CSD 17 Outcome Guarantees
a Sustainable Future for
the Globe
1
The Marrakech Process 3
Nadine Gouzée: Champion of
Sustainable Consumption and
Production
4
The Need for IWRM 5
Take the CSD Back Home! 6
There Is No Silver Bullet:
The Three E’s
7
New Clothes for the Emperor? 8
UNFCCC Crossword 9
Rio+20 10
Live from the CSD 11
Food for Thought... 12
CSD 17 Outcome Guarantees a
Sustainable Future for the Globe
Outreach Issues
Inside this Issue:
A daily publication of Sustainable Development Issues Network (SDIN) and Stakeholder Forum (SF)
FRIDAY May 15, 2009
1
Outreach Issues is the civil
society newsletter produced by
the SDIN Group (ANPED, TWN
and ELCI) and Stakeholder Forum.
Outreach Issues aims to report
with attitude, from the global
scene of sustainability.
The organizations publishing
Outreach Issues are not responsi-
ble for the content of signed
articles. Opinions expressed in
articles are those of the authors.
Continues on page 2
values, they would not mix the definition with
regular political negotiations.
Sometime between late Thursday evening and
early Friday morning delegates reached a noctur-
nal agreement during one of the informal
informals simply stating they would rather make
sure that the policy directives emanating from
the discussion met the standards of sustainable
development than obfuscating what is the
hallmark of CSD: sustainability. As a tired
but happy delegate expressed it: ‘The deep
understanding and respect the CSD 17
delegates here have shown for crucial definitions
protecting the environment and guaranteeing
social equity and a stable economy, clearly
demonstrates that the way forward to a
sustainable future now is guaranteed for the
duration of this century’.
The system of negotiations well respected.
The outcome sounds almost like a dream come
true: sustainable green agriculture will be the
dominant agricultural standards in every UN
Saturday, May 16.
Progressive! Forward looking! A sustainable
future is guaranteed! What had seemed an
impenetrable wall of intransigent positions a few
days ago, was solved during the final day of
negotiation at CSD.
Respect for usage and definitions for
sustainable development.
The agreements between the governments now
expressed in the CSD 17 outcome document
have in a miraculous way gone much farther than
the most critical major group representative
could have imagined a few days ago. Sustainable
development and ecosystem services are given
their proper understanding and due reference
has been made to agreed language from
earlier UN conferences on relevant sustainable
development themes. What seemed to begin a
week ago as a serious of misunderstandings and
political bickering over definitions of sustainable
development, have now been solved in a
constructive manner. Delegates have agreed that
as this definition is one of the true contributions
from the UN system to a global set of norms and
2
member nation, and is now the answer to
increased agricultural output that will
adequately meet the food crisis without
harming and exhausting the land resources
it depends on. The contentious issues
concerning trade distorting subsidies have
been moved out of the CSD discussions
and onto the WTO discussion where they
truly belong. And the somewhat heated
debate on climate change issues had
cooled down and though mentioned in a
chapeau, has been wisely deferred to the
climate negotiations which will continue in
Bonn in a few weeks.
‘After all’, our smiling but tired and
dreamlike delegate friend quietly said, ‘we
have developed a system within this
miraculous intergovernmental institution
of the UN where we have divided up
themes into various negotiating clusters,
policy assessment issues and so on. Every
delegate knows this. And you know, ‘he
said knowingly,’ if the delegates did not
understand the system or respected it,
they would not be welcome here at CSD
in these serious negotiations. We would
simply send them back to their capitals
for some field experience. Sustainable
development issues are too serious and
should not be played with.
The text cleaned up by wise delegates.
Cleaning up texts is an art in itself, and
only the seasoned, trained and wise
delegates are allowed to work on these
serious issues. New or inexperienced
delegates, often overly eager to do a good
job, tend to overload text with relevant
and irrelevant suggestions or mix up
language. This was indeed the case at the
beginning of the second week of CSD when
the negotiated text had grown from 17 to
almost 80 pages. ‘Some of these juniors
are not aware of the function of the IPM’
one of these wise text gurus said. ‘We all
know that the IPM’s primary function is to
take the best and most important issues
from the Review Session and distil it into a
negotiable document at the IPM. Where
we disagree, or need advice from the
capitals, we bracket texts. All this is done
at the IPM, and everybody respects this.
Then we come back after having consulted
seemed for a while to go off in a wrong
direction when some nations claimed SCP
– sustainable consumption and produc-
tion - were of no concern to them, as
poverty prevented them from taking such
issues serious. But a positive approach to
sustainable consumption and clean
production might solve this issue as well.
And even if many of the so-called
interlinkages issues caused some conster-
nation, the spirit of close cooperation and
deep desire to safeguard sustainable
development in this world have prevailed.
‘You know’, our dreamy delegate friend
said – ‘we delegates are not ignorant
of the subtleties of sustainable
development, its true meaning, the
importance of contexts. We know what
we are doing and we all want sustainable
development and strengthen CSD.’
This was not wishful thinking?
I drew a sigh of relief. I must say, the
delegates had me worried for a time.
I had really nourished serious suspicions
over motives that I thought some
delegates held. For a moment I had
thought that many had done their utmost
to derail sustainable development and
CSD. I am glad I am proven wrong on my
part and that this article is not wishful
thinking. Right?
— jgs
Outreach Issues
wisely over time, and use the CSD in May
to negotiate a solution to our differences.
But if you are new to the system, perhaps
young and eager, you might easily think
you have been given a superior mandate
over these procedural rules and come up
with new issues and new text at CSD.
The ultimate danger of doing this is to
make CSD into a ridiculous system, and
diminish the importance of sustainable
development. And I know that no one
here at the CSD has that in mind. By
accident, this is what happened over the
week end,’ our delegate friend said. ‘But
you know, wisdom, knowledge and
reason have now taken the upper hand
and serious representatives from G-77,
EU, JUSCANZ have sat down and solved
it.”
Implementation also solved.
Implementation issues had for a small
time become a contentious issue, and for
a day or so it had appeared as if G-77 had
inserted ‘implementation’ everywhere. It
seemed as if it had become synonymous
with an unbridled demand for more
money for economic development, with
a blatant disregard for sustainability
criteria. But now G-77 have deleted most
of these demands and according to the
well understood and respected modalities
and methodologies of CSD allowed this
issue to be deferred to development
negotiations where it really belongs.
A debate over the Marrakech process
3
called
‘we delegates are not ignorant
of the subtleties of sustainable
delegates had me worried for a time.
over motives that I thought some
Outreach Issues
There will be several inputs from the Marra-
kech process to CSD 18-19 both in the form
of regional consultations (prior to the CSD
Regional Implementation Meetings (RIM’s)),
as well as the 10YFP mentioned above. As a
first step in the convergence between the
Marrakech process and the CSD 18-19 a
draft of this framework has just been re-
leased for public consultation by UNEP and
UN DESA and it is imperative that civil soci-
ety and the Major Groups takes this early
opportunity to influence CSD 18-19 by com-
menting on the framework. More informa-
tion about the framework and the consulta-
tion can be found at
http://www.unep.fr/scp/marrakech or
http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess and all
organisations are invited to comment.
The last two cycles of the CSD has been less
than encouraging in terms of concrete com-
mitments and actions as per “Outreach Is-
sues” of yesterday. Moving forward the
issue of SCP will be central to making the
CSD count in terms of commitment and ac-
tion. As SCP was one of the most disputed
issues of the WSSD this is not going to be an
easy task – on the other hand the next CSD
cycle starts now and it is key that we move
the agenda of SCP swiftly forward by taking
the opportunities to get involved, that both
the CSD and the Marrakech process offers.
After all; making SCP real requires empow-
erment of all to take effective action. Such
action is dependent on regulation, interna-
tional negotiations and infrastructure
changes. Citizens cannot act alone and nor
can or should they bear the impact of unsus-
tainable consumption and production in the
blatant absence of international and na-
tional action and commitments. The last
CSD cycles have not resulted in substantial
action or commitments. It is crucial that CSD
18-19 changes that, moves away from token
and watered down statements and makes a
real difference.
Bjarne Pedersen, Director of Operations,
Consumers International
www.consumersinternational.org
The Marrakech Process By: Bjarne Pedersen, Director of Operations,
Consumers International
"The major cause of the continued deteriora-
tion of the global environment are the unsus-
tainable patterns of consumption and pro-
duction, particularly in industrialised coun-
tries, which is a matter of grave concern,
aggravating poverty and imbalances."
(Agenda 21 (Chap. 4.3), Earth Summit, Rio
1992)
We all know it: Unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption are having
grave social and environmental impacts
worldwide. Current consumption and pro-
duction patterns have far-reaching negative
consequences for ecosystems and human
lives and we should be acting swiftly to
change this. As an example many citizens,
particularly in the developing world, are
dealing with the effects of climate change
already and despite of global recognition of
the problem, there is a lack of effective ac-
tion and energy intensive behaviour patterns
continue.
The impact of unsustainable patterns of con-
sumption and production on food supply
chains, water service provision and utilities
for example, is being felt in devastating pro-
portions for many citizens in developing
countries. A united response is required,
following the established principle of solidar-
ity demanding action from businesses, gov-
ernments and international institutions to
dramatically reduce our ecological footprint.
There are many proposals already on the
table. The financial crisis sparked a global
discussion on the need for a paradigm shift
towards a global ‘green economy’ supporting
already agreed proposals and processes such
as the ‘CSD process’, the ‘Marrakech Process’
and the negotiations under the UN frame-
work convention on climate change. Yet, the
overall progress has been slow and the next
CSD cycle can (or maybe rather should) be
critical in facilitating the needed paradigm
shift to a low-carbon, green and develop-
ment-focused agenda.
For a start: two billion consumers worldwide
need increased access to energy (but in a
sustainable manner) while at the same time,
consumption that is already energy intensive
(mainly in developed countries) needs to be
changed. The joint solution to these prob-
lems is to provide sustainable access to en-
ergy for those who currently have little ac-
cess while consuming less energy (and more
energy from renewable energy sources) and
in a different manner in key sectors like
housing, transport and food.
Moving forward; The next CSD cycle and
SCP
One of the 5 themes for the next CSD cycle is
sustainable consumption and production
(SCP) and is as such key to moving this issue
forward. A central element of the SCP theme
will be a relatively unknown process “The
Marrakech Process”.
The Marrakech Process was launched in 2003
to build political support for the implementa-
tion of SCP and to provide input for CSD 18-
19. The Marrakech Process is a global proc-
ess to support the elaboration of a 10-Year
Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on sus-
tainable consumption and production, as
called for by the WSSD Johannesburg Plan of
Action. It is meant to help countries in their
efforts towards encouraging consumers to
adopt more sustainable lifestyles, facilitate a
move towards green economies and to help
corporations develop sustainable business
models.
such a long wait. The EU had been
keen to have the issue discussed
sooner.
Nadine, who’s background is in
Economics, believes the economic
component is as much needed as the
environmental and social components
of sustainable development. Their
coherent implementation requires a
shared vision across the integrated
development of these components.
However economic horizon for deci-
sion making is generally more or less in
5 year terms, social horizon is in one
generation while environmental is
minimum 50-100 years. Nadine states
that Sustainable Development is about
reconciling these three horizons in
sound decision making.
When I asked Nadine about the CSD in
the future, she said there were two
options, and both can be taken with a
positive viewpoint. One is that the CSD
continues to function. The role of the
commission is unique. It offers the
chance for all stakeholders to create
a global vision of Sustainable
Development, of a global future based
on common goals. The other option is
that those people, both governments
and civil society who are committed to
the ideals of Sustainable Development,
create a new movement, which helps
reinvigorate the process. The CSD
community can deliver it. She has the
real capacity to imagine an enabling
environment where future generations
can lead sustainable healthy lives.
4 4
Outreach Issues
Although this iniative ultimately failed,
many important ideas where discussed
and debated. The ideas and commit-
ments of sustainable development
where firmly placed on the world table.
A global sustainable development
process for an increasingly globalised
world. The EU has been actively
engaged in all CSD meetings and sees
the process as a fundamental way of
engaging with other stakeholders and
setting the path for a sustainable
future.
Since Rio, progress has been made,
governments, civil society and the
public have recognised the importance
of integrating social and environmen-
tal impacts and goals within their
strategic plans. There has been
progress on implementation especially
at the institutional level, but there are
still obstacles. The speed and rhythm of
the change has been slow, and the
current crises cannot be solved by slow
implementation.
There are a number of trends which
require attention for example in access
to food, water, energy, working
conditions, habitat conditions, biodiver-
sity loss… All these require a long term
view point. A view point that is
potentially being obscured by Climate
Change talks, although Climate Change
negotiations, are extremely important
too. But its dominant position within
the environmental agenda can be
detrimental to other concerns. Climate
Change should be part of the
Sustainable Development process not
the other way around.
Sustainable Development offers the
ability to look at issues in a cross
cutting way. The Commission on
Sustainable Development offers the
chance to discuss and negotiate
interlinkages and delivering between
synergies.
Changing unsustainable consumption
and production patterns is one of the
5 main issues to be discussed in the
next cycle. It is surprising that it is only
after such a long time that 1 of the 3
over arching objectives of the JPOI, is
finally on the table for discussion. It is
quite a paradox that there has been
Nadine Gouzée:
Champion of Sustainable Consumption and Production
Nadine has been involved in the CSD process for a number of years since she was special adviser on Energy and
Fiscal Policy to the Belgium ministerial delegate at Rio in 1992. She relates how at the Rio conference there was a
genuine optimism that real change could happen, especially in relation to Energy, including discussion on global
tax on Energy as a possible way of internalising environmental externalities, at the Global level.
By: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum
Nadine Gouzée
Nadine, who’s background is in
a global vision of Sustainable
7 5
Outreach Issues
Yet the anticipated level of dialogue, at least
in Conference Room 6, unfortunately never
really materialized. Firstly delegates seemed
unwilling to abandon prepared statements,
or to build on each other’s comments to
generate a genuine dialogue. Secondly,
there appeared to be a reluctance to engage
with integrated land and water resources
management as a holistic concept, and the
lack of in-depth engagement should be a
cause for disappointment and concern
among the water community.
Some interesting points were raised by a
number of delegates. Denmark shared the
five principles that have emerged from the
Dialogue on Land and Water Management
for Climate Change Adaptation, which offer
an extremely useful framework for guiding
discussions into Copenhagen. Burkina Faso
followed suit as a country who has engaged
heavily in those dialogues. The Netherlands
helpfully introduced a (lone) call for the right
to water and sanitation services, as well as
the need to ratify the UN Watercourses
Convention. However, all-too-often the
discussions strayed into areas that did not
grapple effectively with the issues. Much
time was dedicated to the issue of land
tenure and security without many insights
on land-use. Some interventions went
completely off-topic.
It seems a shame that whilst water manage-
ment has been given only cursory attention
in the main working groups, a whole pleth-
ora of other issues managed to make their
way into the one space that was that was
supposedly dedicated to integrated water
and land management. The real questions
that should have been addressed during the
Roundtable, and for which UNDESA helpfully
gave much food for thought in their briefing
note, were unfortunately sidelined – how to
manage water to preserve land quality, how
to manage water among competing users,
how to guarantee ecosystem and climate
resilience through water management, and,
perhaps most importantly considering the
level of the discussions, how to enhance
understanding of and capacity to implement
IWRM.
The Freshwater Caucus together produced a
statement that was distributed ahead of the
Roundtables, which identified some of the
points that we hoped would be raised or
discussed by the delegates. It called for a
recognition that we are facing nothing short
of a water crisis, with the proportion of the
world’s population living in areas of water
stress predicted to rise to 47% by 2030. If we
are to address this crisis with anything near
the level of urgency that seems to have been
The Need for IWRM
generated around the food crisis, we need
to radically re-think the way water is used
and managed, especially in the context of
rising demand in the agricultural sector co-
inciding with diminishing availability in cer-
tain regions. Recognising these drivers of
pressures on our water systems, which
stand to be exacerbated by climate
change, we need to reappraise water rights
allocation systems, guaranteeing minimum
environmental flows and prioritising human
and ecosystem needs ahead of other
demands in response to water scarcity. This
principle is inherent in the IWRM approach,
and yet despite the Freshwater Caucus
drafting numerous statements and text
amendments over the course of the past
two weeks, the importance of environ-
mental flows has found little traction
among delegates.
The Freshwater Caucus called for strength-
ened institutions on the riverbasin and
transboundary level, and for enhanced
efforts and education to translate the
technical concept of IWRM into everyday
terms for a range of stakeholders. The need
for equitable and environmentally sensitive
transboundary management arrangements
was also highlighted.
An overarching concern among the water
community is that decisions which have
huge impacts on water resources continue
to made ‘outside the water box’. The
profoundly enlightening World Water
Development Report, launched just a few
months ago, emphasises this problem as
one of its key messages.
The decision to schedule a roundtable on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management during the High
Level Segment of CSD17 represented a welcome move towards a more substantive discussion of the role of water
in relation to the other thematic issues. If there is one issue that can be seen as integral to every theme under
discussion here at CSD17, it is water, its availability, quality and quantity. As such the conversations in the
roundtable were eagerly anticipated by those focussing on water and land management issues.
By: Hannah Stoddart, Stakeholder Forum
6 6
Outreach Issues
But it also avoids the problem, that every
year a government or major group sends a
total new delegation to New York. Mostly a
group of thematic experts, for the issues
handled during that cycle. This means there
is no common understanding, no common
language, no knowledge on Agenda 21
or JPOI. The best and most productive
delegations would be a small core group of
sustainable development experts, supported
by thematic experts. That guarantees an
ongoing and most of all a process with
forward momentum, instead of days filled
with old discussions on issues which were
discussed already. Of course this will also
deliver a better understanding of the
interlinkages and cross cutting issues.
If the CSD wants to play a leadership role in
global governance, we recommend the
delegates take the principles of sustainable
development back home, make it institu-
tional and train a group of politicians,
diplomats, public servants, key persons in
civil society, journalists, ... in your country.
Especially for the next cycle, where
sustainable production and consumption is
a necessary outcome, and there is a strong
need for more people with a broad and
open view for long term analyses and the
capacity to connect the interlinkages and to
understand complex issues.
Take the CSD Back Home! By: Leida Rijnhout, Flemish Platform for Sustainable
Development (VODO)
It seems to get worse every year. Listening to
all the discussions, one is confronted with
the cruel reality that a lot of delegates are
not aware of the history and importance
of Agenda 21 or Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation (JPOI) and the ongoing
and complex processes in sustainable
development. A lot of the concepts, working
and agreed upon language within CSD is not
even known! Sometimes I really do ask
myself if delegates have read Agenda 21, if
they know any of the basic principles and if
they are aware of the promises they made in
Johannesburg, the (few) targets they even
agreed or even the role of the CSD within the
UN-institutions. More and more, and we
have to walk with our heads hung low,
ashamed as the CSD has become a follower
for other UN-negotiations, rather than a
leader in setting an overall framework, with
strong ethical and moral principles, as a
guide for governmental policy. To be a leader
you need a strong vision, and thus strong
national delegations and major groups.
Collective memory and knowledge of agreed
language is a necessary precondition, if you
want progress in the process at the CSD.
So you need professional experts on sustain-
able development, which takes time and
experience. Sustainable development is
much more complex than most of the
underlying thematic issues. It requires an
integrated and holistic approach that you
only will even slightly understand after years
of working in these matters.
It is very important that every country,
region and city has experts on sustainable
development for implementation of Agenda
21 and JPOI at the different scales. Being
here and talking is not enough. So
sustainable development needs to be
institutionalised at the different levels.
A legal framework will guarantee the
institutionalisation of these processes.
Belgium for example has recently integrated
sustainable development in their constitu-
tion, but even before then, since 1997 there
exists an entire structure (by law) for the
institutionalisation.
This forced the various public administra-
tions to integrate sustainable development
into their work, formed a federal council on
sustainable development, required federal
planning and monitoring on sustainable
development and last but not least a
ministerial responsibility for sustainable
development. That helps to create a large
group of people (also within the major
groups) as experts on sustainable
development. Capacity building and experi-
ence is then continuous with this
institutionalisation. And of course national
strategies for sustainable development will
have more success, as you have a specific
administration that is responsible and
accountable for its implementation.
“Collective memory and
knowledge of agreed
language is a necessary
precondition, if you want
progress in the process
at the CSD.”
meet the challenge of creating both a le-
arning society and a framework that
achieves human and environmental
security. First is the human capacity for
ingenuity and the intellectual energy that
can devise solutions to a problem and
improve well-being. Secondly, through
engaging people in sustainable develop-
ment so that everyone gains experiential
knowledge around protecting ecosystems,
environmental education and sustainable
practices, we may avert the possibility of a
collapse in public support for any form of
effective action on policy.
A rapidly changing context demands
methodologies and indicators that lay the
basis for adaptive, flexible and responsive
management regimes. Policies and
actions in this area do not match the
realities on the ground: for their very
existence, local communities have to
engage in highly complex decision-making
in response to changing ecosystem
conditions. An informed polity and
informed civil society require actions that
go well beyond compliance and
controlling behavior. Sustainable
development requires a foundation built
upon an organizational learning model to
implement eco-effective policy-making,
planning, and implementation of national,
regional, and global priorities. This is
where we need to identify what
governments, international organizations,
and civil society organizations are doing
about environmental education and
sustainability that support environmental
security and human development.
Annual Ministerial Review 2008,
Stakeholder Input on Environmental
Services.
http://amr.stakeholderforum.org/
fileadmin/files/AMR_2008/
PES_Statement_1st_July_2008.pdf
7 7
Outreach Issues
There Is No Silver Bullet: The Three E’s
By: P.J. Puntenney, Education Caucus Coordinator
The thematic issues being addressed in the
CSD 17 Policy Session are interdependent
and of such complexity, that attempts to
ameliorate one issue can exacerbate
another and worsen the situation as a
whole. Meeting the challenges of food
security, climate change, and sustainable
livelihoods requires a firm commitment to
effectively protect ecosystems.
There is no silver bullet. Achieving policy
coherence - including coherence of donor
support - depends upon understanding
where we are, what’s working, what’s
not, and what are the options and
opportunities at all levels of engagement.
The over-arching objective of eradicating
poverty and achieving sustainable systems
of living is integrally linked to The Three
E’s: Environment, Education, and the
Engagement of civil society.
Rethinking Environmental Education and
Sustainability Policy
The tone of the negotiations has shifted
towards revisions that acknowledge the
value of engaging diverse stakeholders
who directly face the impacts of degraded
ecosystems. The complex and imperfectly
understood global issues - such as climate
change, water and sanitation, biodiversity
loss, food security, poverty reduction, and
rural and urban systems - demand a
profound understanding of their
integration within social-cultural systems,
and their on-going development. Failure to
hold environmental education and
sustainability in the final text will exact
an even higher price from society but
especially from the poor and vulnerable
populations, undermining capacity building
efforts for women, the elderly, youth and
children, indigenous peoples, local
communities, and workers that will lead to
sustainable communities and sustainable
livelihoods.
Before the environment was positioned on
the global political agenda, development
strategies were driven by the social and
economic components, and the failure
rates were high. The ecosystem interface is
non-negotiable, requiring implementation
strategies that heed the limitations of
human knowledge in terms of manage-
ment and application. The common
ground - global responsibilities linked to
local realities - necessitates strong policy
options and implementation strategies
that are knowledge-based and incorpora-
te: (A) the precautionary principle (B) eco-
effectiveness as the measure of real suc-
cess, and (C) the Agenda 21 Principle #7,
“Common but Differentiated Responsibili-
ties.”
Linking Knowledge Sharing and Action to
Meeting the Realities of the Future
It has become clear that most government
delegates and civil society organizations
benefit from briefings and training
seminars regarding ecosystems, their
protection, approaches and methodolo-
gies. There are strong grounds for hope to
The notion of diverse stakeholder engagement and protecting the health of humans and natural systems has been
with us for some time. As human development and economic security loom large on the horizon, policy is being
directly and indirectly reshaped to do more “for” people, not “to” them: at the global level to the local level, tap-
ping into traditional, community, local, and indigenous peoples’ knowledge.
public policies are not able to guarantee a
stable environment for these investments.
Keys to food security and food sovereignty
are small-scale farmers, a greater focus on
people living in drylands, and sustainable
agriculture. It is likely, that without any
concrete commitment by governments to
actions and support, it will remain a
general and generous declaration. To
paraphrase the Namibian Minister Mrs.
Nandi-Ndaitwah: ‘when there are no
resources, we keep the same implementa-
tion of decisions as in the past…’
Not all parties have the same notion or
interpretation of certain concepts in terms
of content, range and scope.
‘Desertification’, ‘sustainable’ or ‘double’
Green Revolution lack a shared definition
which leads to false expectations.
Arriving at the end of the CSD17 session,
we observe that the outcome, if any, is still
far away from being a tool for change
towards sustainable development. Despite
the reassuring declarations of many heads
of state to refrain from business as usual,
CSD17 seems to be missing a historical
opportunity. It is an urgent time to
examine the intermediate results in the
context of current crisis and emergencies.
There is already so much text in so many
multilateral agreements. Where are the
concrete plans of implementation and,
even better, where are the actual actions
coming out of these texts? The original
text has grown from 17 pages to 120 pages
with many new details but where an
important adjective is being bracketed
(sustainable in front of agriculture). To
refer to the well-known fairy tale: the em-
peror is still naked!
The UNCCD has been recognised and
confirmed as the main framework for the
implementation of sustainable develop-
ment in drylands. But 12 years after being
entered in force, this convention is still
poorly supported and as a consequence
national action plans (NAPs) are poorly
implemented. Agriculture and pastoralism
in drylands consist of small-scale activities,
but feed the people living in these
drylands. The reality is that most poor
countries cannot afford to implement all
the UNCCD policies. What is needed are
concrete commitments and actions
through cooperation, both South-South
and South-North cooperation.
With regard to small-scale farmers,
governments have done little to enable
any real improvement in their livelihoods.
The zealous call for public private partner-
ship will remain an illusion as long as
By: Patrice Burger (CARI - France), Nathalie van Haren
(Both ENDS – The Netherlands) Lauren Naville Gisnås
(The Drylands Coordination Group - Norway)
New Clothes for the Emperor?
The same story applies to protectionism
and subsidies for agriculture. Recent
history teaches us that Europe and the
USA have developed their strong competi-
tive position in agriculture behind trade
barriers which today would be considered
as ‘protectionist’ by themselves! Let us
remind ourselves that in 1948, the USA
struggled to keep agriculture out of the
GATT. But what is the legitimacy of these
countries to deny small-scale farmers in
other parts of the world their own recipe
of training, technical support, credit, ap-
propriate technology and the guarantee
that the agricultural produce will be
bought at a fair price?
As for the negotiations, roundtables and
dialogues, it was difficult to observe
concrete steps for a paradigm shift to-
wards a people-centred green society.
Parties reverted constantly to their own
topics. There seems no concrete action
plan, nor ways of financing these
ambitious aspirations: old wine in new
bottles; it is far from the anticipated steps
forward. The Emperor is indeed naked to
the elements.
8 8
Outreach Issues
Photo: ”Drought” by RRI Images @ Flickr
“What is needed are concrete
commitments and actions
through cooperation, both
South-South and South-North
cooperation.”
plan, nor ways of financing these
7 9
Outreach Issues
10 10
Outreach Issues
six, I have heard from my basement corridor
colleagues that the Rio Summit breathed life
into civil society in 1992. While it is important
to explore fully the policy implications of a 2012
Summit, it is also important to consider how
the Summit might serve to inspire us. As the
CSD-17 is ready to close, we see many
dispirited and discouraged participants walking
through these halls. The hope that has deflated
among many of us here comes at a time we can
least afford it.
It is perhaps through the perspective of a
younger participant that a 2012 Earth Summit
makes the most sense. Younger participants
at the CSD need to be assured that the
multilateral process works. We need to feel
confident in the common future that was
envisioned for us in 1987. In his poem The
Waste Land, T.S. Eliot makes his gentle appeal
that resonates with me now. In one small verse
of his poem, he says it better than I.
Hurry up please, it's time.
Based on the recent number of articles on
Rio+20 in Outreach Issues, it may now be
evident that the prospect of a 2012 Earth
Summit has garnered the support of many civil
society participants here at the CSD. The recent
article by Anabella Rosemberg explains how a
2012 Summit can alter the existing paradigm in
which the CSD operates. A 2012 Summit,
according to Rosemberg, can increase public
pressure, revive the spirit of social and environ-
mental integration, and generate new and well
funded government commitments. As a young
person that has been involved in the CSD
process, I would like to offer two additional
arguments that support the movement to
create a 2012 Earth Summit. First, a 2012
Summit can integrate a much-needed security
dimension to the sustainable development
discourse and second, a 2012 Summit can bring
hope back in the multilateral process.
Security & the CSD - A relationship
under-examined?
It might seem strange to consider how the CSD
relates to violent social conflict or military-
related issues, but perhaps we ought to explore
this relationship more. The nature of environ-
mental issues has changed rapidly since the
2002 Johannesburg Summit. The food crisis, as
just one example, has affected social stability in
countries around the world through food riots.
In response, Ban Ki-Moon warned that the food
crisis could undo the work done toward
building democracies, but it could also present
a historic opportunity to revisit past policies
and revitalize agricultural practice. A proactive
take on environmental security issues would
emphasize the prevention of conflicts before
they occur in the first place. Here at the CSD,
we have the chance to protect the very condi-
tions necessary for peace. The provision of
healthy food, the steady supply of drinking
water … - these are all necessary conditions for
social stability.
There is a great demand for concrete and
low-cost policies that can help us prevent
future resource-related conflict. The CSD
process is unique for its emphasis on a holistic
and integrative framework for sustainable
development. Daniel Deudney, a Professor of
political science at Johns Hopkins University,
states how most multilateral efforts
compartmentalize violent conflict as something
that is seperate from sustainable development.
As a result, Deundney states, "a permanent
dialogue should emerge between specialists
in environmental security and sustainable
development." It is time we address how the
work of sustainable development is also
the work of world peace. It is therefore
appropriate that one of the suggested titles for
a 2012 Summit is "Sustainable Development -
The Peace of the Future."
Bringing Back Hope
More than any policy consideration, though,
what inspires me most about the prospect of a
2012 Summit is the simple, desperate, need for
change. It is possible that a 2012 Summit can
help catalyze this change. The youth caucus, as
just one example, has changed considerably
following the Rio and Johannesburg Summits.
It was during these Summits that our vision
formed and our membership grew. While I
cannot attest to this first-hand, as I busy being
Rio+20 By: Joanna Dafoe, Sierra Youth Coalition
7 11
Outreach Issues
Listen to the penultimate edition of ‘Earth
talk’ as Wilfred Legg, the Head of Policies
and Environment Directorate at the OECD
and Neth Dano of Third World Network
intensely debate on the subject of food
sovereignty. Food sovereignty is a debate
that has heated up in the last two weeks at
the CSD especially due to the scale of last
year’s food crisis. Many NGOs at the
CSD are now calling for greater ‘food
sovereignty’. But what do we mean by Food
Sovereignty? Catherine Karong’o takes you
through this debate with Legg and Dano
who, despite agreeing on the need to end
the constant food shocks, disagree on the
means.
for that deal? Joining Richard Black on this
edition of Green Table are Carsten Stauer,
Denmark's ambassador to the UN; his
Samoan counterpart Ali'ioaiga Feturi Elisaia;
and Andrew Revkin, environment reporter
with the New York Times.
On Today at CSD, we bring you all the latest
news and talk from the day’s discussions. In
today’s episode, Merim Teniv talks with
Kusum Athukorala, the communication
officer of Women for Water, and David
Andrews, the senior representative for Food
and Water Watch, about the pros and cons
of public-private partnerships and how that
might affect access to water. We also hear
about a mushroom farming program in
Ghana, a new climate change report and we
talk about communicating climate change –
through theater. We bust the jargon “food
sovereignty” and we explore what green
space means to New Yorkers with a trip to
Central Park. In live at the CSD.
Live from the CSD http://media.stakeholderforum.org
By: Catherine Karong’o and Brett Israel,
Stakeholder Forum In Pioneers of the Planet we profile Achim
Steiner, Executive Director of the United
Nations Environment Programme. Achim
was born in Brazil in 1961 and was the
former director general of IUCN before
taking up his role at the UNEP.
Our Greentable discussion was on the on
the commonly heard demand “We must
have a deal in Copenhagen" as we lurch
towards the supposedly seminal UN climate
conference in December. But with a new
president in the Washington White House,
and with world leaders' minds on restoring
business in the banking sector, what
prospects are there for a deal that will make
a significant dent in emissions? Which
countries are going to have to trade what
17 is ready to close, we see many
at the CSD need to be assured that the
I am a huge fan of Agenda 21, but what I don’t
understand is why no one else seems to be!
Well that’s not completely true; everyone says
that they are fans, but a real fan gets into
appreciating what an amazingly well structured
document it is. A real fan looks with hope for
each passing year that the Bureau will look back
at that structure and say, ‘Wow, let’s use that to
structure the CSD outcome’.
Sometimes, as the days become nights , as the
text looks increasingly unstructured and issues
aren’t being addressed effectively, some ‘fans’
can be found in the Vienna Café discussing how
if only we could have a well structured
document… all would be well.
Of course, this discussion also went on around
the preparations for Johannesburg, another
document that could have done with proper
structuring. I remember some of us at Prepcom
2, having a long discussion with an un-named
European delegate about the text. We were
saying that if you sort out the structure, it will
sort out the conversations that you need to
have. They didn’t agree; look at what happened.
Stakeholder Forum’s policy coordinator during
Johannesburg, Rosalie Callway, attempted to
update the Agenda 21 structure. The structure
of a document can be critical on a number of
fronts. A well structured document:
1. Enables gaps to be clearly identified;
2. Identifies problem areas to be focused on;
and
3. Allows for principles and mainstreaming to
be integrated.
Food for Thought… Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum
Working with Stakeholder Forum’s international
advisory board, she tabled this suggested
approach.
Each section of the agreement should set
Poverty Eradication as an overarching theme.
Furthermore the sections should mainstream
the following aims:
1 Rio Principles
2 Sustainable Production and
Consumption
3 Enhancing Globalisation
4 Millennium Development Goals
5 Human Rights
6 Gender Equity
7 Good Governance
Each section will be organised under the
following structure:
Introduction to the overarching topic: Outline
general issues/problems.
A. Programme areas: Identify priority issues,
e.g. renewable energy.
B. Basis for action: Chapters in Agenda 21, CSD
decisions, Millennium Development Goals,
setting of additional targets.
C. Objectives: For each priority issue, outline
aims and purpose for action, e.g. to improve
access to renewable energy, improve trade
policy for energy provision, etc.
D. Activities at all levels: International to local
action, touching on priorities for existing
institutions, roles of stakeholders, and outlining
new institutional areas.
E. Means of implementation: Including capac-
ity building, technology sharing, education and
training (targeting sustainable development).
F. Financial resources: Public (domestic and
foreign, aid and investment) and Private
(business, foundations, NGOs and other)
resources.
G. Timetable and targets: 5, 10, 15 years.
H. Information for decision-making: Monitor-
ing and assessing progress, Indicators, data
management and provision.
Perhaps the next Bureau meeting will consider
this kind of an approach.
“The Structure of a Document”
Senior Editor: Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED
Co-Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum
Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum
Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED
Contributing writers:
Bjarne Pedersen, Consumers International
Hannah Stoddart, Stakeholder Forum
Leida Rijnhout, (VODO)
P.J. Puntenney, Education Caucus Coordinator
Patrice Burger, CARI
Nathalie van Haren, Both ENDS
Lauren Naville Gisnås, The Drylands Coordination Group
Miquel Muñoz Cabré, Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future
Joanna Dafoe, Sierra Youth Coalition
Catherine Karong’o, Stakeholder Forum
Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum
EDITORIAL TEAM Previous and today’s issues are easily available online, go to:
www.sdin-ngo.net
media.stakeholderforum.org
Outreach Issues
12
Outreach Issues is made
possible through the
generous support of: .
THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA
AND
THE BELGIUM FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION ON SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (PODDO)
(Edited by Aleksandra Radyuk)
ANPED’s newsletter on
sustainable consumption and production
The Switch is ANPED's monthly newsletter on initiatives that are making the switch to a society of sustainable consumption and production. The Switch covers develop-ments in the wide spectrum of SCP issues and includes recommended selected articles, interesting websites, and provides links to more in-depth information on new developments and publications. The Switch also keeps you updated on upcoming conferences and events.
Read current and previous issues at our website, www.anped.org