Network 2002 – March Issue

Contents:
Prep. Comm. II
Editorial
News
Implementation Conference
UNEP Global Ministerial Forum
World Economic Forum
UNEP Finance Initiative
Meet the International Advisory Board
Diary Dates, Events & Conferences
What’s in Next Months Network

From 
New York 
to Jo’burg. 
Can the debate be 
focussed, and real action plans created?
  Earth Summit 2002’s 2nd Global Prep. Comm. had much to consider, and not much time in which to do it. Impossible to see the wood for the trees? Or did everything fall beautifully into place? Stakeholder Forum’s Derek Osborn reports.
  Two weeks of hard work in New York at the beginning of February have got the Johannesburg Summit on the road. Wide-ranging discussions between countries and with representatives of all the major groups have produced a vast array of ideas and proposals for advancing sustainable development. The chairman's text produced at the end of the Preparatory Committee has made a heroic effort to organise all this material into a cogent and structured summary which can now form the basis for the more detailed negotiations.  
    In this article I will endeavour to look at the main themes which Stakeholder Forum has been trying to articulate during the Prep Com and elsewhere, drawing on the contributions of all the individual stakeholders groups. This article sets out the steps which we have identified as being crucial in carrying the work forward to the next stage.
  The first and essential step is to ensure that stakeholder voices get heard, and carry as much weight as they ought to do. This lies partly with the stakeholder groups themselves to do their homework, and to build support around the world for the causes they are advocating. But it also crucially depends on having a clear process in the international meetings, which enables stakeholder voices to be assembled and articulated clearly and effectively at the right time.
    Considerable efforts have been made by the secretariat to involve stakeholders, but the general feeling during the second PrepCom was that the arrangements still fell some way short of the ideal. 
  One weakness was that the different stakeholder groups did not have the opportunity to meet together before the dialogues with governments to consult about their respective positions and agree on the key issues to be highlighted. This meant that when it came to the dialogues the different positions were put forward rather formally in a series of prepared statements with the result that no clear view of priorities or focus emerged. This in turn led to rather formal responses from government representatives present, with little or no opportunity for free-flowing discussion to get deeper into the key issues and priorities. 
  Many people contrasted the dialogue sessions unfavorably with those at the recent International Conference on Freshwater in Bonn where the stakeholders had identified a few key issues between themselves in advance, and where a facilitator/Chair helped to maintain a lively and creative debate on the central themes. It is hoped that some of these defects of process can be put right for the further stakeholder dialogues planned for the final  Prep Comm and, and at Johannesburg itself.
  Turning to content, Stakeholder Forum identified ten key themes which emerged strongly from the stakeholder contributions and put these forward to try to help focus the debate.
1. Principles, Vision and Strategy. The principles contained in Agenda 21, including the precautionary, sudsidiarity and polluter pays principles need to be further operationalised.
2. Poverty Eradication, Human Security and Human Development.   Concrete programmes for action and partnership to tackle poverty need to be established, focusing on key target areas including water and sanitation, health, employment creation, food security and energy. 
3. Globalisation: Setting Trade and Investment to Sustainability. The Johannesburg Summit should send a clear message to the trade and investment community to ensure that the trade round delivers on the legitimate aspirations of developing countries for better market access to the developed world. 
4. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Johannesburg should establish a programme of measures for promoting this.
5. Natural Resources: Integrated Management and Regulation. The Summit should be the occasion for the ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, the Biosafety Protocol, and further steps on implementing the Conventions on  Hazardous Wastes and Chemicals, Desertification, and Straddling fish stocks. Implementation resources and enforcement machinery for MEAs also need to be strengthened.
  6. Health and Environment.  Further national and international commitments should be made to address critical issues related to health and environment.
7. Finance for Sustainable Development. There should be specific discussions about how the decline in Official Development Assistance can be reversed. There needs to be debate on how debt relief and debt cancellation can be extended. There needs to be a specific negotiation seeking a substantial replenishment of the Global Environment Facility.
8. Technology Transfer, Capacity Building and Education Johannesburg should establish strategies and programmes for enhancing exchange of technologies and capacity building. 
9. Governance and participation.  UNEP and the CSD should be strengthened, and sustainable development built more securely into the mandates of other international agencies.
10. Global Deal. At Johannesburg heads of state and high-level ministers will need to set out a strong statement of global commitment, endorsing the key steps to make the shift towards Sustainable Development. The decisions of the Summit should be encapsulated in a new Global Deal, based on key elements, including:
•	Equity – eradicating poverty through equitable and sustainable access to resources;
•	Rights – securing environmental and social rights;
•	Limits – reducing resource use to within sustainable limits;
•	Justice – recognition of ecological and social debts and cancellation of financial debts;
•	Democracy – ensuring access to information and public participation; and
•	Ethics – rethinking the values and principles that guide human behaviour."
  Many of these themes did appear in the Chairman's text, but in muted form. No clear sense of their central importance and priority has yet appeared in the text. Others do not yet feature in the text at all. Stakeholders have a big task ahead to lobby governments effectively to agree to stronger commitment on these points by Johannesburg. Many governments called for poverty to be addressed as the vital issue of the Summit. The Chair’s text addresses some elements such as food, water and energy, but does not address other vital components such as employment and human settlements.
  There was a very strong call by NGOs, and others, for a convention for TNC’s. Governments will have to address this at the next Prep. Comm. as momentum for the initiative grows.
  Apart from content, the Chairman's text at present lacks a clear structure for shaping the debate on each of the issues that is dealt with. Agenda 21 itself had a very clear analytical framework for dealing with each topic addressed. This proved a very useful means of  identifying objectives and responsibilities for the kind of actions needed by different actors to secure results in each topic area addressed.
  On this occasion there is general agreement that implementation is even more critically important than it was at the time of Rio. Therefore a similar framework for analysis and debate about the steps to be taken to secure action would be all the more important. Stakeholder Forum is canvassing the possibility of organising each section of the negotiation and outcome documents under the following headings:
•	Introduction to the issue
•	Programme area
•	Basis for Action
•	Objectives
•	Activities at all levels
•	Means of implementation - including capacity building,    technology sharing, education and training
•	Roles of stakeholders
•	Financial resources
•	Timetable and targets
•	Indicators and review
  It could be useful for there to be some task forces established on some of the specific key issues such as water or energy or health to elaborate detailed programmes on these lines.
  This approach could link strongly with the suggestion put forward by the Secretary General that the output of the Johannesburg Summit could include a new type of outcome (Type 2) which should consist of a series of non-negotiated initiatives and partnerships brought forward by a variety of actors to contribute to the general programme of sustainable development implementation agreed by the Summit. While welcoming this recognition of the potential importance and significance of stakeholder partnerships to promoting sustainable development Stakeholder Forum has urged that there will need to be a framework of key programmes within which such partnership initiatives can be brought forward, and some criteria which they will need to satisfy to be generally accepted as being worthy components of a Johannesburg sustainability programme.
Editorial
  If you value a good nights sleep, now is not the time to be a government delegate. Prep. Comm. II has given us a text that threatens to see quite a few sunrises when it’s opened for negotiation. Short it certainly isn’t. I suppose this was largely to be expected as the result of seeking a truly bottom-up preparatory process. There was, after all, a lot to fit in. 
  The issue now is what can be made of it all. On one side, there is plenty to play with. On the other we could be destined for a text negotiated down to its ‘lowest common denominator’. Now that really would be a shame.
  Meanwhile we await any developments on the ‘Type 2’ non-negotiated initiatives and partnerships. There is plenty of enthusiasm for stakeholders to play an active role in the process. However, when guided by such a diverse chair’s text exactly what initiatives and partnerships are applicable is hard to tell. 
  One could say ‘let many flowers bloom’. I for one would rather ruffle a few feathers by short listing a few priority issues upon which to take action, establish a framework criteria for what is and isn’t allowed, and then take the extraordinary step of actually trying to do something. 		         
T. Middleton

News, News, News...
UNFF 2 to be held in New York  
  The UNFF Bureau held its third meeting in New York,  27-28 January, 2002.  One of the objectives of the meeting were to review the preparations for the second session of the UNFF.      
  Ms. Patricia Chaves, the Bureau member of Costa Rica,  informed the Bureau that, due to unforeseen circumstances, the Government of Costa Rica had regretfully decided to withdraw its offer to host the second session of the UNFF, which had been scheduled for 4-15 March, in San José, Costa Rica.    
  After consultations with the respective UN departments, the Bureau decided to change the venue to New York, and to keep the same dates. UNFF 2 will now be held on 4-15 March, 2002, at UN Headquarters in New York. The high-level ministerial segment is scheduled for 13-14 March.  The same dates as previously scheduled were maintained in order to minimize any adverse impacts from the change in venue.
  Regarding the dialogue between the Ministers and heads of Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) member organizations (13 March), the Bureau reconfirmed its earlier selection of critical issues.  Furthermore, at the dialogue, the Bureau proposed that a Minister be invited to make an opening statement on one particular critical issue to start the discussion on that issue.  Selected heads of CPF member organizations would then respond to the Minister’s opening statement.  This would set the stage for a more interactive dialogue between the Ministers and CPF heads, on the critical issues.   
  The Bureau also noted that the outcome of the Ministerial deliberations on 14 March would be: an endorsement of UNFF Plan of Action and political commitment towards its implementation; enhanced international cooperation, including recognition of the role of CPF to facilitate countries’ implementation of the Plan of Action; repositioning of forests on the national and international political agendas; and, a Ministerial message to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) as well as other fora.          
  The CPF has initiated efforts to cooperate and communicate with relevant stake-holders in an informal network, by drafting a concept paper on the CPF Network. The concept paper has been prepared in close consultation with many stakeholders and outlines the objectives, functions, participants and working modalities of the CPF Network. The concept paper will serve as the basis for the first CPF Network meeting, scheduled on Tuesday 6 March in the evening at UN Headquarters, open to all UNFF 2 participants. It is envisaged that the participation in the CPF Network will be open-ended and broad.  
Extracted from UNFF News, No.1, 2002
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm
Local Government Leaders Prepare for Earth Summit 2002
  Local government leaders and experts from around the world will gather in Vancouver beginning February 27 to discuss how local action can contribute to global progress for sustainable development. At Local Agenda to Action: Building a Sustainable Future organized by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and hosted by the City of North Vancouver in conjunction with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, delegates will discuss the unique role of local action in promoting sustainable development--economic development which is environmentally friendly and promotes social justice for present and future generations.
  Delegates will review local government's plan of action for their participation in the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Johannesburg Summit will assess global progress toward sustainable development since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, better known as the Rio or Earth Summit. 
  Implementing the Rio agenda had been an "uphill task" according to Summit Secretary-General Nitin Desai in a recent UN address. "At each stage we go a little bit further up the hill, and at Johannesburg, the goal is to make it to the top."
  The Johannesburg Summit is expected to generate new interest in sustainable development. The ideals of Rio will be made tangible through a Johannesburg plan of action. Local governments are one of the major groups that will take part in the World Summit. They are uniquely positioned, as the level of government closest to the people, to implement concrete, low-cost plans for environmentally-friendly development through their provision of basic services such as water, sanitation, and planning.
  Mr. Nitin Desai and the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of the Environment for the Government of Canada, have been invited to address the meeting. The conference, which has been made possible by the financial support of the Government of Canada, will be held at the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel beginning on the evening of February 27 and will conclude on March 1 in the late afternoon. 
For more information please contact:
Ms. Elena Lonero, ICLEI WSSD Program Officer,
Tel: +1-416-392-1462, , E-mail: wssd@iclei.org
www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002
World Social Forum 
  Running parallel to the World Economic Forum being held in New York, the World Social Forum held its second annual meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The event is designed to provide a balance to the WEF process by providing a forum to discuss alternative options to trade liberalisation agenda, whilst seeking to address concerns over the needs of society. The event is also designed as an alternative to the protests recently seen on the streets of Seattle and Prague.
  A wide range of meetings were held to consider numerous issues including debt relief, labour and human rights and alternatives to international free trade agreements.
  Most interestingly, there was a direct video feed to the WEF, offering the opportunity of dialogue between the between the respective delegates. Led from the WEF side by George Soros, the debate did touch on proposals for curbing volatile speculative currency trading which has such potential to disrupt emerging economies. However, debate descended into petty mud-slinging on the part of the WSF participants fracturing any further useful discussion.	www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/

STAKEHOLDER ACTION FOR OUR COMMON 
FUTURE. 
An Update
Stakeholder Forum’s 
Implementation Conference: 
  The second PrepCom in New York provided an excellent opportunity for side meetings, giving further momentum to the Stakeholder Action for Our Common Future process of the Implementation Conference (IC). Project Co-ordinators, Minu Hemmati & Robert Whitfield, report.
Purpose of the Process
  PrepCom II reinforced the emphasis on sustainable development implementation and established a two pronged approach towards implementation. The first prong (Type 1 outcome) is the negotiation of an intergovernmental text that seeks to capture governments’ desire to accelerate progress towards sustainable development. The second prong (Type 2 outcomes) seeks to stimulate and capture explicit initiatives and partnerships that are designed to further the sustainable development agreements, whether they be between Governments, between Governments and stakeholders or between stakeholders themselves. Stakeholder Action for Our Common Future and the Implementation Conference (IC) were originally designed with very much the same objective in mind and are now firmly targeted to deliver outcomes that can be fed into the Summit as Type 2 outcomes.
  All five IC issues were developed during the two weeks either through dedicated dinner meetings or through a weekend workshop.  
Putting Issues on the Table - Freshwater
  A dinner meeting was held for the Freshwater Issue Advisory Group which was the first meeting of the Group following an initial presentation of the IC to the Bonn Freshwater Dialogues Steering Group in Bonn last December. The group has been enlarged to take on some additional key stakeholders and held an initial exploratory discussion of some of the aspects of freshwater offering the best potential for collaborative stakeholder action. It also discussed the need for government and involvement of additional stakeholder groups such as small businesses and indigenous peoples.  The group will be seeking to build on the Bonn outcomes, which identified key priorities for action and reaffirmed the need for the participation of all stakeholders and “new coalitions”. At the same time, the group will aim to pave the way for the 3rd World Water Forum where progress on actions launched at the IC can be reviewed and presented at the international level for the first time. Possible focus areas include governance in the water sector; community-level risk management; capacity building, training and education; and others.
  For Food Security and for Renewable Energy, this was the first formal involvement of the participants in the process. The initiative was received very well and discussions focused on both process and substance. 
Food Security
  On Food Security, the group explored possible focus areas such as perverse subsidies, and eco-system conservation. It also addressed possible linkages with the ongoing process on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) which is being facilitated by the FAO, as well as links with ongoing campaigns on land right and secure tenure. 
Energy
  Discussions on Renewable Energy included work on energy-efficient buildings and solar homes, with one idea being to lobby towards the setting of a specific target of a number of solar homes to be established over the coming years – and the IC process to launch projects that will contribute to delivering the target. The need for more accessible and better managed hubs of information and knowledge on renewables was also discussed, as well as the possible need to extend the scope of the IC process towards “sustainable energy”.
  Participants discussed the IC process vis-à-vis other ongoing initiatives, which should be linked with the IC process to the benefit of all parties.  
Demand for Dialogue
  Many felt that the multi-stakeholder process created by the IC is unique: It seeks to establish equitable relationships between stakeholder groups and to build on common ground between them without brushing over differences. It will encourage partnerships between those who wish to engage in them.
  It was encouraging to see that there was strong agreement on the need for stakeholder action and the general framework proposed by the IC process: implementation of Sustainable Development Agreements; the overall goal of poverty eradication and benefiting those most in need; the goal of contributing to social inclusion and empowerment, good governance, and gender equity.
  In all cases, participants started to identify work that their organisations are undertaking or planning and which they will bring into the IC process to develop partnerships with others and thus broaden the scope and impact of the work.
  All groups discussed how to use the IC space to identify specific collaborative stakeholder action that could be undertaken, but also to develop initiatives where a common view amongst stakeholder groups could be used to influence governments i.e. to influence Type 1 outcomes in Johannesburg.  Such a dual approach seems strategically important as participants believed that the planned Type 1 and 2 outcome documents should be mutually enforcing. For example, stakeholder initiatives should be designed to contribute to the implementation of targets set in the intergovernmental agreements.
Workshop - Health & Citizenship
  The other two IC strands, namely Public Health and HIV/AIDS on the one hand and Corporate and Stakeholder Citizenship on the other, were addressed in a different manner. A workshop was held over the weekend of February 2/3 entitled “Stakeholder Citizenship and the Health Sector”.  Participants represented various stakeholder groups and organisations involved in the Summit process and those new to it. At this workshop, possible focus areas within these strands were explored, and some concrete ideas for joint action were put forward.  Representatives from the pharmaceutical industry raised questions of immediate importance to them, questions which clearly link the issues of corporate citizenship and health.  For example, companies are increasingly providing differentiated pricing schemes and thus basically take over responsibilities of wealth redistribution. Another urgent question is how to increase the investment in research and development (R and D) regarding diseases, which are particularly prevalent in developing countries but not in developed countries: the current situation has tended to lead to a focus of R and D on diseases prevalent in developed countries and which have tended to provide higher financial rates of return. 
Poverty
  Many participants present emphasised the overall importance of poverty eradication and the links between environment and health.  They stressed the need for awareness raising, access to reliable, scientifically proven information for all citizens and high-quality education of health care professionals and the general public. 
  WHO presented their priorities for the Johannesburg Summit, following recent preparatory meetings held in Oslo and Johannesburg. These include the negative impact of ill health on socio-economic development; linkages between environmental degradation as well as unsustainable consumption patterns and health; and the need for new partnerships and reform measures, within and outside the health sector. All these priorities require governments as well as stakeholders to take action.
  A party on Saturday evening provided ample opportunity for networking and chilling out after serious discussions. 
Interim Outcomes
  Stakeholder Forum has prepared a brief report of the meeting which is available on the website, as are the background papers and presentations made at the meeting. 
  For all five IC issues, Stakeholder Forum is now working on re-drafts of the “Rolling Issue Papers”. These papers seek to capture relevant international agreements and current thinking vis-à-vis possible joint stakeholder action as well as necessary governmental action. These papers form the basis of further consultations with Issue Advisory Group members, individually and within the group. It will be crucial to turn from the exploratory phase to prioritisation of issues that the groups want to address and where they believe deliverable action programmes can be developed by the time we arrive in Johannesburg.
Next stop Johannesburg
  All seem to agree that the Summit indeed offers an excellent opportunity to further the implementation of sustainable development agreements – an opportunity and a challenge to governments and stakeholders alike.  The IC process communicates this challenge and offers a space for stakeholders to effectively respond to it.
  In addition to the work on the five issue strands, Stakeholder Forum is building a team of 30 professional facilitators who will support the work of the groups at the IC event itself. They will create open and exploratory spaces for people as much as engage in brokering partnerships among them. The IC group of facilitators will be balanced by region, gender and professional background as much as possible.
  If you want to learn more about Stakeholder Action For Our Common Future, please contact:
Robert Whitfield and Minu Hemmati 
Project Coordinators
Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future
c/o UNA UK
3 Whitehall Court
London SW1A 2EL
Tel +44 20 7793 4255
Emails: rwhitfield@earthsummit2002.org; 
minush@aol.com
For regular updates, check the IC website at 
www.earthsummit2002.org/ic
The Environment Agenda Needs a Push
  Over 90 ministers of environment gathered in sunny Cartagena, Colombia for UNEP’s 7th special session of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF) and UNEP’s Governing Council (12th - 15th February). Stakeholder Forum’s Rosalie Gardiner reports.
  It was also the final meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on International Environmental Governance (IEG).   At the outset there was a clear division on interests. More controversial areas included the role of UNEP, finance, and membership of GMEF. The stalemate was largely between the G77, Russia, and the US (amongst others), who generally wanted to maintain the status quo, vs. the EU, Canada, Norway (including others) who sought commitments to change. However, progress was partially made on the topics up for debate. Some of the key outcomes included: 
  Multi-lateral Environment Agreements (MEAs): There were differing views about how to do it (regional, thematic and/or functional clusters). However piloting of thematic groupings, such as a Chemicals cluster, was supported. Capacity building, technology transfer and provision of finance for facilitating compliance of MEAs was seen as important but no specific actions were agreed. Simplified reporting, co-location of secretariats, and back-to back meetings were encouraged. Compliance mechanisms should utilise voluntary guidelines produced by UNEP.
  Environment Management Group: Its was agreed that EMG should take a stronger co-ordination role for environmental activities throughout the UN. The EMG will report annually to GC/GMEF. On a related issue it was decided that UNEP should join UN Development Group.
  GMEF: GMEF was opened for universal participation, to look at universal membership of governments at the 22nd session of the GMEF/GC. The role of GMEF will include: analysis of the environment; providing policy advice; promoting international cooperation; assisting development of international environmental law; enhancing inter-linkages between MEAs; and reviewing reports of the EMG. They also called for the establishment of a new Inter-governmental Panel on Global Environmental Change (its mandate and modalities to be decided).
  Capacity building and technology transfer: Stronger capacity was recognised a requirement for developing countries to participate actively in policy formulation and implementation. Governments called for establishing arrangements to transfer environmentally sound technologies to developing countries, as well as an inter-governmental strategic plan for technology support and capacity building. This will be assisted through strategic relationships between UNEP, UNDP and GEF, amongst other institutions.
  IEG/UNEP: It was recognised that environmental governance should be consider international but also regional, national levels. Although some governments called for the establishment of a world environment organisation or UNEP to become a UN Agency, options were left open. Wider ministerial representation was called for in dealing with environmental issues that go beyond the environment agenda. 
  Finance: The final decision states adequate, stable and predictable finances are needed to strengthen UNEP. For the administration and management of UNEP it was agreed that UN General Assembly would consider provision of funds. UNEP’s Environment Fund was more controversial. Governments agreed to continue making voluntary contributions. An Indicative Scale of Assessment (using the UN assessed scale) would be encouraged, but governments retain an opt-out clause, allowing them to contribute to the Environment Fund through “any other basis identified by a member state”. Additional voluntary contributions would be sought from the major groups, particularly the private sector. On the Global Environment Facility (GEF), governments called for greater tie-in between GEF/UNEP through strategic partnerships (also involving the World Bank and UNDP). 
  Participation: there was considerable variation in the use of “civil society” and “major groups” terminology, but the decision supports their wider engagement in GMEF and UNEP. It allows for formal oral and printed statements, as well as for a civil society forum to meet alongside the GMEF/GC meeting. Additional finance for capacity building and participation from organisations in developing countries was not addressed. 
  Future perspective: The Global Environment Outlook (GEO) 3 report, released in May 2002, will be UNEP’s major contribution to the WSSD. Priority areas for WSSD included: strengthening of the scientific basis of decision-making; Utilise the WTO Doha meeting as a constructive basis for discussion on globalisation; Poverty and preservation of environmental goods and services; Support for Africa and the New Partnership for African development (NEPAD); Technology transfer for clean production and education; Health and environment; Sustainable energy networks; Governance; Implementation and enhancement of MEAs and the Montevideo Programme III on Environmental Law; building a regional approach including UNEP regional offices; partnerships with major groups.
    The South African Minister Mohamed Vali Moosa indicated that GC/GMEF meeting was “a very positive and forward looking meeting, with a strong spirit of cooperation and search for consensus”. Whilst pleased with the IEG process he felt that further reorganization would be necessary to empower Developing Countries and increase accountability. He was less positive about the financing for UNEP, which had produced little by way of firm commitments. He pointed out “you can’t talk about strengthening UNEP without more predictable and adequate finances”. The priority environmental issues to be addressed at the Summit would “need to focus on actions…in the context of a broader Global Programme of Action on poverty eradication and sustainable development”. Contact:  www.unep.org

The World 
Economic Forum and the WSSD
  The World Economic Forum 2002 (WEF) was held this year in New York about a mile from UN Headquarters. The January 30-February 4 meeting almost directly overlapped with the 2nd WSSD Preparatory Committee meetings. With 1000’s of participants and 100’s of official and unofficial simultaneous meetings, the WEF was a blizzard of activity. A famous rock and roll star once commented that “anyone who tells you they remember the 60s wasn’t there.” That’s how I feel about the WEF; it is impossible to summarize such an extraordinary world conference and gathering in a few words. The WSSD was the subject directly and indirectly of several of the 100’s of sessions. At best, I would say the WEF increased awareness of the potential importance of the WSSD. This, incidentally, could also be a summary of PrepCom 2.
  While the President of the World Federalists Movement (WFM), Sir Peter Ustinov has participated in the WEF meetings for several years, this was the first time I was invited as an NGO leader of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Thus, a prime purpose of mine at the WEF was to advance the proposition that while almost everyone was defining globalization exclusively in economic terms, in fact there are other pillars and forces of globalization. The globalization of international justice, democracy and rule of law, I argued, were extremely important and were manifestations of globalization that were already making enormous contributions to diminishing impunity and mass atrocities. These tools of globalization could be of great importance in regulating and reigning in some of the more dangerous and negative aspects of globalization.
  Sustainable development was addressed in many sessions at the WEF in the context of global governance. I find it amazing that global governance and international democracy have finally become acceptable, though still cutting-edge subjects of world conferences. For WFM, ostracized for decades for raising the governance/international democracy question, this transition during the last decade after the end of the Cold War, is itself an extraordinary component of globalization.
  The WEF is nothing if it is not one of the most extraordinary “stakeholder forums” in the world. And for all the criticism of the meeting, this partnership aspect of the WEF is at the heart of the vision of WEF founder, Prof. Klaus Schwab. I find highly commendable many of the WEF Initiatives, including the Global Health Initiative, Global Digital Divide Initiative, and the Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative that are engaging leaders of TNC, government and civil society in strategic partnerships with tangible projects and results.
  The projection of the WEF as a meeting of world leaders and CEOs and academic experts gathering to control or solve the world’s problems is too simplistic and ridiculous to comment upon. There are as many agendas as participants: idealistic, educational, self-promotional, profiteering. As Martin Khor of the Third World Network, who attended Porto Allegre instead this year, has said, there are some extremely interesting and useful discussions and seminars at the WEF.
  The Secretary General did not mention WSSD in his remarks, but sustainable development and economic justice were at the heart of his speech. “The reality,” he said, “is that power and wealth in this world are very, very unequally shared…” He challenged the CEOs to “think of ways that your company can help mobilize global science and technology to tackle the interlocking crises of hunger, disease, environmental degradation and conflict that are hold back the developing world.”  
  Anyone who thinks the idealists and NGOs participating in the WEF are being co-opted should have heard Bono confront other famous panelists and participants in stating starkly and powerfully that economic globalization is not a benefit for more than 2/3 of the world, it is failing billions of people. He pleaded for the world economic and political leaders to cancel the indefensible debts to the least developing nations.
  The WSSD was the central focus of a seminar on Monday.  The South African environment minister, Klaus Töpfer of UNEP, Yolanda Kakabadse Navarro, President of IUCN, Dan Esty, Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Tim Wirth of the UN Foundation were only a few of those proposing durable solutions for Rio +10.
  Porto Allegre had an extraordinary presence at the WEF.  Due largely to 9-11 the protests outside were much more peaceful than in previous years. Ironically, militarism, terrorism, sustainable development and globalization are sectioned off from each other at the UN and in other intergovernmental forums, but not so at the WEF. There was a synergy between the protestors outside and inside.
  I was asked to lead or speak in 4 different seminars and meetings, raising stark disagreements with CEOs and US Senators.  I not only experience no co-option, I believe the WEF organizers truly tried to maximize the best from the 100 or so NGOs invited.
  Let me finish with one other hopeful comment. As stated above the long-delayed debate about global governance has begun in earnest on the global stage. While stakeholder partnerships on implementing Agenda 21 will be a key issues in Johannesburg, international environmental governance and sustainable development governance will also capture a major share of the attention of the head of states and governments.  This, alone, will be a great achievement. The issues are too complex and daunting to expect final results. 
  Unfortunately, in terms of expertise and mandate on matters of global laws and governance, NGOs are woefully deficient and many governments are actually ahead of civil society. What should be the relationship between the WTO and UN?  How can we redesign global environmental architecture to better coordinate the existing 100’s of international environmental treaties? Will we see the development of an international treaty against corruption, providing for the repatriation of illicitly transferred funds (called for by Kofi Annan at the WEF)?  Do we need a World Environmental Organization to serve as inter-locator to the WTO and World Bank? NGOs need to begin to address these issues. If this gap amongst NGOs can be narrowed at WSSD it, too, would be a major achievement.
  Years ago I put a bumper sticker on my car that said, “we are all prisoners of war.”  In the pursuit of democratic global governance, we are all stakeholders.
William R. Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement (WFM), 

UNEP Finance Initiative Regional 
Outreach Event Africa
Hosted by Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA)Midrand, South Africa 
  On January 28th-29th 2002, UNEP FI held the third in a series of Regional Outreach events. The event became a resounding success, being one of the first - if not the first- major international sustainability conferences in South Africa for the 2002 WSSD (World Summit for Sustainable Development) year.
  The conference aimed to highlight and encourage the active participation of diverse African financial institutions within the dynamics of sustainability, and did so through the adoption of a double roundtable format focusing on:
  Day 1: The Financial Sector in Africa: The Business Case for Sustainability Performance. 
  Day 2: Foreign Direct Investment: Creating a Sustainability Dynamic.
  More than 110 representatives from a variety of African countries, and from both financial and non-financial sectors, engaged in interactive dialogue relating to the limitations, challenges and benefits of the progression of sustainability within the African financial sector. 
  Mr. Iqbal Sharma-Meer, of the Department of Trade and Industry, Government of South Africa, was one of the keynote speakers on the opening day, and presented the following thought starter to the audience:
  “Capital is a Coward, It Flees from Risk…………..
  “On a recent visit to the US, 35 sub-Saharan trade and foreign ministers took part in a roundtable meeting. One of the key themes for the event was – ‘Capital is a coward, it flees from risk.’ I disagree; capital is an inanimate object. The claim that capital is a coward, is more an indictment on the owners of capital rather than capital itself”
  The need to engage socio-environmental considerations and risks into global financial agendas was highlighted during this Keynote speech .The hidden dimension of capital- it’s possible racial, political and geographical preferences - were introduced as issues to ponder for the two day event, questioning whether it is capital it’s self, and the systems within which it flows, or the powers behind it that should be held accountable for neglecting such socio-environmental risks and “cowering” from them in the past. 
  This led to discussions on the necessity for African financial institutions to change course in favour of sustainability and was coupled with the recognition that in so doing they need also to be involved in the formation of global financial standards and codes of conduct on the same. 
  One of the most rewarding aspects of the double roundtable event was the opportunity to gain pragmatic insights and recommendations for the future of sustainability from African financial practitioners. Such insights will allow UNEP FI to produce a declaration of practical targets and manageable goals for sustainable finance to be reviewed at WSSD and beyond.
  Speaker presentations available on line : www.unepfi.net/africa/pres.htm Contact: Ms. Niamh O’ Sullivan, UNEP FI, Email: niamh.o.Sullivan@unep.ch 
UNEP FI Annual Roundtable Overview
Financing a Sustainable Future: Strategies, Partnerships and Opportunities...on the way to Johannesburg 2002
  In addition to the sequence of the Regional Outreach events, the second joint UNEP FI Annual Roundtable will be held in Rio de Janeiro on March 14-15, 2002. The conference will be hosted by BNDES (Banco National de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social) in association with CAF (Corporacion Andina de Fomento) and Business Action for Sustainable Development.
  The theme of the conference is “Financing a Sustainable Future: Strategies, Partnerships and Opportunities..on the way to Johannesburg 2002”, and aims to attract bankers, insurers and asset managers from around the world, as well as governmental, intergovernmental and civil society representatives.
Aims of the Conference 
  The Annual Global Roundtable on Finance and Sustainability serves as the UNEP Finance Initiatives’ most significant annual event to discuss and promote linkages between finance and sustainability. This key outreach event aspires to build new partnerships for sustainability within the finance and insurance industries in Latin America and worldwide.
  The Roundtable provides a perfect opportunity to highlight the accomplishments of UNEP FI’s 273 signatories from throughout the global financial and insurance sectors. It also creates a forum for new strategies to address the challenges of more “sustainable” finance, in addition to capacity building across the wide spectrum of financial institutions composing the Initiative. 
Agenda Focus 
  The Roundtable will explore a number of pressing issues under for example, the broad headings of Innovative Financing for Sustainability, the relationship between the financial sector and the Global Compact and Latin American regional perspectives. More specific attention, through a series of workshops, will be given to asset management, environmental management and reporting, climate change, investments in cleaner technology, environmental aspects of multilateral business and the microfinance-empowerment challenge.
  In addition, and in keeping with UNEP FI’s commitment to multistakeholder dialogue, there will be a special UNEP FI-NGO lunch and afternoon discussion on issues relating to the environment-finance inferface, preceding the main event on March 12th. This will also be hosted by BNDES and UNEP FI wish to encourage as many stakeholders as possible to attend. 
Projection
  The 2002 Roundtable is particularly significant as, combined with the series of regional outreach events, it will provide the cornerstone of UNEP FI’s contributions to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (26 August – 4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa), along with  
the development of recommendations for the Financing for Development Conference (18 – 22 March 2002, Monterrey, Mexico). 
  For further details and to register see: www.unepfi.net/rio/ Contact: Trevor  Bowden, UNEP FI, 
Email: trevor.bowden@unep.ch

Meet the
International
Advisory Board
Organisation: Leadership in Environment & Development (LEAD)
Contact: Julia Marton-Lefèvre
Web: www.lead.org
Aim: 
  To create and sustain a global network of leaders who are committed to promote change towards patterns of economic development that are environmentally sustainable and socially equitable.
Key Projects: 
  LEAD fosters change by identifying outstanding men and women at the mid-career level from around the world and provides them with the training designed to enhance their leadership capabilities and knowledge of issues related to environment and development.
  LEAD provides learning opportunities based on the best available current thinking, information, expertise and adult learning techniques. 
  LEAD supports the network of its alumni through a Fellows Programme.
  LEAD fosters a learning environment based on mutual respect, equal opportunity and transparency that seeks to encourage long term solidarity and support among participants. 
  LEAD guides its participants towards solving complex problems related to the environment and development, challenges them to work co-operatively to look beyond the limit of their own disciplines and encourages them to be the agents of change in their workplaces, communities and beyond.
  LEAD has established an international network of support by providing members of the LEAD family with links to each other and to the environment & development communities at large through an internet based computer network.
Partners: 
  1200 members from nearly 70 countries, drawn from business, media, public sectors, academia and non-government organisations.
Geological Coverage: Global
Organisation: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
Contact: Claude Fussler
Web: www.wbcsd.org
Aim:
  To provide business leadership as a catalyst for change towards sustainable development, and to promote the role of eco-efficiency, innovation and corporate social responsibility.
Key Projects:
  Projects on policy development and best practice sit at the heart of WBCSD work. Concerned with the overarching issues associated with business and sustainable development, these projects frequently develop new concepts and approaches. 
  Council projects operate through working groups made up of executives from member companies. Each council project is co-chaired by the CEO’s of two or more member companies who are responsible for overall direction and for guiding the program managers in the fulfilment of the project activities. Projects include: 
•	Sustainability through the market
•	Corporate Social Responsibility
•	Climate and Energy
•	Innovation and Technology
•	Sustainable Development Reporting
•	Natural resources - Biodiversity - Access to Water
•	Eco-efficiency
Future Projects:
  A new on-line case study collection will showcase some of the best business actions for sustainable development from all over the globe  The case studies illustrate how companies work independently or with various stakeholders to integrate the challenge of sustainable development into their business activity.
  The collection currently features a selection of case studies from WBCSD members. However, WBCSD encourage anyone who has novel stories and best practice examples to submit their case. 
Partners:  
  A coalition of 150 international companies united by a shared commitment to sustainable development. Members are drawn from over 30 countries representing 20 major industrial sectors. 
Geographical Coverage: Global

Diary Dates, Events & Conferences

27 Feb - 1 March	Local Agenda to Action: Building A Sustainable Future. Vancouver, Canada. 
Contact: www.iclei.org/prepcom/	
4-15 March	2nd Session of the UN Forum on Forests. San José, Costa Rica. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm	
4-15 March	46th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women. New York, USA. 
Contact: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw	
14-15 March	UNEP Finance Initiative Annual Global Roundtable on Finance and Sustainability. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Contact: http://unepfi.net/rio	
18-22 March	International Conference on Financing for Development. Monterrey, Mexico. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/ffd	
19 March	Workshop on Capacity Building on Environment, Trade & Development. Geneva, Switzerland. 
Contact: www.unpe.ch/etu	
22-31 March	UNEP Global Youth Forum. Copenhagen, Denmark. Contact: theodore.oben@unep.org	
25 March - 5 April	World Summit on Sustainable Development Prep. Comm. III. New York, USA. 
Contact: www.johannesburgsummit.org	
April	G-8 Environment Ministers Meeting. Bamf, Canada. Contact: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca	
March/April	African Ministerial Conference on Water. Abuja, Nigeria. Contact: markabubakar@hotmail.com	
7-12 April	World Water Congress. Melbourne, Australia. Contact: www.enviroaust.net	
7-19 April	6th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Bio-Diversity. The Hague, the Netherlands. 
Contact: www.biodiv.org/meetings/cop-06.asp	
16-26 April	12th Meeting of the States Parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. New York, USA. Contact: www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm	
27 May - 7 June	World Summit on Sustainable Development Prep. Comm. IV. Jakarta, Indonesia. 
Contact: www.johannesburgsummit.org	

What’s in next months Network - 2002…

•	Prep. Comm. III - Preview
•	International Conference on Financing for Development - Outcomes & Analysis
•	Local Agenda to Action - Outcomes & Analysis
•	UNEP Finance Initiative Annual Global Roundtable - Outcomes & Analysis
•	UN Forum on Forests 2nd Session - Outcomes & Analysis