CSD 17 Day 10 - 14 May 2009

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