Network 2002
April 2000
Volume I Issue I

EARTH SUMMIT 2002  RHETORIC OR REALITY?

Chip Lindner & Ashok Khosla, former Executive Director & Chair of the board of the Centre for our Common Future respectively, call for an end to continued rhetoric - time for action!

Earth Summit 2002, the second global gathering of governments and civil society since the Rio Conference, is fast approaching. It is scheduled to take place in June of 2002 and its agenda is now being set. The immediate question for governments, the private sector and civil society as a whole is whether this will be another environment conference wrapped up in development paper or whether it will also address the otherissues of sustainable development, poverty in all its dimensions, lack of livelihoods, limited access to health care and debilitating debt.  

Unless the conference deals with issues of equity as well as environment, we will not be focusing on sustainable development because we will not have even begun to meet the needs of the present, much less laying the foundations to protect the interests and needs of future generations. 

Some progress has been made since Rio in addressing vital environmental issues: the Climate Convention, the Biodiversity Convention, the Treaty on POPs and various agreements and conventions on natural resource conservation. If we look at the development side of the sustainable development agenda, however, we encounter another face entirely. Neither at, nor since, the Rio Conference has any real progress been made on the issues that really matter: poverty, inequities and the lack of social justice.  Unless governments, the private sector and civil society throughout the world take on the challenge of poverty much more seriously than has been the case in the past, very little, if any progress, can be expected to be made in the future.   

It would even be justifiable for Earth Summit 2002 to focus its attention on the poverty issues and their manifestations and leave the environmental agenda aside for the time being. One conference, as shown by Rio itself, cannot solve all problems.  Indeed many would argue that it cannot solve anything at all. We believe, to the contrary, that much can be accomplished at Earth Summit 2002, but to have a long lasting effect, governments and the global community of civil society must come together with a sense of real priority and commitment in 2002 to have any hope of achieving concrete progress on even a limited set of initiatives. Rio focused our attention, to be sure. But to be truthful, one has to admit that our attention was captured more by the rhetoric of the moment than by any concrete actions. Indeed population growth, globalisation, diminishing resources, AIDS and the lack of commitment to debt relief have left the majority of the world worse off than it was in 1992. 

Let us not make the same mistake again, ten years later!  Too many people now depend upon a global system of finance and governance that has yet to demonstrate that it can have positive effects on their lives. Isn't it time we begin to take action and drop the rhetoric? What is needed now more than ever (almost thirty years after Stockholm, 15 years after Brundtland and 10 years after Rio) is real action to address poverty and not more empty words.

Our world has reached a state of gross immorality and injustice.  Tinkering around the edges of environmental problems is not going to provide the global community with the tools it needs to get us through this new century. For that we need change and action, not rhetoric.  Isn't 30 years of discussion enough? Can we not move on? Or are we destined to see even greater human suffering before we are moved to action? 

Unfortunately the choices are now so stark that we cannot put our heads in the sand and hope everything goes away. We must act and now! 
Chip Lindner & Ashok Khosla

Networking the Agenda
UNED-Forum Co-Chairs introduce you to the process

Margaret Brusasco-MacKenzie & Derek Osborn, UNED-Forum's Vice-Chair & Chair respectively, report on 'Getting Involved in Earth Summit 2002 - How Major Groups can participate.'  

Early in 2000 the UN Secretary General conducted consultations with Governments to ascertain their views about what should be the scope of the 2002 review and how the preparatory process should be handled between governments. In the light of these consultations he made preliminary suggestions on these matters in March 2000 which will be considered by the Commission for Sustainable Development at the end of April, and may then lead to specific proposals about scope, process and timetables being agreed in the General Assembly in the autumn.

Outside Government it is already clear that there will be a great deal of interest among the major groups of civil society in the 2002 process, and that many will want to contribute in various ways. Some will want to contribute mainly at local and national level to the formation of national positions. Others will want to interact internationally with each other and with Governments collectively and with the international process.   A major contribution from civil society will be essential for the success of Earth Summit 2002.Most governments and the United Nations itself will probably in principle want to be very open to the involvement and participation of the major groups. They are well aware that the progress of sustainable development depends crucially on the activities and support of many such groups at all levels. They will want the 2002 process to be one which includes and celebrates the achievements which such groups have already made, is receptive to the ideas they bring forward for further action by governments and others, and which helps to strengthen the capacity of such groups to contribute in the future at all levels.  

How to manage such participation in a major international process in a way that gives satisfaction and real achievement to all concerned is not easy. Several international events have had serious difficulties on this score. Some groups have been denied access to meetings; others have had difficulty in getting their views considered seriously even when they have had access. Sometimes the sheer number of views and voices clamouring to be heard has made for difficulties. The legitimacy and authority of particular groups is also sometimes an issue.  Within the UN system the UNCED process and the CSD have succeeded in providing the best platform for civil society, 2002 should continue this tradition.

To provide some coherence to this for the 2002 process two main organising principles can be seen to be emerging. One concept is that the primary locus for engagement with major groups of society should be at national level. Governments should engage in wide-ranging dialogue with all parts of their society to seek consensus on sustainable development goals, perhaps making use of National Councils of Sustainable Development where they exist as co-ordinating bodies, or through other appropriate machinery, and take the results forward internationally.  

The other main organising concept is that each main group of civil society may want to have its own international process to help draw the views of its constituent parts together to feed into the regional and  international process. Thus a business view might be drawn together by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development or the International Chambers of Commerce. NGO views might be assembled through the CSD Steering Committee with its several caucuses on particular topics. The local government view might be assembled through IULA and ICLEI. Similar international bodies might assemble views for other major sectors.

UNED Forum (a multistakeholder group) has set up an international advisory board drawn from WBCSD, ICC, ICFTU, IULA, ICLEI, NGOs, women's organisations, academics and youth organisations etc. It has offered to provide a support service for this second method of assembling major group contributions for the 2002 process. It will provide electronic information papers, consultations, meetings and timetables, this regular information bulletin - Network 2002 -  and a means of interacting and feeding into the process. UNED Forum is not an advocacy body and will not seek to take positions of its own to force into the debate. Nor is it an exclusive body and it is open to cooperation with likeminded organisations. It will seek to facilitate the emergence of multistakeholder dialogue on the issues amongst major groups around the world and to ensure that emerging positions on key issues from any legitimate organisation are heard and fed into the main international process.
Derek Osborn Margaret Brusasco-MacKenzie

The Sustainable Summit 
What do we hope to achieve?

At the Eight Session of the UNCSD this year, the international community will start its considerations of the Earth Summit in 2002.  Following on from the last years meeting of Environment Ministers and the more recent meeting at Wilton Park in the UK, Ghana's Environment Minister, Mr. Cletus Avoka, gives a Southern Perspective on what the process should be seeking to address if we are to achieve sustainability for all.

Earth Summit 2002 provides the global community with the opportunity to take another critical look at the implementation of all that took place in Rio in 1992.  The success of the occasion will depend to a large extent on the process that takes place leading to the Summit.  As was agreed to at the informal meeting of Ministers of Environment hosted by Ghana last year, it will be necessary to evolve a preparatory process, which is very participatory, involving all stakeholders & Countries.   

There should be a national consultative process, which should involve all the major groups identified in Agenda 21.  The process should lead to an identification of national priorities in relation to the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio conventions. 

Regional Consultative meetings may be convened.  These will consider the various national priority issues and have these consolidated into ten regional priority issues.  The regional priorities will then be presented to the Summit, which should preferably be held outside New York.  Heads of Government should be encouraged by the UN Secretary General to participate.

The Secretariats of the Rio Conventions, as well as those of other critical bodies whose activities affect the social, economic development of the world, should all be part of the process.

It is important that the Summit be focussed in order that concrete results can be achieved.  Though the outcome of the Summit may not be legally binding, the process it is believed, and mode of conducting the session will go a long way in ensuring that countries will be prepared to implement the outcome of the Summit.  It is also critical that the UN makes available the necessary financial resources, to make it possible for the various inter-sessional meetings to proceed satisfactorily.

It has to be realised that the attainment of sustainable development for the management of the world cannot be looked at from the point of view of one region of the world or the other.  It has to be considered as a global partnership involving all countries and stakeholders.  For the developing countries, the following will be some of the critical issues which we hope will be addressed seriously at the Summit:

Greater political commitment by ALL COUNTRIES,
Greater commitment by Northern countries, expressed not only in words but also in action,
Implementation of the CDM of the UNFCCC, with adequate resources especially to African countries,
The necessary resources should be provided for the implementation of the Desertification convention,
A system to develop the appropriate synergies in the implementation of all regional/global agreements dealing with the economic, environmental & social agenda,
All countries should be encouraged to prepare National Sustainable Development Strategies,
The global target of reducing poverty by half by 2015 should not just be a paper declaration,
Environmentally sound technologies are critical to Sustainable Development, the developed countries should make them available to developing countries,
New partnerships have to be developed to promote the attainment of the objectives of sustainable development.  The private sector and civil society as well as the various sub-regional and regional economic/development groups should be critical partners in these efforts,
The current global trade discussions do not promote fair trade.  There are subtle trade barriers which make it difficult for developing countries to compete with developed,
Most developing countries are currently burdened with the servicing of their debts.  

I still believe that the current arrangements for managing the environment, through UNEP is satisfactory.  UNEP should continue to provide the scientific basis for decision making in the area of the environment.  Efforts should, however, continue to be made towards making the institution more effective in its operation.  

As was agreed at Rio+5, there is no need to re-write Agenda 21.  What is also needed is a greater political will and commitment on the part of all of us to see to the implementation of the document.  We need to start the process to Earth Summit 2002 now if we want to achieve any positive results and avoid the problems which beset Earth Summit 1997.
Contact:  www.earthsummit2002.org

Trade and Finance at CSD-8

Following on from the recent hectic agenda of international deliberations over trade, finance and globalisation, Jurgen Maier, Director German NGO forum on environment & development, gives an overview to the situation so far.  Maier reports on the role of the CSD, and its work this year on Trade & Finance, in relation to the international agenda, as well as to future processes which will shape the debate as we approach 2002...

A major shortcoming of the Rio process has always been its lack of influence over the hard issues of international trade rules and finance flows, as opposed to soft environmental governance. Agenda 21 had identified some US$600bn that were necessary to finance its implementation; however, the famous new and additional resources from industrialised countries never materialized. On the contrary: ODA budgets in almost all OECD countries have substantially declined since Rio, and private Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been celebrated as the substitute. While in 1991 61.2 percent of capital flows to southern countries came from ODA sources and 38.4 from private FDI, in 1998 the ratio had reversed to 36.9 ODA and 61.5 FDI. 

FDI, however, has a substantially different orientation. Private capital will only be invested in the expectation of financial returns. No surprise that 55 percent of all FDI in 1998 went to just five countries, while the 48 least developed countries did not manage to attract even one percent. ODA, however, is supposed to support poorer parts of the population, provide basic social services and is not allocated in the expectation of financial returns. ODA in reality often does not focus on those parts of the population that need it most. The Social Summit's 20-20 initiative which had governments pledging to spend 20 percent of ODA for basic social services is still waiting for implementation. ODA cuts have been most dramatic at the multilateral level; UNDP for instance has seen its budget dwindle from $1.2bn in 1992 to $718m in 1999. 

It is against this background that the United Nations will hold its first-ever summit on Financing for Development  (FfD) in 2001. Only after long foot-dragging and rather reluctantly, the OECD countries agreed to this delicate issue at the highest level. The crisis of ODA and the only too obvious shortcomings of FDI need a comprehensive answer. The FfD process is not formally linked to the CSD; however, CSD-8 will discuss a report of the Secretary-General on Financial Resources and mechanisms (chapter 33 of Agenda 21). It will be imperative to make the link between sustainable development and FfD in order to prevent FfD becoming a battlecry of the G-77 for traditional, unsustainable development, but also to make clear to the Northern countries that it is in their own best interest to help finance development of the South.

Another issue on the agenda of CSD-8 is trade. The failure of the WTO's Ministerial Conference in Seattle last December has thrown the WTO into a deep crisis of confidence.
The WTO, a global organisation formally not integrated into the United Nations system, has systematically created a global governance structure for many economic issues deeply relevant to sustainable develoopment. However, the trade bureaucrats that designed the WTO's agreements had other things in mind. Free trade has become the ultimate objective, and many of the more prominent WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) decisions have seen sustainable development and the environment as the losers against short-term free trade interests. UNCTAD X in February (and the UN system in general) gained prominence after Seattle, and it will be a quite difficult task for the CSD to gain some ground in the trade debate to make a contribution to the global effort to accomplish necessary reforms of the WTO agreements towards mutual support between the realms of trade and sustainable development. Only a few free-trade hardliners now deny that there is an imbalance to be corrected.

Many NGOs have become active in this field in the last years, but this does not mean that they all agree on the concrete steps. Another problem is that the NGOs active in trade issues so far have focussed institutionally on the WTO and have largely ignored the UN, including the CSD. The CSD will only be able to make a difference if it does manage to attract the key players in the trade debate, from governments and NGOs alike. 

The changes that are required not only in the relationship between environmental and trade agreements, but also regarding agricultural trade and food security as well as social and development dimensions of trade. It is obvious that this is well beyond a purely environmental agenda, but that is a necessary challenge appropriate to the ultimate mission of the CSD: to oversee implementation of Agenda 21. 
Jurgen Maier 

The IFF Process
Achievements & the Way Forward

The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests recently convened its fourth and final session.  Here Ambassador Asadi, IFF Co-chair, looks back at what has been achieved and, as the CSD considers future action, opens the floor for delegates to consider the way forward.

The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), established in 1997 by the 19th Special Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGASS) to continue the intergovernmental policy dialogue on forests, completed its work programme at its fourth session on 12th February 2000, in New York.  

The IFF, as the institutional follow-up to the two-year Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) process, was mandated by UNGASS to continue deliberations on three interlinked categories of issues; implementation of IPF proposals for action and monitoring of progress, clarification of pending issues, and international arrangements and mechanisms to promote management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.  According to the UNGASS mandate, the forum was charged with the responsibility of identification of possible elements of, and working towards a consensus on future arrangements and mechanisms for all types of forests.

The IFF, having adopted its programme of work at its first (organisational) session in October 1997, met in three two-week substantive sessions between late August 1998 and end of January 2000 and considered all the three Categories  and the associated programme elements.  At the end of the fourth session, the Forum adopted, by consensus, an 'international arrangement on forests', with the following main characteristics:

Establishment of a new intergovernmental body, by ECOSOC and the General Assembly, which may be called the UN Forum on Forests,

Building upon the precedent and experience of the high-level ad hoc Interagency Task Force on Forests (ITFF) - as a valuable institutional legacy of the IPF/IFF process - to contribute and strengthen collaborative partnerships of relevant regional and international forest-related organisations, institutions and instruments,

Consideration, within 5 years, of the parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework for all types of forests, and Devise approaches towards appropriate financial and technology transfer to support sustainable forest management.

The Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, drawing on the experience of its predecessor (IPF), and working as an open, transparent and inclusive process, achieved considerable progress in building consensus on a wide range of programme elements and areas of priority concern to the international community. 
 
The wide gap that existed between North and South during the Rio Conference (1992) and the Rio + 5 Special Session (UNGASS, 1997), has narrowed considerably.  While the international community was not in a position in mid-February 2000 to decide to establish an 'Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee'(INC) to commence drafting a legal instrument on all types of forests, there was general agreement on the necessity and desirability of full implementation of agreed actions and result-orientated activities. 
 
The text of the IFF final outcome ('international arrangement on forests') clearly shows that in addition to policy implementation, policy coordination and further policy development (on such issues as trade and sustainable forest management) are also among the areas of high priority in the proposed new arrangement.

The main conclusion of the Forum was that the priority for the next few years should be to implement the proposals for action adopted throughout the IPF/IFF process (1995-2000).  Such implementation should be a country-driven process, assisted by the new collaborative partnership on forests and supported through the participation of the other actors, including the private sector, NGOs, forest owners, indigenous and local communities, research organisations and international bilateral aid agencies.

On the basis of its mandate, the IFF will submit its final report to the 8th Session of the CSD.  The Commission is envisioned to consider the IFF report - a clean bracket-free consensus text - at its high level segment and substantially adopt and forward it to the higher body; i.e. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), for further deliberation and appropriate decision.  

It could be expected, however, that the Ministers and Heads of delegations attending the CSD will express their views and priorities on how to operationalise the new arrangement.  In this connection, the relevant issues awaiting ECOSOC and/or General Assembly decision are the level of authority as well as the loci of the proposed forum, upon whose resolution, preparations will have to be made for its first session.  
Ambassador Bagher Asadi - IFF Co-chair 
Contact:  www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

With a series of events specifically addressing Indigenous Peoples at the CSD this year, the NGO Steering Committee's Indigenous Peoples Major Groups Caucus prioritises the agenda...

Sustainable development does not have any single meaning nowadays. It can mean anything depending on which perspective one is coming from. Most indigenous peoples relate sustainable development to living in harmony with nature, respect of ancestors and the rights of future generations, and ensuring fair sharing of the gifts of nature not only between peoples but with all creation. This may sound meaningless in the era of biotechnology and cyberspace. For many indigenous peoples who still live in communities which are still engaged in subsistence production, however, this definition still holds and is practiced. 

Therefore it is hard to reconcile all this talk about sustainable development without being critical of world views, development paradigms, and practices which are essentially unsustainable. The anthropocentric perspective of human beings having dominion over nature is still the mainstream world view. Almost all governments pursue the economic growth and capitalist model of development which gives premium to rules of global competitiveness and comparative advantage, high profitability, and efficiency. This model regards nature and human beings as machines which should operate by these rules. 

It is this context which defines our key concerns as indigenous peoples in our practice and pursuit of sustainable development. Our first concern revolves around how sustainable development can be achieved amidst a world which is obsessed with global competitiveness. Global competitiveness means being able to extract natural resources, raise cash crops, and manufacture products in the most efficient manner and with the lowest labour cost so that these can be sold cheaply. The country which has the capacity to mechanize and computerize its operations, which has control over technology, and which can subsidize production and exports to dump its products has the comparative advantage. Economies of scale should be the goal of each corporation and country. 

Indigenous peoples ancestral territories, which still have a significant amount of primary resources become targets of what we call "development aggression". This is the extraction of natural resources in our territories and the imposition of so-called development projects, such as dams, roads, etc. to support such extractive activities. Our rights to our territories and resources are grossly violated in the name of national development and global competitiveness. Our indigenous production and consumption systems, cosmo-visions, and indigenous socio-political systems which have survived through centuries even under colonization, are more threatened than ever. 

Undoubtedly, there is a growing recognition of the value of our indigenous knowledge for sustainable development. The rhetoric is how to protect and enhance this knowledge. In practice, however, what is happening is the extraction and use of this knowledge without recognizing the fact that this thrives in a context where we have control over our territories and resources and our identity as indigenous peoples are respected. Thus, we have great difficulty interacting in intergovernmental forums where our knowledge and biogenetic resources is subject of negotiations between governments. The interrelatedness of our rights to have control over our lands and territories, resources, knowledge, cultures, and our rights to be recognized as distinct peoples is the basis of any lobbying we do.

One of our main demands is that governments should allow our indigenous economic and political systems to co-exist with other systems. They should not force us to be assimilated or integrated into the mainstream if it means the destruction of our diverse ways of production and consumption, thinking, and relating with nature and creation. Protecting biodiversity for example does not just mean protecting biological resources but also protecting cultural diversity and respect for our rights to our territories. Our land tenure systems which are not limited only to individual private ownership of land should be recognized and respected. Communal ownership of distinct groups of peoples over forests, waters, biogenetic resources, should be protected. Our sustainable ways of caring and managing our resources which ensures more equitable sharing between and within generations should be nurtured. 

We should not be pushed to convert our economic systems to fit into the capitalist framework of high productivity or profitability if it means losing our control over our territories, our knowledge and resources. Why should we allow foreign or national mining corporations to have lease to our lands for seventy-five years when we know full well that what will be left for us will be polluted and devastated lands and disappearance of waters? Why should we be forced to share our knowledge over seeds, medicinal plants, resource management, if this knowledge ends up in the control of corporations because they are given intellectual property rights over these?  What will the world gain if our diverse ways of production and consumption will be destroyed so we can fit into the cogs and wheels of the globalized capitalist world?

Our role in promoting sustainable development lies in our capacity to continue practicing our indigenous ways of relating with nature and with other human beings. If governments and corporations continue to violate our rights as distinct peoples as defined in the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, our contribution to bringing about a sustainable world will be very limited.       
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz

THE SUSTAINABILITY OF SOLAR 
ELECTRIFICATION PROJECTS

Complementing preparations for next years CSD deliberations on Energy, BP Solarex give an overview of their experiences in finding solutions, working with stakeholders and investing in the future.

"Energy has an ubiquitous role in social, economic and environmental development. ...The linkages between energy and poverty, gender issues, population, health, the environment, investment, foreign exchange, and security grant it a unique role in the field of development. Energy can be used as a tool through which sustainable development goals are attained."
EU / UNDP report on
Energy as a Tool for Sustainable Development.  

Although sustainability may seem elusive being a term which is all things to all people, in this context BP Solar defines it as: long term viability in financial, human, resource and equipment terms. It is expected that the money spent in projects such as these will yield benefits to their users for years to come. With the input of the people in the rural areas in which we work and this concept in mind, our projects aim to meet the needs of the communities. The improvement of day to day life through the use of a renewable source of energy should free the members of the society to pursue economic goals as a further investment in the future.

Our experience suggests that solar power, and the use of our products, can make a major contribution to the development of rural housing. These projects have had a significant social impact within the targeted community. With lighting the evening becomes a profitable part of the day where, for example, an economic activity or self education are possible. This led us to the need to adapt our technology and our skills to the culture and tradition of the community with whom we are working. For example, when rural communities are structured around group decisions, a shared community centre for the dissemination of ideas and plans may be needed.

This is also the case with primary health care which is a major goal of health programmes across the developing world. Here too we work closely with our partners to ensure the correct staffing of the health centres and the proper training in the use of the equipment, such as our WHO approved solar powered vaccine refrigerators. For education the energy that we can supply makes possible the use of educational aids, listed below. Distance learning can also be used to the benefit of the taught and the teachers alike. 

For agriculture solar energy can help to improve subsistence farming to small-commercial with the production of new hardier or cash crops and better post harvest processing. For example, the provision of irrigation through solar water pumping can increase the income of a farmer by making it possible to harvest two crops a year rather than one.

MUNICIPAL SOLAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MSIP
The MSIP is the single largest PV related development contract of this type; a massive and innovative undertaking. It is the first solar project to result from public and private sector partnership and is unique in that the private sector has taken responsibility for total project delivery in collaboration with the recipient government. It will provide benefits to over 1 million people, hence not only does that represent development finance well spent but also provides a blueprint for private sector led development in the future.

The total project value is some US$30M, supported by Australian aid. It includes the use of over 1000 packaged systems, consisting of about 14 different types of 'pre-packaged systems', in over 400 different communities in the regions of Mindanao and Visayas. They were selected because of the greatest need and also because conventional electrification is not a possibility in  the short or medium term. It is the result of a 3 year partnership in rural development planning between the Government in the Philippines, represented by the Department of Interior and Local Government, the Government of Australia, represented by AusAid and BP Solar in Australia. 

It is important to note that BP Solar "owns" the whole project from start to finish and has been prepared to take total responsibility for delivering all aspects of the project to the users. In doing so we far exceed the expectation of merely a supplier of equipment, in many ways that becomes relatively insignificant when compared with the need to survey, prepare, train, install and build a maintenance capability lasting a minimum of 10 years. 

The MSIP was founded on the belief that real and sustainable development cannot merely be handed to those most in need as an instant solution, but involves providing communities in the first instance with the tools and support to help themselves - to empower them. Supplying equipment or providing electricity are not what this or any other BP Solar rural development initiative are about; our aim is to meet the prerequisites of development; clean water, improved health facilities, improved educational capability, improved community infrastructure, improved agricultural methods, better communications. It is our belief that these are essential in at least beginning to meet the challenge of alleviating poverty by meeting remote communities basic survival needs.
BP Solarex, the world's largest solar company, is the fully owned Solar subsidiary of BP Amoco.
Contact:  www.bpsolarex.com

The Sustainable Agriculture Dialogues-Stakeholder Perspectives

Business & Industry
The International Agri-Food Network outlines the industry perspective going into the dialogues.  Co-operation and action in Partnership lead their agenda.

The key word in the title of the sectoral theme for the 8th session of the CSD should be highlighted - Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources and Agriculture.

Chapter 14 of Agenda 21 recommends the integration of modern technologies with traditional knowledge to develop sustainable systems, which are sufficiently productive to satisfy the projected global increase in food demand.  To quote two examples from Chapter 14: 

"Not later than the year 2000, to improve and implement programmes to put integrated pest management practices within the reach of farmers through farmer networks, extension services and research institutions."

"Not later than the year 2000, to develop and maintain in all countries the integrated plant nutrition approach, and to optimise availability of fertilizer and other plant nutrient sources."

 The discussion paper submitted to the CSD by the International Agri-Food Network highlights many examples which demonstrate the progress achieved by the agri-business sector in adopting such integrated approaches.

Expanding global food production through progress in productivity in the agricultural sector is, however, only part of the solution. The challenge is further linked to the distribution of resources and income, access to markets and trade, and suitable conditions for social, political and economic development. 
Investment

While public investment in scientific research and development has diminished, private investment has increased.  Agri-business seeks to improve plant varieties, seeds, plant nutrition, crop protection and animal health and welfare in an integrated approach to farm management.

The quality, quantity and variety of food and agricultural products is thus enhanced, but if agri-business is to maintain and increase this role, governments need to create a sustainable business environment, including:
Security of land tenure;
Availability of credit for rural development;
A favorable investment and regulatory climate;
Science-based standards;
Protection of intellectual property rights;
Expeditious customs procedures;
A clear commitment to open, well-functioning markets;
An enabling framework for the dissemination of safe technologies in agriculture and food production.
Capacity building and technology transfer
The agri-food business sector also helps to bring the latest technologies and agricultural practices to farmers worldwide and is engaged in a variety of education and training programs. However, closer cooperation and coordination among all stakeholders is required, and we invite governments to join forces in public-private sector dialogue and projects.

Conclusion
The International Agri-Food Network considers CSD  as a starting point for similar actions at national level since practical measures and enabling policy environments have to be implemented on the ground to achieve progress.  The commitment of all stakeholders - including the agri-food business sector - to implement integrated agricultural approaches is critical.
Jack Whelan
Contact: www.agrifood.net

Farmers
The IFAP look to the CSD to provide sustainable frameworks for Farming Most farmers are today actively involved in various strategies to achieve greater agricultural sustainability. The use of farm inputs is being better targeted. There is greater application of conservation farming methods. Farmers' organizations are more involved in training, extension and community-based conservation activities.

Family farm and community based systems respond best to the needs of local populations, and are, in most instances, the best guarantee in achieving food security.  Governments should therefore implement policies that effectively promote sustainable, family based farming practices, maintaining a careful balance between regulation and encouraging voluntary incentives.

CSD8 must lead to improvements in the framework conditions necessary for sustainable agriculture at the farm level, and particularly the following:

Creation of a stable policy environment. Economic, social and political stability is essential for sustainable agricultural development. This includes: reducing armed conflicts, encouraging economic co-operation among nations, resolution of the debt problem, and fair trading practices. 

Provision of essential rural infrastructure, especially:

Access to land and secure land tenure arrangements,
A financial system capable of providing affordable credit and financial services to farmers,
Effective marketing channels, and provision of reliable market information,
Legal safeguards for farmers, and the right to act collectively,
Adequate transport, energy, telecommunications, and security services.

Setting up of participatory mechanisms to involve farmers' organizations as full partners in the establishment and implementation of rural development strategies. Further, this partnership should be extended to all stakeholders. The UN CSD should facilitate the establishment such a voluntary stakeholder platform on sustainable agriculture with the FAO. 

Making available adequate resources for agricultural development One of the most serious threats to sustainable agriculture is the inadequate level of resources available for agricultural development. FAO reports that Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) has fallen sharply, and today is at the level it was in 1980 in real terms at $51.9 billion. ODA provided to the agricultural sector has fallen even faster. Today, agriculture receives only 14 per cent of total ODA payments.  This decline must be reversed as a matter of urgency. One of the keys to sustainable development is the elimination of poverty through giving higher priority to the economic development of agriculture.
David King

 Trade Unions
The International Conferederation of Free Trade Unions make a call for 'Plough to Plate' approaches to food and agriculture.
Trade Union representatives at the CSD will be urging government delegates to use the Dialogue Sessions as an opportunity to build a new sustainable food system. A break from past practice must take place and agricultural workers, women and children must not continue to serve as a source of cheap labour. Poverty alleviation must be the aim of a new system, with rural and aboriginal communities as the basis of transition toward change.

Food industry proposals for more intensive forms of agricultural production, including through biotechnology, amount to a panacea, which could repeat past mistakes and result in more unemployment, social disruption and higher levels of poverty.

The trade union delegation at the stakeholder dialogue session will begin with highlighting what trade unions feel is wrong with current agricultural practices, including concerns related to agricultural workers. We will seek your support for a new ILO Instrument for the health and safety of these workers.
   
Furthermore, trade unions would seek to gather support for workplace programs of change, which educate workers about the need to change personal food consumption habits in line with production changes that will be identified in the upcoming dialogue session. We believe that joint trade union - employer workplace programmes of change can go a long way to implement the kind of change that is needed.

It is true that higher productivity in agriculture can produce more food, but fewer people in the system can afford to buy it. The widening gap between rich and poor must be addressed. 

Industry proposals to increase production capabilities could be supported but that they needed a new policy framework. Rising food productivity has created new sources of wealth, which is often diverted away from where money is most needed. Developing countries and those sectors of society which are least able to feed themselves, must have a greater share in the profits of multinational companies. Governments should consider supporting enforceable guidelines to govern the behaviour of multinationals, so as to ensure that they promote a sustainable food system aimed at promoting the health and well being of all citizens. 
  
We advocate a system, which develope the social, economic and environmental dimensions of a food system in integrated ways and which developed economic measures as the basis of ensuring proper transition. A strong regulatory framework must be the basis of change and voluntary agreements and other tools must only be used to strengthen and improve the enforcement of standards. 

Implementing a new system must call upon business, workers & trade unions, farming organisations, and NGOs to work with governments and local communities, through multi-stakeholder implementation models for change.
Lucien Royer  
Contact:  www.icftu.org

NGO's
The NGO Steering Committee's Agriculture Caucus look to the dialogues as the start of an ongoing process 

There is a growing sense of urgency as major groups  gather with governments at the United Nations in New York.  The meeting is focused immediately on the CSD 8 session on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD).  But we are also looking toward Earth Summit 2002 and beyond.
 
As we go into the multi-stakeholder dialogue, NGOs have urgent concerns in regard to the global food system.  Industrial agriculture has greatly increased food production but at a huge cost to the environment, to rural communities and to human health. Trans-national corporations are tightening their grip on the food system.  Trade liberalization is driving more farmers off the land Meanwhile, nearly 800 million people suffer chronic hunger and two billion have deficient diets. At the same time, over-consumption of food has become a serious problem in developed countries.

The major groups dialogue organizers have prepared papers for CSD 8 on the themes to be addressed during the dialogues.  In our preliminary dialogues with other major groups, NGOs have found that we have much in common. 

Most of us agree that, both in developed and developing countries, sustainable agriculture helps to ensure food security, anchors rural development, creates jobs and livelihoods, embodies social diversity and biodiversity, and does this without destroying the ecological base. Hence the urgent need to build on small-farm agriculture which is still the predominant form of agriculture in the world, and to build on the traditional knowledge of farmers, especially women farmers, and Indigenous Peoples.   

At the same time, industrial agriculture can only be transformed through transitional steps.  NGOs are working with other groups on steps towards ecological, economic and social sustainability for agriculture. We need an effective policy framework, involving governments and UN agencies, to "scale up"  ecological agriculture and "take back the middle" - that is, give farmers and farmworkers a much greater share of the food dollar.

NGOs support sustainable food production and consumption, and at CSD 8 we will present best practices and examples of policies that can support holistic food systems.  How can we build a new awareness of the food we eat?  How can we change the way food is produced, and the food choices of workers and consumers?

How can we create a mass movement around good food, thriving farms and healthy rural communities?  The worldwide struggles around genetically engineered food and food safety are signs that such a mass movement is possible.

Finally, it is clear - after the WTO meetings in Seattle - that trade liberalization and globalisation, in their present form, are not compatible with sustainable food production and consumption. Along with other groups, NGOs will bring proposals to CSD on building a fair trading system.  The problem is that many governments seem to want both - trade liberalization and sustainable agriculture.  Therefore, in order to change the global food system for all, NGOs are asking that an ongoing multi-stakeholder SARD working group continue this dialogue into the future.  
Peter Mann 
Contact: www.csdngo.org/csdngo

Geneva 2000: rhetoric and reality

In June 2000, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a Special Session to consider the outcome and follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development that took place in Copenhagen in 1995.  Under the banner 'Geneva 2000', the Special Session - meeting in full session outside New York for the first time - and a Swiss Government-initiated Forum and Symposium, will bring together the wide range of people whose work centres on one of the many aspects included in social development: human rights, poverty reduction, employment and work, business and commerce, gender equality, child protection, development in general.  The Swiss Government secretariat coordinating the events is led by Ambassador Daniel Stauffacher, who reflects here on some of the concepts that underlie planning and perception of the events.

'Civil society' has become the mantra of the new millennium.  Just a year ago, it was just one of those catch-all phrases we used when we wanted to talk about the myriad individuals and groups who are not part of government or intergovernmental institutions.  It was too time-consuming - and potentially risky - to be more specific and to try to enumerate, without omitting some players, the non-governmental, business, not-for-profit, employment-related, youth, academic, lobby groups...the many, many representative clusters, not to mention individuals, who reflect who we are and what we care about.

'Post-Seattle' (another piece of year 2000 jargon), however, 'civil society' has taken on a whole new meaning.  In some circles it is positively spat out, a phrase of fear and loathing, used to sum up the extra security presence necessary at major meetings to guard against violence and physical damage potentially inflicted by some - very few - members of that 'civil society'.  In other forums, it is seen as a positive challenge, a time to sit back and consider the gap between the rhetoric of cooperation and the reality of exclusion.  Occasionally, even, it is seen as a defining moment, when the 'people power' of the 70s became a real market force.

In the run-up to Geneva 2000, 'post-Seattle' and 'civil society' are both concepts we have thought long and hard about.  They are phrases that, like almost everyone else engaged in the kind of events we have been planning, we use as shorthand from time to time.  But they have been neither empty words nor alarm bells.

At the Geneva 2000 Secretariat, we believe that the frustrations and the potential embodied in these two buzz phrases have been taken into consideration from the very first days of planning the events accompanying the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in June 2000.  In conceiving, planning and implementing the Geneva 2000 Forum, Symposium and allied activities, we have worked closely and in equal partnership with NGOs, parliaments, business, trade unions, press and media, academic institutions, the United Nations, not-for-profit foundations, volunteer groups and others.  Together we have shaped Geneva 2000 into something that we believe translates cooperation, consultation and coordination into practical reality.  

For example, the planning and implementation of our daily work is largely done through the efforts of a series of working groups, each with a specific task and each constituting a wide cross-section of the groups and individuals who have a right to be consulted and a responsibility to shoulder.  There are groups dealing with the Symposium itself, with special events, with media relations and facilities, with logistics.  The Symposium group, just to take one example, includes representatives of trades unions, NGOs, chambers of commerce, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Secretariat, as well as individual advisors with specific area strengths.  Groups like this are not just being consulted; they are making decisions and doing the work. 

From the day Switzerland invited the General Assembly to meet in Geneva to discuss the follow-up to Copenhagen, in fact, we have tried to avoid clichés by repeating to ourselves that our motivating force is essentially the desire not to exclude anyone who wishes to become engaged in the vital debate on social development.  It is almost impossible to include everyone, of course.  No matter how hard we try, someone is bound to feel they have been left out.  Inevitably, not everyone will be happy.  There will be critics and disgruntled observers.  But that, surely, is what 'civil society' is all about - different opinions, approaches, expectations, hopes, and the freedom to express them and see them being taken into account.  Only the methods of expression should be open to question, not the right.  

In the Geneva 2000 Forum and Symposium, we have attempted to provide a neutral space in which all opinions and approaches can be expressed.  Because, ultimately, everyone involved in Geneva 2000 - as active participant or passive observer - wants the same outcome:  real progress in social development and a better future for all people.
Ambassador Daniel Stauffacher
Delegate of the Swiss Government for Geneva 2000
Contact:  www.geneva2000.org

Beijing to NY - 5 years on
The Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW) 1995

The FWCW produced the Beijing Platform for Action (PfA). The PfA is a blueprint for how to achieve gender equality and the advancement of women. It addresses 12 critical areas of concern: poverty; education and training; health; violence against women; armed conflict; economy; women in power and decision-making; institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women; human rights of women; the media; environment; and the girl-child. 

Since Beijing, each of the 12 critical areas have been reviewed by the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW); several expert group meetings, coordinated by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), have been held to consider specific aspects of the PfA.

The goals agreed in the PfA have not been achieved. Although some things have improved for some women in some countries, gender equality is still a long way off.

An important goal for the Special Session is to strongly re-affirm the commitment. The outcome documents will specify mechanisms for the follow-up, monitoring and implementation of the PfA, identifying obstacles and strategies for overcoming them. The outcome documents will also address issues that have emerged since 1995.

It is obvious from  governments, UN Agency and NGO reports and the preparatory meetings that efforts have been focused on issues including poverty, the increase of violence against women, women's rights, education, and media. Other sections of the PfA have not been equally prioritised. For example, section K on women and the environment has not been a major issue. Government reporting is patchy or even missing and most regional preparatory meetings have not addressed the issue at all.

Discussions during preparations were also raising the need for specific benchmarks for achieving goals of the PfA. The Special Session will also look at setting target dates and figures to eliminate problems of assessing progress. 

It is hoped that by the time of the Special Session, the Optional Protocol to CEDAW will have been ratified by 50 countries so that it can enter into force by the end of the year. The Optional Protocol is one of the most visible outcomes of the follow-up to Beijing and a ground-breaking legal instrument. 
NGO Preparations and Participation

NGO participation and involvement in the Beijing +5 process is strong. Over 1,300 individual NGO representatives attended the 3rd PrepCom. Estimates regarding NGO attendance at the Special Session range from 5,000 to 20,000 individuals. NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC will be allowed to speak in plenary and in the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole. 

There will be an NGO Working Session for Women 2000 prior to the Special Session also in New York. In addition, the US Customs House in Battery Park has been made available for NGO activities throughout the session. The official and NGO meetings being held in different places during the FWCW created enormous problems to the NGO community. It is hoped that live video linking from the official sessions and other measures will help to bridge the distance between UN Headquarters in Midtown Manhattan and the US Customs House.

NGOs have prepared alternative national reports on the implementation of the PfA which are being put together at the regional level and into a global alternative report. In March, 53 alternative national reports had been received and more are underway.

NGOs also established WomenAction 2000, a global coalition network providing communications and information-sharing. A network of regional web-sites has been set up, accessible at http://www.womenaction.org. It offers up to date information, alternative reports, and links to the coordinating bodies - the Conference of Non-Governmental Organisations (CONGO) and the NGO Coordinating Committee organised by it; the Beijing+5 Host Committee.
A Fifth World Conference on Women?

NGOs, governments and UN Agencies are asking the question: what will come next after the Special Session in June? Should there be a fifth world conference on women in 2005, or 2010?  What will be the best strategy for achieving implementation and getting governments to act? Like with national institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women, there is a need both for a specific  space on women's issues and for gender-mainstreaming across the board. This also relates to the necessary (re-)integration of the UN Processes. Certainly, Earth Summit 2002 will be the next important opportunity to re-engender the debate on sustainable development, including learning the lessons from the Beijing process.
Minu Hemmati & Amy Cruse, UNED Forum

Contributions of the International Conference on Population and Development 

Dr Sadik, Executive Director of the UN Population Fund  reports here on the ICPD + 5 process.  This paper, titled 'A Time to Act: Saving Lives and Promoting Gender Equality within a Sustainable Global Community', highlights achievements, current challenges and the way forward.

POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT: Benchmarks and Achievements
Agenda 21 recognized that population growth, combined with unsustainable consumption, places increasingly severe stress on the planet's life-support systems. It recommended policies and actions relating to population and environment - addressing the consequences of population growth, extending reproductive health programmes, improving the status and income of women, and planning that recognizes the interrelationships, such as access to limited resources of water and land. 

The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), in 1994, affirmed this relationship and took the consensus a stage further: 

Integrating population into development strategies will contribute both to sustainable development and population objectives. 

Early stabilization of world population will make a crucial contribution towards sustainable development

Women and men should have access to the information, education and services needed to achieve good sexual health and to exercise their reproductive rights and responsibilities.

The link between reproductive rights and population stabilization is the key to understanding the significance of ICPD. Experience shows that when they can choose, women have fewer children than their mothers did. The outcome is smaller families and slower population growth. Human rights, national needs and global imperatives reinforce each other.

Overall, fertility rates are falling. From six children per woman in the 1960s, total fertility in developing countries is now under three. Nearly 60 per cent of all women of reproductive age have access to modern, safe and effective means of family planning, and population growth rates have begun to slow. 

Since ICPD countries have adopted new policies, adapted old ones, intensified policy discussion, and opened dialogue in new areas. A 1998 survey showed that 

All countries responding have taken some steps to ensure access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, including the four central components - family planning, maternal health, prevention and treatment of sexually-transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS. 

Two-thirds of countries have introduced policy or legislative measures to promote gender equity and equality and the empowerment of women. 

More than one-third have updated their population policies or have integrated population into long-term development plans.  

In 1999, a Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, marking five years since ICPD, reaffirmed the consensus and the goals of ICPD. The Special Session agreed on actions in relation to the environment; reproductive rights and health; gender equality, equity and the empowerment of women; the importance of addressing the needs of young people and the elderly; partnerships and collaboration; and mobilization of resources. New benchmarks were set for all key areas. 

CHALLENGES
Two-thirds of the world's poorest people are female. Two-thirds of the world's illiterates are female. Poor, uneducated  women do not control their own existence. Their lives are short and marked by ill-health. For these women, empowerment is not an abstract idea: it is a matter of life and death. 

Health is fundamental to empowerment. The greatest single threat to a poor woman's health during her reproductive years is pregnancy. In developing countries, only 65 per cent of women have prenatal care; 53 per cent have skilled birth attendants during delivery; 350 million do not have access to a range of safe and effective family planning methods.  

The result is that 600,000 women die each year as a result of pregnancy, 99 per cent in developing countries; 20 million unsafe abortions take place in developing countries each year, and 70,000 women's lives are lost. An unknown number are injured or infected. 

Women are also more vulnerable to a variety of sexually-transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. Young women are especially at risk, have no means to say "no", and are often excluded from political and economic life and, in many instances, have no legal or social recourse or equality in recognition of marriage, divorce, property or inheritance rights.

Millions of women suffer rape, incest and domestic violence, and more than half of all women will suffer some form of gender-based violence at some time in their lives. Each year, two million girls and young women are at risk of female genital mutilation and an estimated 130 million are already affected by this practice.

ACTION
These systematic abuses of human rights grow daily as more women reach reproductive age. Human rights and development goals alike demand that they are addressed, as a matter of priority. 

The goals of ICPD and five years of action show that we know what to do and how it can be done. Empowering all women to make their own choices: providing universal access to a full range of reproductive health services; cutting maternal and infant mortality; providing universal education and closing the gender gap in education; enabling women to  protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are all achievable goals.

They are also essential for sustainable development. In 1994, the countries of the world reached a clear understanding on population and  development. The tenth anniversary of the Earth Summit offers a great opportunity to build on this foundation. 
Contact:  www.un.org/esa/population/

COUNTDOWN TO ISTANBUL + 5

In June 2001, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.  Referred to as Istanbul+5 or Habitat II+5, the process will assess progress made at local and national levels, examine the obstacles remaining and produce recommendations for future action and initiatives.  It will also review the appropriateness of implementation mechanisms set up at the national level in cooperation with partners from civil society as well as the contribution of international cooperation to the implementation process.

Through the Habitat Agenda, Member States of the United Nations have committed themselves to the creation of partnerships, adoption of enabling approaches, implementation of participatory planning and management, building of capacity among all partner groups and monitoring progress through networking and the application of modern information technologies.  The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) is providing the leadership and serves as focal point for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.  As stipulated in the Habitat Agenda, countries must monitor and evaluate their own performance through the collection of urban indicators and by identifying best practices in improving the living environment.

Forward-Looking Assessment

One of the most important inputs to Istanbul+5 will be the forward-looking assessments prepared by governments and partners.  These provide an overview of activities undertaken to support implementation of the Habitat Agenda between 1996 and 2001, and report successes and failures, positive policy changes, and the contribution of international cooperation.  Governments will prepare single country reports incorporating the views of all partners.  Habitat encourages countries to hold national workshops on the implementation of the Habitat Agenda to enable governments and their partners to learn from one another and to reach consensus on locally relevant issues, practical solutions and future priorities.  These will then feed into the sub-regional, regional and global levels.
Preparatory Process

The preparatory process for Istanbul+5 has already started.  During its 17th session held in Nairobi in May 1999, the Commission on Human Settlements, acting as the Preparatory Committee for Istanbul+5, held a one-day organizational session.  The Committee elected a bureau to serve for the entire period leading up to June 2001 and also approved its rules of procedure.  It also adopted a provisional agenda for the first substantive session of the Preparatory Committee, which will be held in Nairobi, Kenya from 8 to 12 May 2000.  Recognition was also given to the need to ensure the effective participation of local authorities and all other Habitat Agenda partners by applying the relevant rules of procedure for the Habitat II conference.
Guidelines

The guidelines for country reporting have been sent out and governments are being encouraged to organize broad-based, gender-balanced National Habitat Committees to coordinate the reporting process.  It is recommended that each country work on a single country report that incorporates the views of both the government and other Habitat Agenda partners who include: local authorities, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, the private sector, parliamentarians, professional associations, women's organizations, youth organizations, academic and research institutions, trade unions and the United Nations system.

Time Frame
The following time frame has now been agreed upon:

8-12 May 2000: First substantive meeting of the Preparatory Committee for Istanbul+5, Nairobi, Kenya

October-December 2000: Regional meetings

February 2001: Second meeting of the Preparatory Committee: Exact date and venue to be announced

June 2001: The Special Session of the UN General Assembly, Istanbul+5: Exact date to be announced

Guidelines for Reporting: A 5-Step Process

Step 1: Organize a National Habitat Committee - Initiate or re-establish a broad-based, gender-balanced National Committee.  Governments have the primary responsibility for reporting, with the goal of promoting dialogue and consensus between all stakeholders.  Cities and communities establish their own local committees to report on progress at the local level.

Step 2: Collect and analyse information - National Habitat Committee then initiate the collections and analysis of indicators, best practices, good policies, action plans and other information.  Examples of national and local plans of action include: national Habitat II reports, national urban development strategies, Local Agendas 21, etc.

Step 3: Hold a national workshop to review plans of action - The National Committee organizes a national workshop to review current national and local plans of action and their implementation since 1996.  This provides the opportunity for an open discussion with a broad-based and gender-balanced group of stakeholders to assess progress made and obstacles encountered in implementing the Habitat Agenda.

Step 4: Agree on priorities for future action and initiatives - As the final step in the assessment process, partners identify priorities for policy development, capacity building and action planning.

Step 5: Prepare a draft country report - Using the universal reporting format, the National Habitat Committee prepares and widely disseminates a country report. 
Istanbul + 5 Secretariat
Contact:  www.unchs.org

Meet the International Advisory Board

NGOs
Arab Network for Environment & Development 
Dr Emad Adly
Centro de Estudios Ambientales
Maria Onestini
Centre for Science & Environment Sunita Narain
Development Alternatives 
Ashok Khosla 
Eco Accord 
Victoria Elias
Environment and Development 
Africa/Maghreb 
Ibrahim Magdi
Environment Liaison Centre International 
Barbara Gemmill
Friends of the Earth 
Kevin Dunion
International Council for Social Welfare 
Stephen King
IUCN USA - World Conservation Network 
Scott Hajost
Liaison Committee of Development NGOs to the European Union 
James Mackie
Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development 
Jan Gustav Strandenous
WWF International 
Gordon Shepherd

Industry
World Business Council for Sustainable Development 
Claude Fussler
International Chamber of Commerce 
Paul Clements-Hunt
Next Comminications
Yusuf Asmal
Poptel Worldwide 
Gaby Kagan
Sustainable Development International 
Peter Ritchie

Trade Unions
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions 
Lucien Royer

Local Government
International Council for Local 
Environmental Initiatives 
Jeb Brugma
Women's Organizations
Women's Environment and Development Organization 
June Zeitlin
Women's Super Coalition 
Jan Peterson

Youth
Peace Child International 
David Woollcombe

Academic and Research
International Institute for Environment and Development 
Nigel Cross
Stockholm Environment Institute 
Johannah Bernstein

Religious Communities
Baha'í International Community 
Peter Adriance

Education
CSD NGO Education Caucus 
Trevor Harvey
Consortium of Indian Scientists for Development 
Bremley W B Lyngdoh

Individuals
UNED Forum Chair 
Derek Osborn
UNED-Forum Vice-Chair
Margaret Brusasco- Mackenzie
UNED Forum Vice-Chair / WFUNA 
Malcolm Harper	
Ex Executive Director of the Centre for Our Common Future
Chip Lindner

United Nations
UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs 
Nitin Desai (USG) 
UN Environment Programme  
Klaus Töpfer (USG)

For UNED Forum:
Director 
Felix Dodds
International Policy Co-ordinator
Rosalie Gardiner
International Communications 
Co-ordinator
Toby Middleton
International Administrator 
Beth Hiblin

As at 3/4/00

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:  Network 2002 is the successor to Network '92 which was produced by the Centre for Our Common Future.  This newsletter's role is to tracking the agenda in the build up the Summit and to engage all groups in preparations for 2002. 

Partners to 2002: SDI & Poptel

SDI
Agenda 21 part 4 calls for a means of implementation and the transformation of existing information into forms more useful for decision-making.  Sustainable Development International (SDI) facilitates this by linking businesses who provide relevant strategies and enabling technologies to the project champions within major groups who require them. SDI has and will continue to build a platform for businesses and NGOs to strengthen information flow, systems and services within the sustainable development arena, leading to the implementation of Agenda 21. SDI does this through business to business (b2b) links on its web site and a 6-monthly b2b journal, both of which also contain case studies and success stories from the field, as well as policy papers and b2b information.  This is all presented in a user-friendly form for decision making. This formula is mirrored in its latest project Sustainable Travel and Tourism. As tourism is one of the largest growth industries in the world, sustainable tourism is a future trend that needs to be identified globally.

On the lead up to the Earth Summit 2002, a host city web site is envisaged enabling parties to obtain access to information, on local amenities, activities and businesses in the host city. We at SDI hope that this will create ease of transportation and accommodation for those attending the Earth Summit and also allow them to experience the culture of the country that they are visiting.

At present we are looking at creating potential web sites and links for the future in order to create a dynamic and expanding network with a view to add further depth to the services that we can offer. We welcome any input or suggestions, and can be contacted at : sford@icgpublishing.com

Poptel - the Internet company supporting UNED - Forum
When the Rio Earth Summit took place in 1992 the Internet was an emerging technology the power of which few understood. And yet NGOs and others concerned with environmental issues and sustainable development were already using on-line networks like Poptel and the APC to communicate on a global basis. Today the world is a very different place. The Internet is a critical tool driving the knowledge economy.

Poptel is an ethical company providing Internet services. Our client base is primarily not for profit and membership institutions. In the UK we are  amongst the top 20 largest Internet companies and recently were rated No. 1  for the quality of our technical services. Our mission is to "Connect, Inform and Empower". 

Together with our investment partners Sum International we are delighted to play a role in facilitating global participation in the next Earth Summit and ensuring a sustainable future. To achieve this we will deliver a range  of cutting edge technologies and services, providing Internet users 
throughout the world with the powerful, accessible tools they need to make a meaningful contribution to the process. They will disseminate information, support the exchange of ideas and best practice examples, and build a constructive dialogue around the policy issues. But perhaps most useful of all, the Internet will make possible new and productive relationships between people who care about the planet - relationships that might not otherwise have happened.
Contact:  www.poptel.net

Diary Dates, Events & Conferences

April 26th-28th:  World Education Forum, Dakar Senegal, UNESCO.
Contact www2.unesco.org/wef
May 3rd-5th:  International Chamber of Commerce 33rd World Congress, Budapest Hungary.  
Contact www.iccwbo.org/home/conferences/budapest/index.asp 
May 15th-26th:  Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi Kenya. Contact:  www.biodiv.org/cop5/index.html
May 22nd-26th:  The Millennium Forum, New York USA.
Contact:  www.un.org/millennium
May 29th-31st:  Special Session of UNEP's Governing Council, Malmo Sweden.
Email:  millerb@unep.org
June 5th-9th:  Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the 21st Century, Beijing + 5 Review, New York USA. Contact:  www.un.org/womenwatch/followup/beijing5/index.html
June 26th-30th:  World Summit for Social Development & Beyond, Copenhagen + 5, Geneva Switzerland 
Contact:  www.un.org/esa/socdev/geneva2000/index.html
June 28th-July 2nd:  Global Cities 21 - ICLEI World Congres of Local Governments, Sachsen-Anhalt Germarny, Contact:  www2.iclei.org/gc21

What's in next months Network ~2002...

Report on the outcome of the CSD - An interview with the Chairman.
First meeting of the  UNED Forum's International Advisory Board.
UNEP's Governing Council Special Session - The Global Environment Forum - Words from the Executive Director.
Beijing + 5 - UN & NGO perspectives.
Copenhagen + 5 - UN & NGO perspectives.
The Energy debate - An interview with Scott Ghagan - UK Dept. for the Env.
Report on the UNESCO Education Conference in Dakar.

Network 2002 is produced by the United Nations Environment & Development Forum, a multistakeholder NGO working in preparation for Earth Summit 2002.  We welcome your contribution the process - Your input is our Output. Contact the editor at: tmiddleton@earthsummit2002.org
Network 2002 is also available online at:  www.earthsummit2002.org