Network 2002 – October Issue

Contents:
The Johannesburg Summit
Editorial
News
Stakeholder Views
Summit Initiatives
Local Government at the WSSD
Stakeholder Forum Co-Chairs
Diary Dates
What’s in Next month Network 2002

The 
Importance of 
Johannesburg
  Was it all doom & gloom? Has nothing been achieved? David Hales, a seasoned Summits veteran, tells the truth about Johannesburg.
  Ten years from now we will reflect on the Johannesburg Summit as an event equal in importance to the Rio Summit. Although it may be less than clear in the immediate disappointment, the “Empty Summit” was a watershed event in the transition to sustainability. The lesson of Johannesburg is impossible to ignore – leadership for sustainability will come from civil society. 
  At the beginning of the Summit deliberations, Stakeholder Forum defined minimum criterion for judging the conference to be a success. 
1.	We called for a real, measurable and binding commitment to implementation and action – quantitative goals, fixed responsibilities, and clear timeframes.
2.	We called for an independent capacity to monitor progress and objectively report on the faithfulness with which commitments are kept.
3. We called for meaningful institutional reform, nationally and internationally, and the creation of well-resourced institutions where the responsibility and authority for achieving sustainability are joined.
4. We called for the end of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as we have known it which, despite the best efforts of a series of strong chairman, is largely a weak bureaucracy marginalized within the UN system, and dominated by petty issues.
5.	We called for the issues of sustainable development to be taken seriously, as though the problems of sustainability were real and central to our lives and our futures.
6.	Finally, we called for an unequivocal recommitment to the fundamental wisdom of Rio – that societies that are just and sustainable are achievable, but only through the integration of economic development, environmental protection, and social development.
  By almost any conceivable substantive measure the official outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit must be found wanting. Elsewhere in this issue, and on the SF website, specific issues are analysed, and commitments – such as they are – enumerated. There are a few real steps forward in the negotiated text, hooks on which to hang hopes for the future. A fair summary of the Plan of Implementation, however, is “too little, too vague, and too unaccountable”. As Mark Twain said of lamp lights, ‘it casts a little light but deepens the shadows.’ Even the outcomes which have been characterized by governments and the UN as elements of success by and large remain only promises, albeit, in some cases, promises with substantial potential.  The document is replete with statements of good intentions, but weak in terms of the mechanisms for accountability or implementation.
  The lasting value of the Summit lies in the failure of national governments to act coherently and assertively. 
  It is clear that we cannot look to governments for leadership in the transition to sustainability. Governments are configured to reflect consensus domestically, and to use intergovernmental forums to seek what it is in their perceived national interest.  When faced with passionate division on fundamental problems, not to mention uncertainty on complex ones, the result will be the kind of negotiations we have seen year after year as governments struggle with the seminal issues inherent in Agenda 21 and in the Rio Declaration. Since governments have different views of what is controversial (some actually consider commitments to expanding the use of renewable energy, to basic human rights, and to good governance to be controversial), negotiated outcomes gravitate toward the lowest common denominator of substantive communication and agreement. The “game” is to resolve language differences, not to identify, much less solve real problems of real people. 
  The modesty of the achievement of the Johannesburg meeting, contrasted with the richness and diversity of real actions by real people in real places, reveals the impoverishment of the CSD as we know it. The demonstration of the CSD’s irrelevance is a clarion call for institutional change within the UN, the Bretton Woods group, the WTO, and multilateral environmental agreements. The outcome of the WSSD makes apparent the need to change the role of national governments in the guidance of the transition to sustainability.
  Ultimately, the Johannesburg Summit opens the door to empowerment of people and organizations of good will and common sense around the world. Governments have moved themselves to the sidelines, some perhaps even intentionally, if one credits their own rhetoric. It is no longer possible to believe that the governments of the world will move effectively and fairly toward sustainability. They will do so only when civil society both forces them to act and makes action politically acceptable and even necessary. There is no implication here that national governments are not ultimately responsible for achieving sustainability, nor any hint that strong use of state authority is not essential. Governments have good reason to be embarrassed by their lack of achievement over the past decade. 
  So does civil society. The lesson of Johannesburg is that civil society is as responsible for the outcome as are governments, and, in this regard, we have failed just as badly. We have too often waited for permission to speak out, we have not engaged the institutional lunacies of the CSD professionally and implacably, enabling and compelling structural and procedural change and we have not empowered our governments. In short, we have behaved as if we expect pigs to fly, and then expressed surprise and dismay at their aeronautical incompetence. 
  There was another convocation in Johannesburg – a convocation of actors, not talkers – which was little more than the tip of an iceberg of action to promote sustainability. It represented farmers who are changing the way they produce food and fiber, local and provincial authorities to whom issues of sustainability are immediate and real, women who are no longer asking permission to lead, workers who are changing the nature of both work and workplace. It included indigenous peoples who are demonstrating to major corporations how resources can be employed profitably and sustainably, and a few corporations who sincerely seek to both do well and do right. And it included young people whose presence reminds us of what is at stake.
  At Johannesburg Stakeholder forum was in the thick of this alternative action - creating new partnerships for action in the implementation conference, facilitating the emergence of the new regional government network, bringing youth from north and south together to address the issues, organising debates around the future of the CSD, searching out new models of governance. With our commitment to the full engagement and interaction of stakeholders of all kinds throughout the world we are well placed to help shape this multi-dimensional plural world of the future."
 The implications of ALL that happened  – and did not happen – in Johannesburg are striking. The challenge to Stakeholder Forum, as an organization and as a partner with others, is one that we welcome, and it revolves not around asking, “what did they do wrong,” but “what can we do better.”
David Hales, Co-Chair, Stakeholder Forum 

Editorial
  ‘Don’t believe what you read in the papers’, so the saying goes. In the context of the Johannesburg summit, with the obvious exception of this journal, nothing can be closer to the truth. Reports on the World Summit on Sustainable Development, by and large, painted a bleak picture of under-achievement, apathy and global indifference to pressing international problems. Public opinion can be entirely excused for crossing its arms, shaking its head and tutting at the little known process of sustainable development.
    One hotly debated, and often cynically viewed item on the agenda was that of partnerships. Somewhat of an innovation, the partnerships process looked to engage civil society by recognising the contribution made by business, NGO’s, local government, women, trade unions and youth, to name but a few of the Major Groups listed at the original Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Part of the debate included the roles and responsibilities that came with the recognition, that standing on the side lines and throwing mud was not an acceptable ongoing contribution. 
  Though not listed in Rio’s Agenda 21, the media are also a major group and relish their role in raising public awareness, reporting on the sustainable development process and exposing action, both good and bad. However, something above is missing, and in the case of Johannesburg, it was missing in spades….responsibility. 
  Despite the coming together of 60,000 people, all with a story to tell, most with positive energy and some with the ability to make a real difference. Despite new targets from governments, new partnerships from Major Groups, and new ways of holding summits being adopted by the UN. Despite all this and more, all the press were able to say was what a failure the whole thing was.
  Over the past 2 years in the run up to the Summit this journal has run both criticism and praise. The web-site on which Network 2002, is hosted only runs positive news and has never reported on the (in-)actions of any specific government. Despite all this, the web-site still received over 3.75 million hits in August alone, this journal is read by over 50,000 people each month. We gave briefings to the media before the Summit on what the stories would be and then reported in our daily conference journal, Outreach 2002, on all the fine work that was being done particularly around the WEHAB cluster of issues. 
  None of this is said to gain personal praise, (in the grander scheme of things the numbers are modest) but purely to point out that it’s the attitude of the author that determines the story. And contrary to the rather vulgar media adage that ‘if it bleeds it leads’, there is a broad appetite for  the brighter side of life. 
  The media jumped on the Johannesburg bandwagon at the final fence and proceeded to report on an exhausted party of travellers with little regard for the journey they had been on. Of course the Summit could have achieved more. Until there is not one hungry mouth to feed, the oceans and rivers bountiful and clean, the rainforest lush, until we can trade amongst ourselves without fear that someone has their fingers crossed, so we can always achieve more.
  Johannesburg helped us to better understand this and allowed us to chart a course to better manage a process as broad as it is complex. Rio, it must be remembered was considered a failure at the time.			        T. Middleton, Editor

News, News, News
UNFCCC COP 8
  Hot on the heels of a world summit that saw many governments clamour for the limelight as they professed their commitment to climate change, comes the latest session of the UN Framework Convention on the issue.
  Taking place from October 23 - November 1st in New Delhi, India, the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP 8) will be tasked with that seemingly perennial problem of turning words into action. Notably, the meeting will seek to tie down specifics on the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which allows companies to earn ‘certified emission reductions’ in return for investing in sustainable development projects that reduce or avoid emissions in a developing country. Developed countries may then use the certified emission reductions to meet their Kyoto commitments. Companies and other organisations may now start applying for accreditation as ‘operation entities’ of the CDM. 
  COP 8 will also consider guidelines for the reporting and review of national greenhouse gas inventories. Viewed as a vital step towards standardisation, such guidelines will go a long was towards long term monitoring as to whether progress is being made.
  However, for the Kyoto Protocol to take legally binding effect on its signatories, the combined emissions of ratifying governments needs to exceed 55% of total global emissions. The current figure is closer to 37%, despite encouraging progress having been made at the Johannesburg Summit. Much will depend on governments such as Russia and Canada getting domestic buy-in on Ratification from their parliaments later in the year. 
  The Convention Secretariat also used the media attention around the Johannesburg Summit to restate the cause, with the Executive Secretary, Joke Waller Hunter, stating that:
  “The Kyoto Protocol is a first step to actually reduce emissions. The Protocol has now been ratified by 87 countries, covering 37.1% of Annex I (developed country) emissions—meeting one of the two necessary triggers for entry into force. The Kyoto Protocol, when it enters into force, offers the opportunity to begin the transition to low-carbon production and consumption patterns. The Kyoto Protocol also created the first truly new instrument for financial sustainable development since Rio: The Clean Development Mechanism. The CDM is meant to assist developing countries on their path towards sustainable development, while at the same time achieving cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”
  A broader informal purpose of the meeting is to act as a barometer for multi-lateralism. Within the wider context of global political current affairs, events such as COP8 continue to be viewed as a testing ground for governments to show their commitment to jointly act at the international level. Whilst this may obscure the true nature of the debate, governments nevertheless remain sensitive to their media image. The danger is that Climate Change becomes used as political capital, traded for parallel gain for other more immediate pressing concerns.
Contact; www.unfccc.int
Global Governance 2002
  The globalisation of the planet is occurring faster than is the capacity for adaptation of governance structures. Nation states are losing control over matters traditionally within their sovereignty as trans-national corporations are functioning in a borderless working environment beyond national jurisdictions. 
  So claim the hosts of the upcoming Global Governance 2002 conference (GO2), taking place in Montreal from October 13-16. The event is designed as an opportunity for participants to explore and better understand the national of these trends, as well as offering an occasion to help define the role that global civil society can, and should, play.
  This all coming in the wake of the Johannesburg Summit governance discussions
  Each day of the conference is split into 3 tracks, dealing with:
•	A more democratic and stronger UN
•	Human rights & global governance
•	Parliamentarians
•	Trade, equity and democratic governance
•	Global corporations
•	Local government
•	Trans-national civil society
•	Non-dominant groups
•	Financial flows: Ungoverned? Ungovernable?
  The Johannesburg Summit governance negotiations showed that the issue means many things to many people. With developed countries pushing the debate into the territory of good domestic governance, whilst civil society focussed their lens on Multi-lateral corporate governance, in the midst of which progress was being sought on sustainable development institutional governance.
  The challenge to GO2 is to explore new ways of making progress within this field, albeit still in its relative infancy. A phrase much heard in Johannesburg will be central to the Montreal meeting, ‘the need to find focus’. 
  Nevertheless, governance is a process with decent mileage left in it. In fact if nothing else, Johannesburg was a clear indicator that current governance structures aren’t performing. GO2 may never have been so timely
Contact: www.fimcivilsociety.org/g02

Earth Summit 2002 Online Poll
What should the UN Commission Sustainable Development focus on?
WEHAB*:					22%
The Plan of Implementation (& Agenda 21:		32%
Partnerships:					4%
The Millennium Development Goals		17%
All of the Above					22%
Further polls are available at: www.earthsummit2002.org
•	WEHAB: Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, Biodiversity.

Stakeholder Views
  At a Summit that saw the birth of the Partnership process, we ask stakeholders to give their assessment of the process. Did the Summit represent the coming of age of Major Group participation, or were they forced to watch from the sidelines?
NGO’s
The Sustainability Summit that had to happen…
The Johannesburg Summit passed and left 50.000 plus participants wondering what they just witnessed. We recollect major battles fought and won. We recollect balancing on the edge of despair. We recollect rejoicing and jubilation. We are now trying to recollect what it was that we achieved.
  If this were the summit to jumpstart the 21st century, we find
ourselves still standing in the same place. If this were the summit to solve the mysteries behind our failure to do what is right - develop this planet sustainably - we found ourselves instead battling feverishly a countermovement whose tenacity is still not understood.
  Johannesburg reinvented the UN summit. "Jo’burg" was a global street party where left and right, business, labourers, activists, landless, politicians, scientists and all other global actors met each other and found new ways of staying friends or not. Sadly, the contrast between the global street party and the lack of agreement on a declaration and the lack of meaningful governmental action in the Johannesburg commitment painfully reminds us that we are still setting our first steps towards building and protecting sustainable societies worldwide.
  The Summit was however badly needed. Jo’burg 2002 confirmed, loudly and massively, that sustainable development is still the developmental direction in which our societies should go. It confirmed that the Rio Principles and Agenda 21 provide the basic roadmap. It confirmed that the UN still provides the leadership, and that no other institution of world government shall supersede it. That confirmation was hard fought for in Johannesburg, and apparently desperately needed. The lesson we learned in Johannesburg is that the foundations for sustainable development are perhaps still too fragile to hold an entire planet. In Jo’burg, we patched those foundations as much as we could. The mission is now for those who believe in the fundamental validity of sustainability to strengthen and expand them, so that future policy making has firm support as we break through the barriers that are holding us from "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"
Pieter van der Gaag, Executive Director, I
nternational Secretariat ANPED, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability.
Youth 
 It is safe to say that Youth perspectives on the outcomes of World Summit on Sustainable Development are as diverse as the group that youth represent. Substantive disagreement within the Youth Caucus throughout the WSSD reflected not an inability of young people to get along, but rather the difficulties faced when a group as cross-cutting as Youth must speak with a common voice. 
  Youth's views on the WSSD process and outcomes were articulated throughout the Summit, both formally through statements during speaking points in the plenary, and informally through other creative means. The media-friendly, Youth Caucus-endorsed "walk in circles" around the Convention Centre escalators, with the aim of convincing Heads of State to help the negotiating process move in new directions, is an example of the latter.
   Post-WSSD, a few generalizations in regard to outcomes can be made:
•	What began as a joke, concluded as one of Youth’s most constant messages: "Remember: It's us you are negotiating!" As the ‘subjects’ of WSSD discussion, youth have committed to engaging in WSSD implementation well beyond their 'tenure' as youth.
•	Though ‘Type II initiatives’ were widely criticized by the Youth Caucus for generally lacking ties to ‘Type I’s,’ there was strong support from many youth on a UNEP and UNESCO Youth Dialogue partnership on consumption, lifestyle, and sustainability, which is directly linked to a clause of the Plan of Implementation.
•	Youth emphasize the continued importance of the "traditional" youth topics of youth participation.
•	Youth are encouraged by some sections of the Plan of Implementation, notably successes on support for local youth councils, integration of sustainable development education at all levels, and support for sustainable development educators.
•	Issues that youth found contentious - such as the need to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the implications of export agricultural subsidies, the urgent need to undertake substantive debt cancellation, and addressing the inherent link between sustainable development and peace as well as solidarity - illustrate a common youth concern, even though consensus on addressing the issues have proven difficult.
•	Youth particularly benefited, albeit in limited ways, from their inclusion in the multi-stakeholder dialogue process and anticipate an evaluation on the process so that their continued efforts in working to implement Agenda 21, and now the Johannesburg Programme of Action, will be recognized and supported.
•	Youth are less enthusiastic about the apparent lack of any sense of urgency with which sustainable development issues are being addressed by the international community.
  Perhaps the most resonant point from the youth's closing statement, and what is most salient when discussing post-Summit implementation, is that cooperation between and among all global actors is necessary if commitments that were made at WSSD are ever to be implemented. This is not optional, but requisite, as we, as a global community, do not have the leisure  of waiting another decade.
Clarisse Kehler Siebert,
 Stakeholder Forum IAB 
Women
  Women’s issues as a whole often seemed invisible at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, where women were forced to struggle not only for implementation but also for reaffirmation of the numerous commitments agreed to by governments over the past decade at key UN conferences.
  Perhaps most egregiously, governments seemed content to leave in place the phrase ‘consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values’ in paragraph 47 dealing with health care. 
  This language, proposed in Bali at the fourth preparatory committee meeting for the Summit, posed a serious threat to women’s rights in every region of the world and would have made women more vulnerable to harmful cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, forced and child marriage, honor killings, death by stoning and gang rape.
  The Women’s Caucus, with the support of the major groups—the trade unions, indigenous peoples, educators, youth and energy advocates—and many of the government delegates intensified its actions in the last 24 hours to successfully lobby to add to the paragraph the phrase ‘in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ 
  But this measure of victory on the issue of women’s right to health services felt small, when weighed against the unnecessary time and energy activists were forced to expend in order to hold ground. Furthermore, the final outcomes from the Johannesburg meeting failed to establish the multilateral institutions and resources necessary to transfer the words into action.
  Additional gains made by the Women’s Caucus included, for the first time, language on the right to inherit land and sanitation targets. Women also helped to hold back WTO excesses and inch forward corporate accountability. 
  Overall, the final document integrates gender through much of the text and contains specific references to ending violence and discrimination against women, reducing mortality among girl infants and children, increasing women’s participation in decision-making, ensuring education for all, mainstreaming gender in policymaking and developing gender disaggregated data.
  Despite shortcomings, the summit provided a critical opportunity to advance an agenda for sustainable development. Women will continue to press activists and governments alike to commit to a world that genuinely joins the efforts of women and men, developed and developing countries to create a sustaining and sustainable development for all, especially the poor, the majority of whom are women.
Anna Grossman, WEDO
Local Government
  Despite mixed feelings about the formal Summit outcomes, local governments have seen two years of preparations, meetings and reports pay off with a mandate for future broad-based action at the local level and unqualified recognition of a distinct role for local 'authorities'. 
  In the Johannesburg Declaration, we see a specific commitment to strengthen sustainability development at the local level. The negotiated Plan of Implementation contains clear language in paragraphs 147-149 outlining the need to support local level action to accelerate sustainable development. National governments agreed to "Enhance the role and capacity of local authorities, " and to "encourage, in particular, partnerships among and between local authorities and other levels of government and stakeholders to advance sustainable development" (para 149).
  While national governments were struggling to reach a consensus on the text, local leaders discussed concrete implementation strategies and planned their action for the next decade. Local Governments made a strong commitment to achieving sustainable development in the Local Government Declaration and called for a move from agenda to action with the Local Action 21 strategy in the statement known as the Johannesburg Call. 
  The efforts and input of local governments and other Major Groups have resulted in a newly recognised and confirmed place for all stakeholders in multilateral sustainable development negotiations. In an unprecedented step a permanent space was provided for Major Groups on the plenary floor and stakeholder interventions were much more closely knit into the weave of the formal agenda. Also significant was the high number of local government representatives included in national Summit delegations.
  Local government has positioned itself as a key implementer of the sustainable development agenda. It now needs to take advantage of this in terms of involvement in policy formulation at national levels and direct access to international agencies and their resources.
  The outcomes of the Summit should inspire us to challenge our national governments even more to support local efforts to achieve sustainable development. 
  International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), web www.iclei.org, email iclei@iclei.org
Business
  A key area of contribution from business is in achieving more sustainable production and consumption. Through technology developed through the creativity of the markets, business can work to deliver the utility that consumers need but with radically lower impact of use of resources - whether this is in energy, transportation, agriculture, water or health. But to do this we will need new technologies and we call on the NGO’s, scientists and governments to work with us to gain acceptance of these technologies based on sound science. Consumer choice plays a great role in this and we hope that Youth - the consumers of the future - will play a role with business in the evolution of this.
  One of the successes of this Summit is in demonstrating the power of partnerships. In business we see the development of global partnerships with others to define standards in different sectors of industry - such as the Global Mining Initiatives, Responsible Care in the chemical industry, the Sustainable Forest Initiative, Sustainable Fisheries, partnerships of Agriculture and Health or Bio-diversity. Such partnerships, together with initiatives such as the Global Reporting Initiative, create the standards against which international business will be judged. The outcomes will also inform national legislative processes. But there are hundreds of other partnerships in which business plays a part, each addressing the three elements of sustainable development, each with clearly agreed targets and time-tables and each with a commitment to report openly against these targets.
  A key to sustainable development is sound governance. This naturally includes the sound governance of business and the equitable sharing of economic development in the interests of society. This sound governance creates the environment in which businesses large and small, international or domestic can flourish. NEPAD is an example of governments acknowledging their responsibility to deliver such sound governance. This includes a process of peer review. Business is strongly supportive of this initiative and is ready to work with others to make it a reality. We agree with Youth that an essential part of an enabling environment for developing countries is access to northern markets and the removal of damaging subsidies.
  Lastly, business acknowledges the need for it to be accountable and transparent in all its activities. Responsible business is committed to corporations setting targets and reporting openly and honestly on their progress. It is only through such transparency and open reporting that trust can be built - the trust that is essential to partnerships. Through this reporting we will also be able to measure the progress towards the more sustainable development in the years to come with business committed to deliver. 
 Extracts of the Speech given by Mark Moody Stewart, 
Business Action on Sustainable Development, at the WSSD
Trade Unions
  Trade Unionists were present at the WSSD with two objectives. Firstly, to push forward the broad agenda of sustainable development agreed at the Rio ten years earlier, especially as it relates to workplace implementation, through the world of work and the role of workers and trade unions. Secondly, to achieve recognition of the need to strengthen the social pillar of sustainable development through employment creation and concrete integration measures. 
  With regard to the first objective, like others we are conscious of the limited achievements of the summit, especially with respect to environmental measures and targets. With the exception of the important new commitment on the sanitation target, the summit implementation plan is an eclectic mix of past commitments, which have still to be acted on by governments. In the works of President M’Beki of South Africa ‘What was agreed upon at Johannesburg should not be accepted as a ceiling. People are expected to go beyond what was agreed here.’ In this respect the Summit did provide the basis for raising workplace issues as part of the tools for addressing the sectoral WEHAB issues. 
  With regard to the second objective, the trade unions sought to fill the huge gap that has been the social pillar of sustainable development since Rio in 1992. Here, despite some setbacks, we did make progress and trade unions emerged from Johannesburg in a better position to work with other stakeholders for more effective integration of all three pillars of sustainable development, through agreed implementation tools and a new mandate for the Commission on Sustainable Development.
  A the international level a renewed mandate was given by the WSSD to the Commission on Sustainable Development in which the role of trade unions, as a major group, is also recognised. Our goal must now be to ensure that the multi-stakeholder process leads to concrete follow up over the next decade. In the words of Kofi Annan ‘We have to go out and take action. This is not the end, this is the beginning.’
Lucien Royer, 
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions

Summit Initiatives
  The Summit was more than just a government get together, many key events and forums took place in the margins. Some might that these meetings were the real success of Johannesburg. We profile some of the key events that made the Johannesburg Summit such a unique affair.
The Johannesburg Climate Legacy...Not just a lot of hot air!
A sustainable model for the future borne of frustration
  This year’s World Summit on Sustainable Development left a lot of people frustrated at the lack of direct action being taken to act against some of the biggest issues affecting the 21st century. 
  Whilst at Sandton Convention Centre – the hub of the World Summit –firm decisions were few and far between one group were striving to make a difference. Under the name the Johannesburg Climate Legacy (JCL), NGO’s, government, labour organisations and business joined together to create and develop a sustainable model for offsetting the unavoidable emissions associated with holding such a worldwide event. 
The Background
  As part of the ‘Greening of the Summit’, the Johannesburg Climate Legacy (JCL) was created in May 2002 by parties directly involved in issues surrounding the environment and climate change. Fed up with all the talk surrounding the World Summit yet little direct action to tackle global warming head on a multi-stakeholder body joined together to pioneer an initiative that would make the Summit the greenest conference ever and would also engage, educate and create a model for future use. This was further supported by a Technical Working Group (TWG) responsible for the emissions assessment, producing an offset project shortlist, calculating the emissions reductions from each project and setting up the monitoring and verification program. 
  By offsetting the carbon dioxide emissions created by holding the event the JCL provided a way to make the Summit Carbon Neutral – offset or balance out all the CO2 emissions created. Working on the equation of around 37,500 delegates travelling to and from Johannesburg in and around the two-week period around 238,500 tonnes of CO2 have been emitted, 94% from air travel alone. 
  As a not for profit initiative the monies raised from corporate and individual sponsors are over the coming months being reinvested into a number of small-scale efficiency and renewable energy projects in South Africa that in addition to the carbon offset will offer educational, social and in the long term financial benefits. 
The Results 
  A total of 110 Business’s, 60 National or Local governments, 43 Intergovernmental Organisations, 68 Non Governmental Organisations and 22 Associations either as organisations or individuals contributed to the Scheme.
  When looking at donations by Geographic destination The JCL received 53% of the total number of donations from Europe, 19% from North America, 17% from South Africa, 5% from Australia and the Far East, 2% from South America, 2% from the rest of Africa and 1% from Middle East and Asia respectively.
  Participation in JCL was taken up by approximately 1 in 5 delegates – but that was expected given that this is the first initiative of its type and it was not an integral part of the booking process.  
  Whilst it is disappointing that WSSD wasn’t 100% Carbon Neutral, it is significant that all the monies raised were achieved through voluntary contributions.  We believe that the JCL is a barometer of public willingness to pay – and a signal to government of civic society’s readiness for tighter policy.
Responsible Tourism in Destinations
  The side event conference on Responsible Tourism in Destinations, held in Cape Town 21 –23 Augusts concluded with a declaration calling on all stakeholders in the tourism industry to take responsibility to achieve the triple bottom line of sustainable tourism. Dr Dawid de Villiers, Deputy Secretary-General of the World Tourism Organization supported the development “Responsible Tourism is not a new form of tourism, but a commitment to act and to act in a practical and measurable way.  Responsible Tourism is all about “how do we do it” or even more concretely, “this is the way we should do it”.
  Responsible Tourism places new emphasis on the social and economic aspects following on from CSD7 in New York. Multi-stakeholder approaches to shaping and reshaping destinations are required if tourism is to bring greater benefits to local communities and to contribute to their sustainable development. There are successful initiatives in destinations like Calvia, South Africa and The Gambia; and originating markets are responding (see for example www.responsibetravel.com and AITO). 
  In Cape Town, the new South African Responsible Tourism Guidelines were field-tested and the idea of developing destination specific responsible tourism guidelines was endorsed by the 280 delegates from 20 countries. The Cape Town Conference Declaration (www.icrtourism.org) called upon tourism enterprises and trade associations in originating markets and tourism businesses, local communities and their governments in destinations to adopt a responsible approach, to commit to specific responsible practises, and to report progress in a transparent and auditable way.
  The Calvia conference in May 2004 will bring together local authorities and tour operators to discuss partnerships for change and provide an opportunity to review progress in Calvia, South Africa and in a host of other destinations. 
Harold Goodwin, Co-chair Cape Town Conference, Stakeholder Forum.  haroldgoodwin@zoo.co.uk  
Formation of the Regional Government Sustainable Development Network
  Representatives of 23 regional governments from the five continents of the world, and several associations of regions, met together in Johannesburg on 31 August to confirm their common purpose in making sustainable development the central guiding principle of their governments, and to join together in a new global partnership network to share experience and enhance their separate ability to help their citizens achieve more sustainable futures.
  During the meeting the participants, who included several regional Premiers, Ministers, Governors and other political leaders from the regions agreed to a political declaration —“The Gauteng Declaration”— which set out their shared purpose and declared their determination to adopt or strengthen existing over-arching strategies to drive the progress of sustainable development in their regions. 
   Presenting the declaration, Rhodri Morgan, First Minister of Wales, who guided the discussions on the preparation of the Declaration, said, " It is at the regional level that many of the most important actions take place by working and building on what we have achieved this week. It is about the legacy inherited by our children and our children's children."
  The Regional Governments represented at the meeting also decided to establish a global network to exchange information, encourage the formation of partnerships and other forms of collaboration, and to clarify the roles of regional governments throughout the world in the pursuit of sustainable development.  Participants agreed to form an interim steering committee to shape this new network, and to encourage other regions to join it.  It is hoped that all regions of the world will see this as an opportunity to participate in this dynamic and creative new venture for gaining wider recognition for the crucial role of the regions in the implementation and achievement of the goal of sustainability, to which the Johannesburg Summit is dedicated. 
  The meeting accepted the invitation of the Basque regional government to host their next meeting early next year.  By the time of this meeting it is hoped that the initial membership of the network will be enlarged to include a wider range of regions from around the world, to have established the web site hub for linking members, to adopt a future work programme, and to take the first steps to constituting the new organization more formally.
  Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future was able to play a crucial part in facilitating the formation of this network. During the PrepCom in Bali Stakeholder Forum identified a core group of regions interested in different parts of the world interested in co-operating on sustainable development and convened several meetings to plan the Johannesburg event. Between Bali and Johannesburg Stakeholder Forum contacted many other regions of the world and prepared documentation and logistical arrangements for the Johannesburg event. At the event itself they provided facilitation and chairing for some parts of the occasion. The regions represented were very pleased with the help that Stakeholder Forum gave and have invited the Forum to continue as interim secretariat until a permanent secretariat is established.
  Stakeholder Forum is delighted to have been able to play a facilitating role in helping regions of the world to form this network devoted to the promotion of sustainable development at the regional level of government, and to the sharing of experience between them. The event was one of the more significant positive outcomes of Johannesburg, and it is excellent that the Forum has been able to play a leading part in getting it off the ground.  
  To see the Gauteng Declaration and obtain further information about the new network visit www.earthsummit2002.org  sub-national governance.
Derek Osborn., Stakeholder Forum

Local Government at the Summit
  The Local Government Session, 'Local Action Moves the World', was a four-day parallel event at the Johannesburg Summit designed for local government to convey its expectations and positions for the Summit to delegates. Organised by ICLEI with other major international local government associations and UN agencies, this was one of the Summit's largest official parallel events with over 700 registered participants. 
  The Local Government Session provided an opportunity for local government to present its messages and its successes regarding international sustainable development implementation to a broader audience of national governments, stakeholders and international agencies. The event was successful in generating a high profile for local governments at the Summit and significant media attention. Speakers included many high level representatives, including more than a dozen national ministers, Mr. Nitin Desai, the Secretary General of the Summit, Dr. Klaus Töpfer, UNEP Executive Director and Ms. Anna Tibajuka, UN Habitat Executive Director.
  The program focused on building sustainable communities and cities while protecting global common goods such as the climate, water resources and biodiversity. Case studies of local government success were presented to demonstrate the role of local governments as key implementation agents and concrete local strategies for accelerating sustainability were discussed in a series of roundtables. These provided an avenue for discussion on how barriers to accelerated implementation could be overcome and to identify tools and mechanisms required to achieving this commitment to sustainability. 
Sustainable Cities Need Strong Local Governments
  Cities learn best from other cities and the session provided local government participants with the opportunity to share tools, experiences and approaches for achieving sustainability. A central theme was 'Creating Sustainable Cities', examining the role that local government now has and can play in the future. The majority of the world's population now live in cities and, according to the World Bank, this proportion will rise to 61 per cent by the year 2030. The sustainability of our cities is thus one of the most pressing challenges facing humankind. 
  As a reflection of the call for partnerships to implement the Summit outcomes, the Local Government Session provided a spotlight for the announcement of various partnerships, or Type II initiatives, that include local government involvement and are meant to accelerate action in such areas as water and sanitation, governance, transportation, local procurement and environmental management.
Local Action 21
  Accepting a statement entitled The Johannesburg Call  tabled by the South African Local Government Association and the City of Johannesburg, local governments called for a shift from agenda to action. They endorsed Local Action 21, the new action-oriented phase of Local Agenda 21, as a motto, mandate and movement for advancing sustainability at the local level. Recognizing the importance of guiding principles in this process, the Johannesburg Call refers to the Earth Charter and the Melbourne Principles as a foundation for this new phase of local sustainable development.
  The conclusion of the Johannesburg Call reads: 
  " ... If international gatherings like this one are to make a meaningful difference to people's lives, we the representatives of the people must be bold and unequivocal about making changes. We recognise that without political commitment, nothing will be achieved. We therefore pledge our unwavering commitment to eradicating poverty, correcting the imbalances between the developed and developing world and fundamentally reshaping our world. 
  We also commit ourselves to developing very practical, realistic Action Plans and to implement them through Local Action 21 programs .... The time to act is now. Let us not lose this opportunity; there may not be another. "
  The finale of the Local Government Session saw the presentation of the Local Government Declaration. This document represents the considered view of world local governments and is derived from the Local Government Dialogue Paper submitted earlier to the Summit and the extensive consultations that preceded it. The Declaration is a resolution outlining local government commitments and directing a series of key demands to all levels: international associations of cities and local governments, national governments as well as the UN and the international community. 
   "Ten years after Rio, it is time for action by all spheres of government, all partners. And local action, undertaken in solidarity, can move the world" - from the conclusion of the Local Government Declaration.
  At the close of the Local Government Session, both documents, the Local Government Declaration along with the Johannesburg Call, were delivered formally to the Summit by Cllr. Alan Lloyd, President of the World Association of Cities and Local Authorities Coordination (WACLAC). 
   International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), web www.iclei.org, email iclei@iclei.org
  Notes: More detailed information on the Johannesburg Summit and Local Government is available on the ICLEI website at http://www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002. The Johannesburg Call and the Local Government Declaration can be found at: www.iclei.org/johannesburg2002/wssd_docs.html. 

  Earth Summit 2002 saw Stakeholder Forum welcome David Hales as new Northern Co-Chair, as Derek Osborn stood down from the position. We would like to sincerely thank Derek for the invaluable contribution he has made over the past 6 years.
  UNED-UK operates formally as a semi-autonomous body within UNA under the guidance of the UK Executive Committee. Derek Osborn is the chair of that body and Margaret Brusasco Mackenzie and Malcolm Harper are the vice chairs. Felix Dodds is the Executive Director
  When UNED began to play a larger part internationally in facilitating multistakeholder engagement with international processes it adopted a new name for this range of activities – Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future. For this range of international activities advice and guidance is provided by an International Advisory Board of stakeholders from many different parts of the world. Initially Derek Osborn acted as sole chair of this group as well. In the last two years he has co-chaired this group with a southern co-chair – first Hesphina Rukato and for the last year Gwen Mahlangu, Member of the South African Parliament and chair of the Parliament’s advisory committee.
  Continuing this constitutional evolution Derek Osborn stood down from the northern co-chairmanship of the International Advisory Board during the general meeting of the Board on 1 September in Johannesburg. David Hales was elected in his place. David Hales will bring a wealth of experience and skills to the post, from inside and outside government. From 1994 to 2001 he was Deputy Assistant Administrator and founding Director of the Global Environmental Center at USAID. He led the development and implementation of USAID climate change, biodiversity, environment and natural resource, and urban programs operating in more than 80 countries worldwide. During his service he led United States delegations to the World Water Summit and to the City Summit in Istanbul, and represented the United States at Conferences of Parties to various Conventions, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and to the Commission on Human Settlements and the Commission on Sustainable Development. 
Previously David Hales served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and National Parks during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, and was Director of the State of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources from 1987 - 1991. From 1980 - 1987, he was Samuel Task Dana Professor of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan. He was one of the primary architects of the Redwoods National Park Expansion of 1978, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1980, and the Pinelands National Reserve. He led Carter Administration efforts leading to the passage of the National Parks and Recreation Omnibus Act of 1978, which doubled the size of the United States National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the National Trails System. He is co-founder, with Michael Soule of the Society for Conservation Biology, and the first American to serve as the President of the World Heritage Convention. 
  Currently David Hales is President of the Center for Human and Ecosystem Wellbeing which promotes valid and reliable measurement of progress in implementing Agenda 21. Collaborating institutions and clients include The Smithsonian Institution, Sister Cities International, Yale University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the United States Institute for Peace, The Alliance to Prevent Childhood Lead Poisoning, The Regional Environment Center for Central and Eastern Europe, The Regional Environment Center of Moldova, and the Canadian Province of British Columbia.
  Derek Osborn will continue as Chair of UNED-UK. He and Felix Dodds look forward to a close collaboration with Gwen Mahlangu and David Hales to carry forward the work of Stakeholder Forum 

13 Oct. - 16 Oct. 	Civil Society & the Democratisation of Global Governance. Montreal, Canada. 
Contact: www.fimcivilsociety.org/g02	
13 Oct. - 18 Oct. 	GEF NGO Consultations, Council Meetings & Assembly. Beijing, China. 
Contact: www.gefweb.org	
21 Oct. - 23 Oct.	Euro Environment 2002 Conference. Aalborg, Denmark. 
Contact: www.akkc.dk/index.asp?arrangement=327&kategori=congress&sprog=eng	
21 Oct. - 25 Oct.	International Ecotourism Conference. Cairns, Australia. 
Contact: www.ecotourism-australia.info/conf2002/index.htm	
23 Oct. - 1 Nov.	8th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. New Delhi, India. 
Contact: http://unfccc.int/sessions/sessions.html	
27 Oct. - 31 Oct.	14th World Congress of Environmental Journalists. Colombo, Sri Lanka. 
Contact: www15.brinkster.com/slejf	
29 Oct. - 1 Nov. 	Global Mountain Summit. Bishtek, Kyrgyzstan. 
Contact: www.globalmountiansummit.org/Home_Page.html	
3 Nov. - 15 Nov.	Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species - COP 12. Santiago, Chile. 
Contact: www.cites.org/eng/news/meetings/cop12.shtml	
7 Nov. - 8 Nov. 	Triple Bottom Line Investing Conference 2002. Brussels, Belgium. Contact: www.tbli.org	
18 Nov. - 21 Nov.	Green Cities, Sustainable Cities Congress. Midrand, South Africa. Contact: www.ierm.org.za	
25 Nov. - 26 Nov.	Sustainability in the Water Sector. Venice, Italy. 
Contact: www.iawq.org.uk/template.cfm?name=sustainability2002	
27 Nov. - 29 Nov.	Third Meeting of the Global Forum on Sustainable Energy. Graz, Austria. 
Contact: freudenschuss-reichl@un.org	
Diary Dates, Events & Conferences

What’s in next months Network - 2002…

•	COP 8 - The Story So Far
•	Sustainable Development - Which way now?
•	GEF Sessions - Paying for Sustainable Development
•	GO2 - Global Governance discussed
•	Euro Environment 2002 - Walking the Walk?