a key element
for sustainable development and said advances in information
technology should be promoted as tools for better decision making.
AUSTRALIA supported concrete steps in overcoming fragmentation and
elimination of overlap in existing institutions, and called for
policy integration at the national level as a top priority for
national governance, noting that capacity building has limited
benefit if fundamental elements of the national system are not
coordinated within a sustainable development framework.
NIGERIA said that strengthening
institutional frameworks for sustainable development is the only way
to reach targets, and noted the need for: coordination of regional
level commissions; further work on CSD indicators; a participatory
approach; avoidance of duplication of institutions; and partnerships
and networking. IRAN said that sustainable development governance
must have appropriate objectives and consider related questions of
trade, finance, technology, coordination, and cooperation, as well
as accession of different countries to the WTO.
The UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY
described its work on linkages between multilateral environmental
agreements, building capacity and awareness, and called for a
scientific assessment of governance. SAUDI ARABIA singled out
coordination, transparency and participation of all stakeholders,
and called for better use of existing institutions and a focus on
the regional level. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA said overhauling the
current system is unrealistic, and suggested concentrating on
short-term options for improving governance, while avoiding a single
environmental focus.
IN THE CORRIDORS
While some participants were
expressing disappointment regarding the limited input from Major
Group contributions to the Chair�s List of Issues and Proposals
for Discussion, members of the CSD NGO Steering Committee
circulated a letter of complaint to all PrepCom Vice-Chairs on
Thursday, voicing concern regarding the lack of participation of
NGOs in the preparatory process, citing selectivity and
non-transparency in the choice and participation of NGOs.
Although the allegations that the
CSD NGO Steering Committee was deliberately excluded from the
PrepCom process appear to be true, many NGOs, who seemed unaware of
the letter, also questioned the secretive manner in which the
network sought audience with the Bureau, and the fact that
preparation of the NGO CSD position paper for the Multi-Stakeholder
Dialogues was not the sole avenue for NGO participation.
Nevertheless, the matter has raised the broader question of the
locus � governments, Bureau, Secretariat or other NGOs � of
authority (or even legitimacy) to sanction or prevent participation
of accredited NGOs that may be construed as "errant."
Meanwhile, accreditation of the
NGO, International Campaign for Tibet, which supports Tibetan
self-determination, is expected to be put to a vote during Friday�s
morning Plenary.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
PLENARY:
Delegates will meet in Conference Room 1 from 10:00 am � 1:00 pm
to consider organizational matters and the Chair�s Report, which
is expected to be circulated during the Plenary. Delegates are
expected to reconvene from 3:00 � 6:00 pm to hear concluding
remarks, adopt the report and close the session of the Preparatory
Committee.
|
