Network 2002 – April Issue

Contents

Towards Earth Summit 2002
Editorial
News, News, News
CSD 9 Intersessional
Meeting of Experts on Energy
45th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women
Multi-stakeholder Processes & Earth Summit 2002
UNEP & Climate Change
Meet the International Advisory Board
Briefing Paper on Sustainable Finance
Diary Dates, Events & Conferences
What’s in Next Months Network 2002

Towards Earth Summit 2002  
  At the end of April the international community will meet for the first global preparatory meeting to Earth Summit 2002. The Environment Minister of the Summit’s host Country, South Africa, offers his thoughts on history making choices we are about to make.
  At the dawn of the new millennium, the challenges  of sustainable development loom larger than ever. The Johannesburg Summit is about sustainable development. It is also about the protection of the environment as one element of sustainable development. At Johannesburg, the world consensus on real and practical meaning of sustainable development must take a quantum leap. Shall we dare to ask the question – how sustainable is a world which promotes the strident and unabated leaps of development of some parts of the world, and which perpetuate and, even exacerbate, the underdevelopment and accompany poverty and disease in other parts of the world ? 
  The Johannesburg Summit must not shirk the responsibility of critically assessing our successes and failures as far as the implementation of the Rio decisions are concerned. There is still time to complete unfulfilled tasks. The time between now and the Johannesburg Earth Summit is valuable. We must, for example, have closure on the climate change negotiations this year, so that the Johannesburg Summit does not get bogged down by such outstanding negotiations.
  Johannesburg must be more than just about looking back. The people of Africa, and indeed the world, will look upon this great gathering of world leaders in Johannesburg and want them to lead – to chart a path forward with courage and determination. Shall this path not have to provide hope: 
•	To the millions who suffer from water-born diseases? 
•	To the children who suffer as a result of under-development ? 
•	To the women whose emancipation will continue to elude us as long as they carry the burden of daily scavenging for sources of energy and clean water ? 
  The Summit must have prominent on its agenda, questions of health, water, energy, a better life for children and the emancipation of women.  The impact of the loss of biodiversity on the poor, particularly as it relates to the invasion of alien species and destruction of sources of food in the lakes of Africa. Must be addressed. We are talking about the intersection between environment, poverty and development. 
  This intersection constitutes the core subject matter of the Summit.
  The noble decisions of Rio and those, which we can expect to emerge from Johannesburg, will be unfulfilled without workable and democratic institutional arrangements to effect implementation.
  We should remove unnecessary obstacles, which can cloud constructive discussions on the issue of governance. We believe that  the following should be the basis for the review  of the current governance system that must take place within the framework of international multilateral arrangements:   
•	The system needs to empower small and developing countries to participate meaningfully in matters of environmental governance. The present proliferation of structures, agreements , programmes and conferences simply results in an inadequate participation on the part of developing countries. The dispersed and fragmented nature of the system makes it fundamentally undemocratic. 
•	These environmental governance processes need to be transparent. We need to remove the obfuscation associated within the current system. There is this very small body of people in this world who really and truly understands all of these processes and the large variety of acronyms that go along with it. There is no point in me coming to conferences like these, Mr President, unless I am able to get a meaningful and intelligent mandate from my Government. Therefore these processes must be understood by ordinary representatives of ordinary people. 
•	There is  a need, without being over-ambitious, to strive towards a kind of a one-stop institutional arrangement - to some extent a greater degree of centralisation.
•	The question of finance also needs us to address it quite systematically.  There is no point in having wonderful arrangements without adequate finances . Together with the issues of financing of institutions, there is a  need for  a fresh look at decision-making processes of international financing institutions, particularly in our case the Global Environment Facility and other International financing institutions. 
  It is encouraging that at the recent meeting of the UN governing council in Nairobi, where well  over sixty Environment Ministers from all corners of the Globe gathered, there was general agreement to take up these critical issues to ensure that when we meet together again next year there can be solutions that can precede Johannesburg. 
The journey to Johannesburg is as important as the Summit itself. Let us commit ourselves here to complete all that needs to be done in our own national preparatory processes, including popular mobilisation for sustainable development. Without popular mobilisation, we will not have sustainable development.
  In our country we are gearing up for the summit with the South African Cabinet and President Mbeki giving us full support 
  The United Nations preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 is being coordinated by a UN Task Force under the chair of the Deputy Secretary General of the UN; Ms. Louise Frechette. As host country, an official seconded by the South African government to the UN Task Force will provide regular liaison between South Africa’s National structures for coordination and the UN Task Force as well as provide broad political direction in the build up to the Summit.
  South Africa has commenced with national preparations for the Summit involving all levels of government. The hosting of the conference will be a joint partnership between national government, the Gauteng Province and Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council. We have also set up a number structures for co-ordination including the National Logistics Committee to co-ordinate all logistical arrangements and National Substance Committee to co-ordinate the preparation of discussion papers and the review of Agenda 21 and the national strategy for sustainable development. 
  It is also important to highlight that there will be regional preparations that will address key sustainable development issues, which, in view of the region, require priority attention and action at the global level. In these consultations issues, which, in view of the region, could be more effectively addressed at the regional/ sub-regional levels will also be identified. 
  We are ready for the challenge before us. The world would have succeeded in this gathering if issues of poverty in a world so endowed are addressed.   
  Mohammed Valli Moosa - Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Republic Of South Africa
www.environment.gov.za

Editorial
  “Shall we dare to ask the question – how sustainable is a world which promotes the strident and unabated leaps of development of some parts of the world, and which perpetuate and, even exacerbate, the underdevelopment and accompany poverty and disease in other parts of the world?”  So says South Africa’s Environment Minister on Earth Summit 2002 in this months lead article. Inspiring Stuff.
  And timely too. Latter this month the world gathers for the first preparatory meeting to the Summit. Although this Prep. Com. can be viewed as largely procedural, it is important that apathy doesn’t set in at the first hurdle. Hopefully with sentiments such as those expressed by our Summit hosts, there will be little chance of that.
  First though we have the 9th Session of the CSD, where key issues likely to also be tabled in Johannesburg will be discussed. Energy and Transport, notably, will be hot topics to follow over the next 15 months, not least due to the upcoming continuation of the Climate Change debate scheduled for July this year. 
  In the meantime, CSD will have to wrestle with complexities such as ‘is nuclear a clean energy technology?’ Hmm. Well, at a recent workshop on the issue I heard one delegate provide the reference point of the 30,000 year old Lascaux Cave paintings in France. That, if the artists had used nuclear power to light their work the radiation created would have just reached its half-life. So, quite some inheritance we are planning for our future generations then.
  Governments met in early March to prepare for these discussions at the CSD 9 Intersessional. You can read more on this on Page 4. Delegates also appeared to add their own agenda items, turning their attention to the Earth Summit (how could they not?). They even ventured so far as to consider appointing a ‘Special Ambassador’ to the Summit.
  On that note I hope that governments of the world feel suitably embarrassed that when considering possible special ambassadors for 2002, they all singularly failed to consider any female candidates. It is fortunate that elsewhere, at the CSW session, delegates were a little more progressive. More of their findings on Page 6.
 To complete the picture, Network is always on about the importance of stakeholders in the 2002 process. Supporting this on Page 7 we have an article on the possible form and function of stakeholder participation, specifically targeting the 2002 process. Business as usual then?  Never.
T.Middleton, 
Editor
News, News, News...
Africa Preparatory Process launched in Dakar
  The Africa preparatory process for Earth Summit 2002 was launched in Dakar on 13th March by His Excellency Maître Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal.
  In his opening statement, President Wade stressed the importance of such a gathering for the continent and insisted that Africa should stand and act in a concerted and coherent manner to ensure the success of the Johannesburg Summit. The African contribution to the Earth Summit, concluded the Senegalese Head of State, must result in an African Report that highlights pertinent ways and means to help solve the crises the Africa Region faces, particularly poverty eradication, in order to achieve sustainable development.
  Also present at the ceremony were members of the Government of Senegal, the Minister of Environment of the Gambia, members of the Dakar-based diplomatic corps, representatives from international organizations, local governments, NGOs and women and youth groups.
  Later, the Expanded Joint Secretariat for the Summit held its second meeting from 13-14 March  to review the status of the preparatory process. It was attended by representatives from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Organization of the African Unity (OAU), the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), The Economic Commission of West African States (ECOWAS), the Economic Commission of Central African States (ECCAS), the Inter-States Committee on Drought in the Sahel (CILSS), The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
  The participants confirmed that Africa's preparation for WSSD is to be carried out at three levels - national, sub-regional and regional. The national and sub-regional preparatory processes will feed into An African Regional Conference, to be convened on 28-31 August 2001, to consider and agree on an African Common Position. Also, African Regional Organizations (AMU, ECOWAS/CILSS, ECCAS, COMESA/IGAD and SADC) were designated  to lead the sub-regional review processes for their respective regions. The sub-regional consultations will be held on 28-31 May 2001 (SADC), 25-28 June 2001 (ECOWAS/CILSS), 9-13 July 2001 (ECCAS), 11-14 June 2001 (AMU), 16-19 July 2001 (COMESA/IGAD).  
  Financial contributions for the Africa Process were received from the Governments of Norway, Sweden and Belgium as well as from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and UNDP.
Bush Backs out of Kyoto
  What could be a fatal blow was dealt to the global climate agenda earlier this week. when the White House announced that the US had effectively abandoned the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.  Spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that ‘The President has been unequivocal. He does not support the Kyoto treaty’. Continuing he said ‘It is not in the United States Economic interest’. During his election campaign Bush had opined that scientists had yet to make a compelling case for global warming. 
  When pushed on the issue, Fleischer defended the Bush camp decision saying ‘there’s nothing to withdraw from’, on the basis that the agreement has yet to come into force. Although a spokesman for the State Dept. stated that the US were not considering ‘unsigning’ the treaty, the outlook for Kyoto looks bleak under current conditions.
  International partners met the decision with dismay and anger. Coming off the back of pressure from the European Union to press ahead with the deal, the fight against global warming was billed as ‘an integral part of relations’ with the EU.  EU Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, said in a statement ‘It is very worrying if it is true that the US intends to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol.’
  Countering Fleischer stated ’The concern is that most of the world is exempt from the Protocol and the Protocol as it currently is written is not in the economic interests of the United States as well, because of the huge costs involved  that are disproportionate to the benefits.’
  Environmental groups responded in disgust. A Friends of the Earth Spokesman called the US position ‘environmental issolationism’. ‘He (Bush) is systematically breaking his promise to the American public to protect the environment and keeping his promises to the wealthy polluters who put him in office’ said FoE spokesman Mark Helm.
  Equally damning were figures from within the US. Frank Loy, lead US negotiator on climate change under the Clinton administration, spoke of a ‘drastically bad’ (decision) and an ‘unmitigated disaster’. 
  The decision from the Bush camp to pull out of the climate change agenda so publicly almost ends the upcoming continuation of the Hague climate talks before they begin. The US administration had already requested a delay in their resumption, needing ‘time to form their climate team.’  This will leave the rest of the international community in a state of confusion about how best to press ahead without the meaningful participation of the US. 
  While time is needed for the dust to settle, still this decision casts a cloud over the Earth Summit in 2002. Several governments had looked to have the climate change agenda significantly advanced by the Summit avoid having the 2002 meeting get bogged down in endless divisions on climate. 

Reporting to 2002
  UN reporting to Earth Summit 2002 will take place throughout 2001. To input to that certain deadlines need to be met. The first round of reports have been provided by the Task Managers, and are available online at www.un.org/rio+10
  The second set of Task Managers reports, are being drawn up now to be released in July, deadline for input is ‘as soon as possible’. These reports will form the basis for the Secretary General’s Report on the Implementation of Agenda 21 due at the end of 2001. To input on each issue, contact the relevant task manager at: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/issueslist.htm

Clinton, Rawlings, Upton, Douglas, Mandela...and 2002 
  The Intersessional to the 9th Session of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development took place earlier this month. There proved to be an interesting unofficial agenda running parallel to the formal discussions. UNED was in the corridors feeling the mix. 
The CSD 9 Intersessional in March officially covered four areas: Transport, Atmosphere, Information for Decision Making and Participation and International Cooperation for an Enabling Environment. Unofficially it was  about Earth Summit 2002.
  The CSD Intersessional offers space for ideas to be put forward before the negotiations start, thus offering the chance to be creative. The problem was that no ones not really doing that.
  In the formal discussions on Transport there were some very good NGO and Women’s caucus suggestions picked up by governments. One issue raised by the NGOs related to the need to strengthen regional bodies to enable them to make regional agreements, particularly in the area of air pollution. The Women’s Caucus advocated the need to move towards transport planning based on the analysis of household needs so that everybody's travel patterns are included.
  Some of the discussion focussed on the people's side of the transport issue more than the energy side, as this was  covered  during the meeting of experts on energy the previous week. There was also some debate over the differences between 'transport for sustainable development and 'sustainable transport'.
  The discussions on Atmosphere were mostly focussed on pollution issues and again left the issue of energy to the discussions of the previous week. 
  Turning their attention to Information for Decision Making and Participation much of the debate focussed on the area of indicators for sustainable development. Since 1995 the Division for Sustainable Development's work on indicators had resulted in 22 countries monitoring a set of 58 core indicators. There were questions from the NGOs concerning choice, lack of gender sensitivity and the need to focus down to just 58 indicators in the first place. This NGO criticism was in places shared by G77 who, in addition, saw the move to Core Indicators as a move towards conditionality.  There was some discussion concerning the Aarhus Convention on Access to information. However, there was little political momentum to push for  this regionally formed Convention to a global level.
  On International Cooperation for an Enabling Environment  much of the discussion centred on setting out the stalls for the discussion on finance for 2002.  Discussion focussed on Overseas Development Assistance, the Global Environment Facility, Debt relief, trade issues, transfer of technology and how to create an enabling economic environment at all levels.
  Of the numerous informal discussions in the Delegates' Lounge many delegates were discussing Earth Summit 2002. Speculation included the possible need for Special Ambassadors (see list above) to promote the Summit and help persuade the Heads of State to attend, and to do so with some commitments. Some say that it would be a good signal to have two main special ambassadors – e.g. one from the South, one from the North, maybe even one woman, one man?
  Also being discussed was what issues should be addressed by the Summit. The US held a meeting with NGOs on 2002 and highlighted areas that the Administration might be prepared to lead on issues such as Straddling Fish Stocks (the Convention is 3 signatures short of coming into effect - the EU have yet to ratify). The European Commission made available a background paper on their thoughts for the Summit. 
  The main other discussions were around the international architecture and how that might be approached as an issue.
  Early days in preparations for the Summit, but lots of informal discussions trying to work out what everybody's going to put forward are well under way in the corridors.
  It looks like the April CSD will be long hard nights of negotiations. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd9/csd9_2001.htm
Felix Dodds
  
The Big Energy Mix
  Discussions on Energy at the CSD this year have already created a lot of heat. Contention on what’s on the agenda and what’s left off has kept many brows fevered. Gail Karlsson reports on preparations which continued earlier this month.
  In order to prepare for this year’s session, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) established an Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development. Every year the CSD reviews progress on selected segments of Agenda 21, the comprehensive plan of action adopted at the first Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This year’s topics include energy, transport and atmosphere. 
  One of the reasons the CSD formed this special group of energy experts was that energy issues were not adequately addressed in Agenda 21. In large part this was due to conflicts of interest between oil-producing and oil-importing countries. Those conflicts remain, and additional ones have arisen within and between negotiating blocs as countries struggle to address the threats presented by global climate change. These threats are closely connected with emissions of carbon dioxide from electrical power plants, industrial facilities and motor vehicles.  
  The energy experts group worked on preparing a draft set of recommendations which will be forwarded to the CSD itself for consideration and possible adoption at its session in April. A proposed working text prepared by the CSD secretariat focused on issues relating to accessibility of energy, energy efficiency, adoption of renewable energy technologies, advanced fossil fuel technologies, nuclear energy, the need for expanded availability of rural energy in developing countries, and energy issues related to transportation. Much of this was drawn from a 500-page report prepared jointly by the UN Development Programme, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the World Energy Council – the World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, which can be found electronically at www.undp.org.  
  The co-chairs for or the energy group meeting were Mr. Mohammad Reza Salamat of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Ms. Irene Freudenschuss-Reichl of Austria. The main negotiators were Iran on behalf of the G77 and China, Sweden on behalf of the EU, Canada, the United States, and Russia. Most of the 53 countries that are members of the CSD were represented, although many of the delegates were probably diplomats from the New York mission offices rather than energy experts sent from national offices. Others attending the meeting included  representatives of other UN members, representatives of United Nations organisations and secretariats of treaty bodies, as well as observers for intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 
  Over 25 different NGOs were represented at the experts meeting. The NGO caucus produced and distributed a paper with proposed deletions and changes to the draft negotiating text which can be found at www.igc.org/csdngo/energy/ene_IGEESDtext_ngo_changes.htm. The caucus also made an official statement at the meeting, which can be viewed at www.igc.org/csdngo/energy/ene_Intersessional_Atmos_statement.htm.
  The NGOs called for full-cost accounting that incorporates the true economic costs of different energy sources and technologies, as well as their health, environmental and social impacts. When such costs are taken into account, “expensive” alternative energy systems relying on wind, solar, micro-hydro and geothermal sources become cost-competitive. NGOs also emphasised energy efficiency and conservation efforts, and argued for the removal of energy subsidies that encourage over-reliance on fossil fuels and promote large hydropower projects and nuclear plants. Recognising the needs of developing countries, where two billion people lack access to electricity, NGOs called for promotion of decentralised renewable forms of energy, and special attention to the burdens of women in rural areas, who often have to carry fuel wood over long distances and suffer adverse health effects from prolonged exposure to open fires.
  The most contentious issue at the energy group meeting concerned the use of nuclear energy. In the section on the appropriate energy mix to meet growing energy demand, the United States, Russia and Canada proposed including nuclear technology. Within the European Union, some countries were in favour of including nuclear energy and others were opposed. China and India emphasised the right of all countries to develop nuclear energy. Some other developing countries stated that nuclear energy sources were neither acceptable nor appropriate; still others preferred a gradual phase-out. A compromise text was proposed that refers to challenges related to costs, spent fuels and waste management, and public concerns about safety. In the end, however, there was no consensus and the matter was referred to the official CSD session for resolution in April.
  During a side meeting hosted by the Canadian and USA delegation on 2 March, Janet Stephanson, a member of the Canadian delegation, briefed participants on the status of the Energy and Transport exhibition, which had been scheduled to be held in parallel to CSD session. She said that due to insufficient financing and logistics the exhibition would not take place, but could possibly take place in some form at Earth Summit 2002 in Johannesburg. One of the major obstacles to successful multi-stakeholder planning for the exhibition was NGO insistence that the exhibition should not include nuclear technologies as examples of sustainable energy options. 
  Gail V. Karlsson is Chair of the Working Group on Climate Change and Energy for the U.S. Citizens Network for Sustainable Development. gkarlsson@igc.org

To mainstream or not to mainstream: The challenge of the gender agenda
  The debate regarding how best to ensure women are directly involved, at all levels, in decision-making processes continues. That women should be participating in order that equality is achieved and maintained is not in question, at least officially.  
  At the recent 45th session of Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the G77 statement recommended that women should be supported to gain economic independence. Thus all countries involved in the UN display commitment to equality and ensure that this is implemented in all the UN processes.
  However the recent 45th session of the Commission on the Status of Women showed symptoms of perhaps an underlying trend - that full participation of women is still a challenging concept. The actions of the main players tend to portray something of a reluctance to see words matched by deeds. There is no distinct north-south divide in this contrast between words and deeds nor is it a private sector versus NGOd. As with all of life’s major concerns it is as complex as humanity itself.  
  CSW saw, as usual, a large NGO contingent with 1900 NGO representatives registered. The NGO programme included 105 events held over the two weeks plus the NGO conference on the day preceding the start of CSW. Despite snow, the meeting went ahead to discuss the three themes - Women, the girl child and HIV/AIDS; Gender and all forms of discrimination, in particular racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the new CSW multi-year work programme for the period 2002-2006.
  If there is no question that women should be fully involved at all levels of decision making, but the debate about mainstreaming is on-going. The problem facing CSW participants is two-fold. Firstly some NGOs feel that having faced years of opposition and oppression and finally succeeded in achieving written, signed and ratified UN agreements and conventions regarding the equality of women, now the debate is including the place of men and boys. Whilst some feel that there is still much work to be done and that all efforts should be made to implement existing agreements, others believe that until men realise that equality of opportunity for all is everyone’s challenge and opportunity, no real gains will be made. The argument lies in the notion that only when women achieve their true potential, will men achieve the greatness that could be theirs. Consequently men and boys must be supported and encouraged to play an active and full part in the discussions regarding equality and thereafter be empowered to assist in the implementation of the resulting agreements.
  The second challenge lies in the concept of mainstreaming itself with two aspects of CSW highlighting this: the NGO call for another UN conference on women, and the linking of the CSW programme to other UN processes.  
  The notion of the validity of international conferences at all is a cross cutting UN topic. Opinions are divided. Some feel that conferences as a whole are a waste of time, money and resources. Others feel that UN conferences serve to highlight issues and are therefore indispensable.  Most agree that if there are going to be conferences on other UN processes then there is no choice but to have another one on women as well. There is a generally held feeling among NGOs that a Beijing +10 conference, or a Meta conference should take place. While CSW was meeting it was announced that there would be no Cairo+10 (Population) and the CSW work programme does not mention a conference in 2005. The agreed EU position is that full reviews of world conferences should not be held automatically, but only if specific action is needed. 
  Perhaps the real issue here is the level of consultation between NGOs throughout the year with States Parties so that civil society has ample opportunity to have its voice heard and that opinion included in the government draft documents and definitions of their negotiating bottom line. There appears to be a wide disparity between the levels of consultation between governments and NGOs. Some countries, such as the UK, are to be congratulated on their increasing partnership with NGOs. Certainly an increasing amount of time given to real consultation with NGOs and the inclusion of the results in their official stance is a sustainable and valuable goal for the public sector and civil society alike. 
  There are many countries that wish to see CSW grow in importance. Thus a number of governments, supported by many NGOs, attempted to get the multi-year programme of CSW linked to other UN processes. The themes of CSW and the two special panels held during the Commission linked CSW to two other major UN events: the Special Session on HIV/AIDS in June and World Conference on Racism in Durban this Sept.. 
  Ensuring links with other UN processes whilst yet giving agreed  themes priority proved a challenge. All the concepts within the multi-year programme are important and many issues are linked and cross cutting. So the debates continued as to whether ICT should go in the preamble and thus be part of the yearly programme of CSW or only appear as a theme one year. The same questions were raised regarding partnerships. Some countries felt that issues are so vital they should be in the preamble as well as a major theme of a given year. Eventually CSW reaffirmed it's primary goal of mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the United Nations system. 
  There was no agreed outcome on “Women, the girl child and HIV/AIDS” thus one of the decisions was for CSW to meet in resumed session from 9 to 11 May 2001. It is clear that HIV/AIDS is closely related to development. An article by Barbara Crosette published at the UN on Feb. 23 indicates that in India and Africa, women's low status increases their risk of AIDS. Subsequent e-debates have continued this discussion. “The poverty and powerlessness of women in Africa and Asia are combining to make them increasingly vulnerable to AIDS, which some research groups are now calling a women's disease”, states Crosette. The main stumbling blocks to agreement were the provision of cheap anti-retroviral drugs, the role of the family, and sexual and reproductive rights. Whilst stronger links between CSW and other UN processes may be a real desire of some countries, how to achieve this without CSW getting bogged down by issues to be debated elsewhere has proved a problem. 
  Despite difficulties an agreed document on “Gender and all forms of discrimination, in particular racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” was adopted in a package deal put forward by the Chairman. CSW ended with much of the agenda unfinished and work will be resumed after written submissions by governments and NGOs. 
  The UN process, whilst flawed, remains a key contributor to global development. Any observer must surely be amazed that any decisions are reached or that any country feels impelled to implement them as the UN has so little real teeth. Surely it is a sign of the growing maturity of humanity that governments do feel impelled by international pressure to sign up and to implement international agreements.  The voice of civil society is being heard and listened to in the corridors of power and herein lies the hope for all those working in NGOs for a better world. The gender agenda is certainly challenging but the growing importance of CSW and its headaches is a sign that humanity is at last recognising that equality of the sexes is not only a reality, but an essential pre-requisite to world peace and prosperity.
Zarin Hainsworth Fadaei
Director Office for the Advancement of Women
Association of Baha’I Women UK
•	CEDAW - Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women

Multi-stakeholder Processes and the Stakeholder Dialogues Towards Earth Summit 2002
  Among the key aspects of Agenda 21 are the chapters dealing with the role of Major Groups (women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, NGOs, business & industry, workers & trade unions, science & technology, farmers, local authorities). Agenda 21 is the first UN document to extensively address the role of different stakeholders in the implementation of a global agreement. How to go about engaging them is a different matter.
  UNED Forum has recently been working on developing a methodological framework and a step-by-step guide for multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs), in order to contribute to the development of principles of stakeholder participation and engagement. The draft report in currently under consultation with stakeholders. A workshop in April will discuss the second draft. The report presents a number of building blocks for MSPs, addressing: MSP goals and various types; their role in the context of the ongoing debate on global governance; their value/ideological basis; relevant scientific findings; 20 existing examples. The step-by-step guide offers a check-list which need to be addressed when designing, carrying out and evaluating an MSP.
  Over the last few years, stakeholder paricipation and multi-stakeholder processes have generated considerable interest, around (inter-)governmental bodies and independently. Examples include the World Commission on Dams, the UN Global Compact initiative, the Global Reporting Initiative, the CSD Stakeholder Dialogues, the WBCSD / IIED Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development Initiative, National Councils for Sustainable Development, Local Agenda 21 processes, etc. 
  Many of these processes have been organised on an ad-hoc basis, those around intergovernmental processes need to clarify their linkage into official decision-making. Many also need to be more transparent, inclusive and equitable, as well as action-oriented. 
  The GA resolution on Earth Summit 2002 "encourages effective contributions from and the active participation of all major groups, as identified in Agenda 21, at all stages of the preparatory process" and "stresses that the preparatory meetings and the 2002 Summit itself should be transparent and provide for…contributions from and active participation of major groups".
  The CSD has pioneered multi-stakeholder engagement with the UN with the Multi-stakeholder Dialogues, which have informed the deliberations of the Commission on different topics since 1998. Internationally, the Dialogues represent the most advanced multi-stakeholder discussions within the UN system on sustainable development issues.
  This tradition should be developed further in preparation for Earth Summit 2002 to: raise awareness of Earth Summit 2002  among stakeholders and the general public; to ensure informed decision-making by getting substantial contributions from all Major Groups in a transparent and inclusive manner; and to build commitment and partnerships which will further the implementation of agreements reached in 2002. The CSD Secretariat is planning global thematic round tables of Major Groups in conjunction with the Summit preparations
  The planned multi-stakeholder dialogues and global thematic round tables should include the following principles and steps:
·	Support active engagement of all Major Groups in the process, to clarify the role of the dialogues and the global thematic round tables and their linkages into the intergovernmental decision-making process;
·	Work with a steering group of   representatives of all Major Groups, elected/appointed by their peers; 
·	Establish transparency through ensuring wide consultations within Major Groups' constituencies and through publishing information about the process, issues and outcomes;
·	Enable meaningful participation of Major Groups through the trust fund;
Preparations
·	Issues should be identified in consultation with the steering group;
·	The decision on which Major Groups should participate needs to be made in consultation with the steering group, based on a careful analysis of the most significant stakeholders for a particular issue. Major Groups should identify their respective representatives through transparent processes within their constituencies;
·	Major Groups should submit background documents well in advance, outlining problems, possible solutions, relevant institutions, and possible partnerships for implementation,  these should be published on the UN Rio+10 website. An analysis of commonalities and differences should be conducted;
·	Preparations need sufficient time, including for Major Groups to consult within their constituencies; 
Dialogues should be 
·	held at the beginning of meetings and enable government participation (no parallel negotiating sessions);
·	chaired with a view to identifying common ground between stakeholders and to encourag partnerships for implementation of possible agreements; 
·	documention to be put forward to subsequent negotiations; participating stakeholders should be consulted when finalising the summaries.
  With regard to identifying the issues to be addressed by the multi-stakeholder dialogues at the International PrepComms:
·	Major Groups should conduct consultation processes within their constituencies to identify their priority issues, ensuring regional and gender balance;
·	Multi-stakeholder dialogues at the 2nd International PrepCom should focus on the priority issues identified by Major Groups. This should include all Major Groups and can be organised in two or three sessions with different groups participating;
·	Dialogues at the 3rd and 4th PrepComms should focus on priority issues as identified in the official process, and include a Dialogue Session with Ministers at the 4th PrepComm;
·	Dialogues at the Summit itself should focus on a small number of priority issues as addressed by the Summit; these should include all Major Groups but not necessarily the same Major Groups in all dialogue sessions.
  The issues to be addressed by the multi-stakeholder dialogues at the Regional PrepComms should be identified through consultations with steering groups of regional Major Groups representatives, with a view to addressing emerging priority issues in the regions (national reports, regional reports).
  The issues to be addressed by the global thematic round tables should be identified through consultations with the steering group of international Major Groups representatives.
Follow-Up
  There needs to be space to further build on the dialogues. The process should not only benefit from stakeholders informing governments but also from immediately involving them in the steps towards implementation. For example, stakeholders should study (draft) agreements and engage in action-oriented discussions on how to implement them. They should identify the tools and strategies of information and partnerships they need and commit to pilot projects. These should be carried out in an agreed time-frame and be reported back to the intergovernmental process. UNED Forum is planning an Implementation Conference around the Summit which will work on the (draft) Summit agreements.
Minu Hemmati
Contact: minush@aol.com 
All material is available at www.earthsummit2002.org/msp 

UNEP & the Impact of Climate Change
  In the first of our new UNEP feature articles, we look at the complexities of the Global Climate Agenda. UNEP’s Ravi Sharma reports.
  UNEP’s focus for the several years has been to handle the challenge of developing methodological tools for climate change mitigation, as the international agency responsible for World Climate Impacts and Strategies Programme.
  The three Kyoto mechanisms, agreed in 1997, took the first major step to move the international community in this direction. Though much more work needs to be done to detail the implementation of these complex mechanisms, the good news is that movement is heading in the direction of incorporating climate mitigation as part of economic policy.
  However, even with the successful implementation of the Kyoto mechanisms, the rate of climate change will merely slow. Scientists state that a 60% reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2010 is necessary to stabilise the global climate, while kyoto requires just 5.2%.
  Both emissions and the capability to emit carbon are unevenly distributed around the world. A dozen countries control 95% of conventional carbon resources and 15 nations contribute to over 75% of the worlds annual emissions.
  The nations with the highest emissions have the potential to control carbon concentrations, but little incentive. On the other hand, nations with low emissions and high impacts have great incentive to control, but little means or authority. This has put vulnerable countries in a very difficult situation.
  Developing countries can be generally catagorised as more vulnerable due to limited financial and institutional base to adapt to the added stress of climate change. The vulnerability of human health and socio-economic systems depends upon economic circumstances and institutional infrastructure. People who live on arid or semi-arid lands, in low-lying coastal areas, in water limited or flood planes, or small islands are particularly vulnerable.
  This is a serious concern for countries which are surviving on an environment already stretched to its capacity, and with no possibility of putting additional resources for adaptation measures. Therefore, precautionary investments, to assist human and natural systems to adapt to climate change becomes a necessity. 
  UNEP has produced a handbook of climate impact and adaptation assessment methods. The next step for UNEP is to assist developing countries to integrate climate impacts and adaptation options into their overall national economic development strategy. This approach will guarantee that the wealth of nations not only increases but is sustained in the 21st Century.

Meet the International Advisory Board

ANPED - Northern Alliance for Sustainability
Contact Name: Pieter J. van der Gaag
Web Address: www.anped.org
Summary of the Organisation: ANPED is an international network of NGOs in the UNECE area. Our mission is to empower Northern civil society in creating and protecting sustainable communities and societies world-wide. We do this by building capacity among northern civil society organisations through sharing of information, knowledge and skills; and by enabling informed and effective democratic participation by civil society in local, national, regional and international decision-making on sustainable development policy and practices.
Key programmes are:
1) Sustainable Production and Consumption, which includes campaigns on corporate accountability, genetic engineering, extended producer responsibility, subsidy reform, clean production, and more;
2) Local Sustainability, which includes campaigns on Local Agenda 21 and participatory democracy (most recently a regional democracy campaign in the Balkans),
3) Health and Environment, mostly focussed on the WHO process on Health and Environment, as well as reproductive health and freshwater;
4) International Political Processes, which means that ANPED follows key international political processes related to Sustainable Development;
Regions Covered: ANPED covers the regions North America, Western, Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States.
Key partners: 150 Member Organisations. Key partnerships with the Earth Council, the Regional Environment Centre, ICLEI, and ELCI.

Peacechild International
Contact Name: David Woollcombe
Web-address: www.peacechild.org
Summary of the organisation: mission: empowering young people; Peace Child is a youth-led organisation working from a residential headquarters near Cambridge, England, where young people from around the world staff regional desks, manage all projects with two adult managers. Projects are implemented through a network of some 500-youth eco-groups in 155 countries around the world;
Summary of key projects/fields of work: implementation of Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 with full "reorientation of education  towards sustainable development"; youth participation in Agenda 21 implementation through the promotion of youth-led action projects in the field of sustainable development - the "Be the Change!" project;
New Projects include: 'Rescue Mission 2002' - a youth-driven update on the implementation of Agenda 21 since 1992. Further books and publications on youth involvement in sustainable development issues; 'Living Citizenship' - enabling young people to experience the power of citizenship through practical experience rather than classroom teaching;
Orgnisations Coverage: International
Key partners/links: UNCSD; UNEP; UNDP; UNICEF; UNESCO; United Games + every single one of the 500+ youth eco-groups in 155 countries around the world who are part of the Peace Child family.

Seeking Global Financial Security
  In advance of the UN Financing for Development preparatory meeting in May, and as part of the preparations for the Earth Summit 2002, UNED Forum has produced a new briefing looking at the global financial system, titled ‘Sustainable Finance: Seeking Global Financial Security’.
  Addressing the critical need for a more integrated and sustainable financial system, the paper draws together a range of viewpoints from different groups and sectors. It examines current trends in the financial system and describes some of the existing instruments and institutional frameworks available to deal with the causes and consequences of:
1. Short term financial volatility and crises
2. Long term financial insecurity
  It profiles some of the principle ideas that have been proposed for financial reform, before finally considering key questions to be addressed in future debate. 
  The paper is now online at
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/briefings/

Diary Dates, Events & Conferences
8-11 April 12th Global Warming International Conference and & Expo—Kyoto Compliance Review. Cambridge, UK. Conact: www.phoenergy.org/solar2001.html
16-27 April 9th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. New York, USA. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd9/csd9_2001.htm
25-27 April Tenth International Conference on Health & the Environment: Global Partners for Global Solutions. World Information Transfer. New York, USA. Contact: www.worldinfo.org/html/conf.htm
30 April - 2 May 1st Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. New York, USA. Contact: www.un.org/rio+10/web_pages/first_prepcom.htm
30 April - 11 May UN High-level Intergovernmental Consultation on Financing for Development - Prep. Com. 3. New York, USA. Contact: www.un.org/esa/ffd/index.html
14-20 May 3rd UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries. Brussels, Belgium. 
Contact: www.un.org/events/ldc3/conference/
16-18 May OECD Environment Ministers Meeting & Annual OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial Level. Paris, France. Contact: www.oecd.org/media/upcoming.htm
23-27 May Youth Conference on Environment & Sustainable Development. Swedish Ministry for Environment. Borgholm Sweden. Contact: camilla.funke@lsu.se
6-8 June UN General Assembly Special Session on the Review & Appraisal of the Implementation of the Habitat Agenda. New York, USA. Contact: www.istanbul+5.htm
25-27 June UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS. New York, USA. 
Contact: www.unaids.org/whatsnew/others/un_special/index.html
16-27 July Resumed COP6/14th Session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies. Bonn, Germany. 
Contact: www.unfccc.int

What’s in next months Network ~2002…
•	CSD 9 - Outcomes & Analysis
•	CSD 10 - Earth Summit 2002 Prep. Com. I
•	World Information Transfer - Environment & Health
•	3rd Least Developed Countries Conference - Preview
Preparing for Istanbul+5, the Urban Agenda