Network 2002 – November Issue
Contents:
Sustainable Development – Which Way Now?
News
What Really Happened in Johannesburg?
Governance for the Greater Good
Global Governance 2002
Sanitation – Half the Story
Climate Change – COP 8
Diary Dates, Conferences, Events
What’s in Next Months Network 2002

Sustainable Development: 
Which Way Now?
  ‘Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning’, once said a notable politician. And so it is with Sustainable Development. So, where to now? Stakeholder Forum’s Vice Chair, Margaret Brusasco Mackenzie points us towards the light at the end of the tunnel.
  I start from the premise that the concept of sustainable development is now widely accepted, that the Rio Conference set us on the road towards it, and that the Johannesburg Summit has taken us somewhat further down that road. Certainly not as far as we in Stakeholder Forum would have wanted, but there are some good results from Johannesburg which have to be implemented. 
  It adopted a good Declaration and a plan of implementation, which is like the curates egg: far too long, written in UN speak, but which has many good aspects, and did not deserve the bashing it got in the media.
  In fact the media reporting did not do Johannesburg justice. Certainly did not accentuate the positive. We had much the same problem in Rio where the Press really only understood the Conventions, the presence of so many Heads of State and by and large ignored Agenda 21, which was the greatest success of the Rio conference.
  So what are the nuggets I would choose from the Plan of Implementation which, if implemented, will really mark big strides towards Sustainable Development? 
·	Halving by 2015 the number of people lacking access to basic sanitation. (Commitment from the developed to the developing world);
·	A commitment to minimise the harmful effects of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. (Commitment above all by the developed countries);
·	A commitment to restore fish stocks to sustainable levels no later than 2015. (Commitment by all and with considerable positive consequences in developing countries);
·	A Commitment by all parties to halt the loss of bio-diversity by 2010. (Major commitment for developing countries in particular);
·	A commitment to set up a 10-year framework for programmes on sustainable production and consumption (Major commitment by developed countries, and the Asia Tigers, India and China).
  As can be seen these are major commitments which have been taken, with a good balance between rich and poor countries. There was at the end in Johannesburg a reasonable level of political consensus between the forward-looking countries of the OECD  and the G77, far more than we would have expected after the Bali Prep. Comm., but it will need to be acted upon rapidly to hold it together. 
  Another of the successes of Johannesburg was the wide participation, with the strong showing of NGOs, big business and local people. The Partnerships, which were announced in Johannesburg, have the potential to be its most exciting and innovative feature.
  So we have much material to work with and eagerness to get on with the job (at least in some quarters), but so we did after Rio. As we never tire of saying, there was nothing wrong with Rio, it just wasn’t implemented correctly, significantly or, in some cases, not at all.
  So what lessons can we learn from Rio so that we can do a better job for Johannesburg?
  For about three years Rio implementation started out well. The CSD made useful progress, and the political consensus held up well. Many OECD countries started work or adopted Sustainable Development plans to implement Agenda 21. Some assistance was given to developing countries to work on their sustainable development plans.
  The political climate and consensus began to change when it became clear that there was no additional money forthcoming to help developing countries to implement the Rio commitments, in other words, the basic bargain of Rio was broken. At the same time, there was a  generalised loss of steam at the national level in relation to Agenda 21.
  However, Local Agenda 21 continued to make good progress in some (mostly European) countries. The reason why it outpaced the central level is, I believe, because it was a multi-stakeholder process and often grassroots process. Unfortunately the national level did not seem able to profit from the achievements of the Local Agendas  and there was an increasing gap in implementation between the local and national level.
  After 1995, the UN, CSD led, process increasingly lost its way, getting bogged down in the traditional ‘wordsmith’ UN approach of drafting numerous hard fought decisions, which also largely remained unimplemented. The increasing divergence between the EU and the USA worsened this situation, as it did within the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions which spilled over into the CSD negotiations, and often embittered them.
  So can we learn lessons from post Rio? Yes, and the first one it that we are unlikely to have even the three year ‘honeymoon’ period, since the world has moved on very rapidly since Johannesburg. Security concerns, terrorism, threats of war, political dissension, are not on its side. So we have to play to the strengths of Johannesburg, and quickly. 
  Firstly there is some newish money available to assist developing countries in their sustainable development strategies and for the implementation of Johannesburg. This is the result of the Monterrey Conference, where both the EU and the USA pledged to increase their development aid. The EU followed up on this at Johannesburg by launching its water initiative with developing countries, which will provide 1.4 billion Euros per annum, and increasing ‘Water for Life’ will be a partnership with Least Developed Countries, with public/private funding and involvements of all stakeholders.
  The EU has also launched an initiative to improve access to sustainable energy for 2 billion ‘energy poor’ people (700 million Euros per annum and increasing). The Union has started work on a ‘coalition of the willing’ to work out targets and timetables for renewable energy goals, with partners from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central and Eastern Europe.
  There were also initiatives, with funding, put forward by several national governments, including the UK, France and Germany. All this should help to maintain the consensus of Johannesburg between the EU and the G77, and make the first strides to implementing some of the most important Johannesburg commitments.
  The ten year Programme of Sustainable Production and Consumption is one of the key commitments. The rich world, building on considerable work of some enlightened companies must take up this challenge, since a less wasteful and polluting society has considerable savings ‘on the bottom line’ both for government and industry. This is something which European business, and the European Commission should take forward urgently. The European level is suggested to avoid problems of competitive disadvantage, and to encourage ‘first mover advantage’ which might (just possibly might) in turn influence US business and US Government. The role of business in Johannesburg was much more important than at Rio (39 CEO’s, 70 major companies present). Business launched a number of partnerships, which look to be amongst the most promising.
   So Johannesburg has provided us with major commitments, and several new directions for implementing them.
•	The business partnerships. Many high profile CEOs made promises in those partnerships at Johannesburg. It is time for them to be up and running. The NGO world has both the possibility to cooperate (eg WWF and Unilever) and to challenge in the press, and via the shareholders meetings if those partnerships are slow in becoming reality.
•	Other multi-stakeholder processes such as the Stakeholder Forum’s Implementation Conference who have been requested to organise another Implementation Conference in Ghana next year. This could be a very important occasion to check on initiatives launched for Africa in Johannesburg.  The Implementation Conference in Ghana could bring together stakeholders, including the grassroots level, to form real partnerships in pursuit of Johannesburg aims, and link them up to the donors. It is essential that African countries should be the first to profit from Johannesburg, in their struggle for sustainable development, not the last as after Rio.
•	Similarly the Regional Level process can be very fruitful. Increasingly populations worldwide have less faith in their national politicians and governments, and feel that the Regional Level corresponds much more closely to their aspirations. Increasingly also such Regions have funding, to implement good strategies, and the Gauteng Declaration has shown that some, are determined to make sustainable development a reality at their level.
•	Governments, in particular the European Governments, have made substantial promises. After Rio, much effort by NGOs went into Local Agenda 21, and rightly so. Unfortunately the same pressure was not exerted on the national level. A number of countries have Sustainable Development Commissions in place. Via them (or in spite of them if they are not performing), both environment and development NGOs must keep up the pressure, now, on governments to improve their sustainable development strategies to implement Johannesburg at home and abroad.
•	Last but definitely not least, the UN level. At Johannesburg, there were several positive discussions (one organised by Stakeholder Forum) on how to make the UN function better, in particular the Commission on Sustainable Development. The Plan of Implementation already points the way, for more effective meetings. We must get away from Second Committee type interminable drafting sessions, and make the process within the UN institutions more integrated and above all more effective in pushing forward the Sustainable Development agenda. Stakeholder Forum will be coming forward with some ideas in the near future.
  Finally, yes Johannesburg did advance the cause of sustainable development, and there are several innovative ways of implementing it, via partnerships, multi-stakeholder processes, additional funds for Least Developed Countries, programmes by the EU and its member states, and many opportunities for the NGO community to participate and also hold business and governments to their promises.
Margaret Brusasco-Makenzie, Vice Chair, Stakeholder Forum

News, News, News
World Food Day: 850m Still Hungry
  The annual observance of World Food Day on October 16th was marked by the publication UN reports stating that progress on reducing world hunger has virtually stopped. This comes at a time when approximately 15% of the world’s population are considered to be undernourished. 
  Such figures make the goals that governments set themselves at last months Johannesburg Summit seem fanciful at best. Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chevez, who attended a ceremony to mark the day at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), stated that ‘We are miles away from the goals we set ourselves. If we simply make speeches and produce documents we are not acknowledging reality.”
  With the global population projected to climb to 8 billion within 30 years, demands on food production and distribution can only escalate. Addressing the causes requires an inter-disciplinary approach. ‘Agriculture is responsible for about 70% of all the freshwater withdrawn from aquifers, rivers, streams and lakes’, noted Jacques Diouf, FAO Director General. ‘The production chain must produce more with less water, and small farmers need to play a part. They must therefore be trained and actively involved’ he continued.
  Faced with the slowing of hunger reduction, the FAO is calling for a $24 billion increase in public investment in poor countries to realize the goal of halving the number of people suffering from hunger by 2015, set at the 1996 FAO Food Summit.
  Links were also made to the UN declaration of 2002 as International Year of the Mountains. With half the world’s population drinking water that originates in mountains, continuing degradation of mountain ecosystems is leading to increased pressure on dwindling supplies of freshwater as well as impacting agricultural production.
  World Food Day proved once again that by recognising such issues, the international community is merely reminding itself of the increasingly pressing demands faced by the planet and its people. Action to address these critical issues remains to be seen.
Global Mountain Summit
  The International Year of Mountains culminated at the Global Mountian Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, October 29th - November 1st. Drawing on the outcomes of a year of meetings, and considering the various existing international instruments for Mountain Sustainable Development, the Summit set out to put forward 5 key proposals:
•	The Bishkek Mountain Platform, a synthesis of the results of mountain meetings since the 1992 Earth Summit;
•	The International Partnership for Sustainable development of Mountain Regions;
•	A draft proposal for a UN General Assembly resolution;
•	Establishing a network of Mountain Developing States;
•	The Central Asian Mountain Charter.
  The meeting concluded with the successful adoption of the Bishkek Platform, which builds on the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions, agreed at the Johannesburg Summit. 
  Covering 26% of the Earth’s land surface, mountain regions host 12% of the worlds people and provide critical reserves of biodiversity, food, forests and minerals. The Bishkek Platform highlights the threat posed to these complex web’s by Climate Change, currently in debate in New Dehli. 
Global Environment Facility - 2nd Assembly
   Beijing, China, played host to the 2nd Assembly of the Global Environment Facility, Oct. 16-18th. Following its recent replenishment of approximately US$2.97bn, Ministers and High Level officials met to assess the Facilities overall direction. The core purpose of the Facility is to finance actions to address four critical threats to the global environment: biodiversity loss, climate change, degradation of international waters, and ozone depletion.
  The opening plenary session allowed participants to review progress made and experience gained over recent years. Led by a series of presentations by heads of UN agencies, a number of references were made to the successes of the Johannesburg Summit, reflected notably by the more holistic view in which the GEF was being discussed. UNDP’s Administrator, Mark Malloch-Brown, emphasised the need to address both Poverty and Environment in seeking to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, linking issues within the GEF in what has historically been and environmental arena.
  This line of fire was developed further by the World Bank’s Kristalina Georgieva, highlighting the GEFs role in integrating environmental protection and poverty eradication agendas whilst ensuring that economic markets work for, not against the environment.
  There followed a Performance Study of the GEF, specifically looking at whether GEF funded projects had succeeded in producing significant results in a ‘global context’. Findings concluded that:
•	Projects had led to meaningful reductions in ozone depleting substances;
•	Despite limited success in promoting off-grid rural energy projects, the GEF had promoted grid-connected renewable energy;
•	By encouraging a participatory approach, the GEF had benefited biodiversity via improved protected area management;
•	Significant strengthening of existing global and regional agreements in the field freshwater and marine ecosystem protection and restoration has been achieved;
•	Although progress was achieved in Capacity Building efforts for sustainable land resource management, the overall impact on land degradation was inadequate.
  Whilst the balance of payments for the GEF seem to be positive, and while hopes remain high for moving forward with a greater degree of understanding of how to achieve effective results, caution persists. While the scale of the problem remains vast, the resources remain few.

What Really 
Happened in
Johannesburg
  Much has been written about the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, and no doubt more is to come. If you weren’t in South Africa, how do you know what to believe? Here are the cold hard facts of what governments agreed to.
Poverty Eradication
•	Halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than $1 a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goals).
•	By 2020, achieve a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, as proposed in the “Cities without slums” initiative (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goal).
•	Establish a world solidarity fund to eradicate poverty and to promote social and human development in the developing countries.
Water and Sanitation
•	Halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goal).
•	Halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation.
Sustainable Production and Consumption
•	Encourage and promote the development of a 10-year framework of programmes to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production.
Energy
Renewable energy
•	Diversify energy supply and substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources in order to increase its contribution to total energy supply.
Access to Energy
•	Improve access to reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy services and resources, sufficient to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the goal of halving the proportion of people in poverty by 2015.
Energy Markets
•	Remove market distortions including the restructuring of taxes and the phasing out of harmful subsidies.
•	Support efforts to improve the functioning, transparency and information about energy markets with respect to both supply and demand, with the aim of achieving greater stability and to ensure consumer access to energy services.
Energy efficiency
•	Establish domestic programmes for energy efficiency with the support of the international community. Accelerate the development and dissemination of energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies, including the promotion of research and development.
Chemicals
•	Aim, by 2020, to use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment.
•	Renew the commitment to the sound management of chemicals and of hazardous wastes throughout their life cycle.
•	Promote the ratification and implementation of relevant international instruments on chemicals and hazardous waste, including the Rotterdam Convention so that it can enter into force by 2003 and the Stockholm Convention so that it can enter into force by 2004.
•	Further develop a strategic approach to international chemicals management, based on the Bahia Declaration and Priorities for Action beyond 2000, by 2005
•	Encourage countries to implement the new globally harmonized system for the classification and labelling of chemicals as soon as possible, with a view to having the system fully operational by 2008.
Management of the natural resource base
Water
•	Develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005.
Oceans and fisheries
•	Encourage the application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach for the sustainable development of the oceans.
•	On an urgent basis and where possible by 2015, maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
•	Put into effect the FAO international plans of action by the agreed dates:
•	for the management of fishing capacity by 2005; and;
•	to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by 2004.
•	Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012.
•	Establish by 2004 a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment.
•	Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity.
Atmosphere
•	Facilitate implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer by ensuring adequate replenishment of its fund by 2003/2005.
•	Improve access by developing countries to alternatives to ozone-depleting substances by 2010, and assist them in complying with the phase-out schedule under the Montreal Protocol.
Biodiversity
•	Achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity.
Forests
•	Accelerate implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action by countries and by the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, and intensify efforts on reporting to the United Nations Forum on Forests, to contribute to an assessment of progress in 2005.
Corporate responsibility
•	Actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, including through the full development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures, international initiatives and public-private partnerships, and appropriate national regulations.
Health
•	Enhance health education with the objective of achieving improved health literacy on a global basis by 2010.
•	Reduce, by 2015, mortality rates for infants and children under 5 by two thirds, and maternal mortality rates by three quarters, of the prevailing rate in 2000 (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goal).
•	Reduce HIV prevalence among young men and women aged 15-24 by 25 per cent in the most affected countries by 2005 and globally by 2010, as well as combat malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases (reaffirmation of General Assembly resolution).
Sustainable development of small island developing States
•	Undertake initiatives by 2004 aimed at implementing the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities to reduce, prevent and control waste and pollution and their health-related impacts. 
•	Develop community-based initiatives on sustainable tourism by 2004.
•	Support the availability of adequate, affordable and environmentally sound energy services for the sustainable development of small island developing States, including through strengthening efforts on energy supply and services by 2004.
•	Review implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States in 2004.
Sustainable development for Africa
•	Improve sustainable agricultural productivity and food security in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, in particular to halve by 2015 the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
•	Support African countries in developing and implementing food security strategies by 2005.
•	Support Africa’s efforts to implement NEPAD objectives on energy, which seek to secure access for at least 35 per cent of the African population within 20 years, especially in rural areas.
Means of implementation
•	Ensure that, by 2015, all children will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education relevant to national needs (reaffirmation of Millennium Development Goal).
•	Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005 (reaffirmation of Dakar Framework for Action on Education for All).
•	Recommend to the UN General Assembly that it consider adopting a decade of education for sustainable development, starting in 2005.
Institutional Framework for sustainable development
•	Adopt new measures to strengthen institutional arrangements for sustainable development at international, regional and national levels.
•	Enhance the role of the Commission on Sustainable Development, including through reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships.
•	Facilitate and promote the integration of the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development into the work programs UN regional commissions.
•	Establish an effective, transparent and regular inter-agency coordination mechanism on ocean and coastal issues within the United Nations system.
•	Take immediate steps to make progress in the formulation and elaboration of national strategies for sustainable development and begin their implementation by 2005.
Key Initiatives and Announcements from the Johannesburg Summit
Water & Sanitation
  The United States announced $970 million in investments over the next three years on water and sanitation projects.
  The European Union announced the “Water for Life” initiative that seeks to engage partners to meet goals for water and sanitation, primarily in Africa and Central Asia.
  The Asia Development Bank provided a $5 million grant to UN Habitat and $500 million in fast-track credit for the Water for Asian Cities Programme.
  The UN has received 21 other water and sanitation initiatives with at least $20 million in extra resources.
Energy
  The nine major electricity companies of the E7 signed a range of agreements with the UN to facilitate technical cooperation for sustainable energy projects in developing countries.
  The European Union announced a $700 million partnership initiative on energy and the United States announced that it would invest up to $43 million in 2003.
  DESA, UNEP and the US EPA announced a partnership on Cleaner Fuels and Vehicles with broad support from confirmed partners from the private sector, the NGO community, developed and developing countries.
  The South African energy utility Eskom announced a partnership to extend modern energy services to neighbouring countries.
  The United Nations Environment Programme launched a new initiative called the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development to promote the research, transfer and deployment of green and cleaner energy technologies to the developing world
  The UN has received 32 partnership submissions for energy projects with at least $26 million in resources.
Health
  The United States announced a commitment to spend $2.3 billion through 2003 on health, some of which was earmarked earlier for the Global Fund. · The UN has received 16 partnership submissions for health projects with $3 million in resources.
Agriculture
  The United States will invest $90 million in 2003 for sustainable agriculture programmes.
  The UN has received 17 partnership submissions with at least $2 million in additional resources.
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
  Canada and Russia announced they intended to ratify the Kyoto protocol · The United States announced $53 million for forests in 2002-2005.
  The UN has received 32 partnership initiatives with $100 million in resources.
Cross-Cutting Issues
  Agreement to the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, with a total of $3 billion ($2.92 billion announced pre-Summit and $80 million added by EU in Johannesburg).
  Norway pledged an additional $50 million towards following up the Johannesburg commitments.
  The United Kingdom announced it was doubling its assistance to Africa to £1 billion a year and raising its overall assistance for all countries by 50 per cent.
  The EU announced that it will increase its development assistance with more than 22 billion euros in the years to 2006 and by more than 9 billion euros annually from 2006 onwards.
  Germany announced a contribution of 500 million euros over the next five years to promote cooperation on renewable energy.
  Canada announced that, as of 1 January 2003, it will eliminate tariffs and quotas on almost all products from the least developed countries, and that by 2010, it would double development assistance.
  Japan announced that it will provide at least 250 billion yen in education assistance over a five-year period and that it would extend emergency food aid amounting to $30 million dollars to save children in southern Africa from famine.
  Japan also announced it would provide cooperation in environment-related capacity building by training 5,000 people from overseas over a five-year period. 
 Ireland announced that it has allocated almost 8 million euros in emergency funding in response to the humanitarian needs of the African region.		UN/DESA, September 2002

Governance for the Greater Good
  The World Summit spent much of its time considering Governance of Sustainable Development; the institutional frameworks from the global to the national level. Stakeholder Forum’s Rosalie Gardiner provides an overview of the key developments.
  The key governance outcome from the World Summit on Sustainable Development is Chapter X of the Plan of Implementation on “Institutional Frameworks for Sustainable Development”. The chapter deals exclusively with issues of governance, presenting commitments which support enhancing governance systems for sustainable development at all levels. This article takes a broad overview of the key governance outcomes throughout the Plan of Implementation. This includes six broad areas:
1. Institutional strengthening and capacity building
  Throughout the text there are commitments to help build up institutional capacity for sustainable development, from legal issues, through to education and trade. A special emphasis is placed on Africa, including commitments to NEPAD (New Plan for African Development), technological capacity, as well as environmental institutions. The next phase of NEPAD will be held under close scrutiny. Of particular interest will be the degree to which NEPAD ensures transparency and support for participation of stakeholder groups in NEPAD’s development, implementation and monitoring.
  The Plan also renews support for UNDP’s Capacity 21 initiative. UNDP re-launched Capacity 21 as “Capacity 2015”. It seems to be applying lessons from Capacity 21’s past experiences, to encourage better linkages between National Strategies for Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Strategies. Also it has made a shift of emphasis away from the national level towards building capacity at the local level. 
2. Integrated management and ecosystem approach 
  The Plan of Implementation makes specific commitments to support integrated management of natural resources. It states “Managing the natural resources base in a sustainable and integrated manner is essential for sustainable development” and includes commitments for coastal, land, water, biodiversity and tourism management. However, there is no consistency this approach in the rest of the Plan. Indeed the chapters deal with issues in a ‘ring-fenced’ manner, so that debate was unlikely to be conducive to adopting a more integrated approach in any case. The WEHAB papers (Water, Energy, Health, Food and agriculture, Biodiversity) produced by the Secretary General for the Summit provide a useful example of how the Plan could have adopted a more integrated approach. 
  Key events coming up include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which will be the focus of the GA in October, and on its agenda in November for the follow up to the Summit. Also the third World Water Forum in Kyoto (2003), World Parks Congress (2003), and the CBD COP 7 (2004, interim meeting in 2003) will be taking place. Other important processes include the further development of the Global Programme of Action and the implementation of Integrated Water Management Plans target (2005). 
3. Legal and regulatory frameworks 
  There is a strong emphasis in the Plan on national responsibilities to enforce “clear and effective laws that support sustainable development”. There are also calls for ratification of agreements, including on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the Rotterdam Convention on Hazardous Chemicals (PICs), the Stockholm Pollutants Convention (POPs), and the Climate Change Kyoto Protocol. There was also a push for a new “international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources”, to be incorporated into the CBD, and linked to progressing the Bonn Guidelines. Canada, Mexico, China and Russia all made commitments to ratify Kyoto. Russia’s commitment was particularly significant since it contributes 17% of all developed country CO2 Emissions. 
  Forthcoming meetings include for Kyoto in October 2002, PICs in 2003 and POPs in 2004, which will give a better indication of whether governments were serious about making further progress. Improving coordination between MEAs was left untouched by the Summit, thus further opportunities will depend on UNEP and its Inter-linkages and Synergies Unit.
4. Partnerships 
  Recognition of vital role of partnerships was a key outcome from the Summit. The Plan explicitly endorses partnership initiatives “by all relevant actors to support the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development”. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is identified as the key global fora to “serve as a focal point for the discussion of partnerships that promote sustainable development, including sharing lessons learned, progress made and best practices”. 
  However, concerns were raised not only by NGO’s but also some Governments about the lack of connection between the Plan and “Type II” Partnership Initiatives, and whether Type II’s were being used by governments to relinquish the burden of responsibility for implementation and place it entirely on the shoulders of the “partners”. 
  Multi-lateral institutions are slowly beginning to take on board the need to support involvement of different actors, but this will need to be considerably improved. The development of the future format of the CSD also offers an opportunity to clarify the rules and principles for engagement. 
5. Coordination and Cooperation 
  The Plan contains a number of references calling for improved coordination, including by ECOSOC and the Regional Economic Commissions. The CSD was also requested to foster greater coherence in implementation and partnerships. the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and trade agreements were pitted head to head during the Summit. The US pushed hard for the WTO agreements to take precedence over environmental agreements. However, the EU and G77 succeeded in retaining ambiguous terminology for promoting “mutual supportiveness” between the two regimes. It will be a crucial testing time to see whether the MEAs and the WTO’s committees on trade and environment, and trade and development are able to make progress in clarifying their relationship.
The UN new track on reform is being launched at the GA by the Secretary General’s report on “Strengthening the United Nations: An Agenda for the Future”. This will be an important follow-up to the Summit in this area. 
6. Good governance 
  The Rio Principles outline core aspects of good governance for sustainable development, and were one of the major outcomes of Rio. However, ten years on, it seems that Governments could not resist the opportunity to renegotiate what had previously been agreed. The result is fairly poor, with one general commitment to the principles in the text. References to human rights were also few and far between. However, principles of accountability and transparency do appear several times in the text, particularly in relation to key sectors, e.g. water, energy, finance and trade. In terms of corporate conduct, voluntary initiatives remained the preferred option. This is far from the “framework agreement” on Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) that NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth, were demanding. However, a new consensus is emerging, especially from the EU and G77, on the need for mandatory standards, opening the way for future discussions on legally binding global standards for business. Those groups campaigning for a more legally binding approach for TNCs will continue to press for it at the next World Economic Forum and during the WTO meeting in Mexico in 2003. A ten-year work plan for sustainable production and consumption was initiated, with clear implications for business. A new version from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) corporate sustainability reporting guidelines was launched at the Summit. GRI is expanding its work by developing guidelines for specific sectors, and the EU is considering whether to establish the GRI guidelines as mandatory corporate reporting processes. 
  In terms of national accountability, the UN Millennium Project will monitor progress on the MDGs. The project has already undertaken 12 pilot reports on national progress in implementation. Also the Plan commits to ensuring the completion of the UN Convention against Corruption. The Ad-hoc Committee on the Convention Against Corruption, negotiating the Convention, must reach a conclusion by the end of 2003. 
  The Plan says that good governance should apply to all levels. Yet there are some major fault lines running through current governance systems that make good governance and implementation of sustainable development very difficult. Much of this tracks back to the sovereignty of the nation state. The challenge will be for countries to reconcile the call for global interdependence against their own national issues and priorities. Tony Blair, in his statement to the Summit, said “we know the problems and we know the solution is sustainable development”, but without the political will to face up to some of these more fundamental issues sustainable development will remain a distant dream. Significant change needs to take place in the CSD, and more fundamentally elsewhere, to re-instill confidence in the process. The follow-up meeting of the CSD early next year must be used as an opportunity to initiate the next steps in strengthening governance frameworks for sustainable development. The story is not all doom and gloom. The shift towards a more balanced and joined-up approach to environmental, development and economic arenas is significant. This will need to be supported by a move away from tackling issues, such as climate change or human rights, in isolation, as well as bringing wider representation from different government departments to international meetings. If some of these things start to happen then we might begin to move from merely the idea of global interdependence to establishing real mechanisms for actually doing it. 
Rosalie Gardiner, Stakeholder Forum

Global 
Governance 2002: 
  Following hard on the heels of the Johannesburg Summit was the Global Governance 2002. Looking at the role of civil society in a globalising world. Rosalie Gardiner reports
  From October 13th – 16th 2002, Forum Internacionale de Montreal hosted an international conference in Montreal, bringing together NGOs, academia, international agencies and government representatives. Global Governance 2002 (GO2) was convened to examine current global trends including: Globalisation; the decline of the nation state and national democracy; transnational corporations (TNCs) beyond national jurisdictions; loss of power in the UN and dominance of the Bretton woods institutions and WTO. “G02 is an opportunity to understand better the nature of these trends… to help define the role that global civil society can, and should play during this time of dramatic change”. The meeting was particularly timely coming in the aftermath of Johannesburg Summit – to try and take a look at civil society’s role in ensuring follow though from this and previous Summits.
  Under Secretary General, Nitin Desai, gave the keynote speech to the Forum, highlighting how the emergence of global civil society networks was crucial to support the functioning of democracy and that it was the responsibility of civil society to help shape changes in international decision-making. He identified three challenges facing global governance systems, which he hoped would be considered during the forum:
·	Inter-state relations – making the UN, Brettonwoods and WTO more democratic and open to developing countries
·	Stronger civil society – for groups to stop working in silos and start to bring together ideas
·	International legislation – to establish adequate legal regimes to act as a counter-part to national legislation, such as through the international criminal court
  Over the course of the three days participants examined nine “tracks”:
·	A more democratic and stronger United Nations
·	Human rights and global governance
·	Parliamentarians
·	Trade, equity and democratic governance 
·	Global Corporations
·	Local Government
·	Transnational Civil Society – democratic challenges
·	Non-dominant groups (non English speakers)
·	Financial flows
  At the time of writing reports had been produced as outcomes from the Transnational Civil Society, Human rights and Trade groups. The group on Transnational Civil Society, highlighted the growing role of transnational networks for: 
·	Policy Integration: A new framework is emerging, integrating citizen movements and issues 
·	Action-focus: Transnational advocacy on global issues is grounded by demonstrable links and consultations with those most affected constituencies.
·	Critical Alliances: Alliances across sectors and regions are better able to oppose unilateralism, strengthen multilateralism and rule of law. 
  On human rights, civil society organisations were called to: 
·	Work cooperatively together and with like-minded States to ensure that Human Rights and Democracy are at the core of global governance. 
·	Mobilize resources to build a Global Coalition, across sectors, gender, ages, races, religions, and regions, to establish a comprehensive and internationally recognized definition of terrorism.
·	Ensure that Justice and the rule of law become defining features of global relations, not unilateralism and the use of military force.
·	Ensure that international trade and its rules are in conformity with international human rights and corresponding conventions - giving human rights law primacy over trade law. 
·	Support universal ratification of the Rome Statute, uphold the integrity of this Statute and encourage domestic compliance by States. Increase public awareness and support for the International Criminal Court and cooperate to bring cases of egregious crimes before it.
  The Trade track made three recommendations for enhancing global trade: 
·	UN leadership - UN law and institutions should constitute the highest authority in the global system. The WTO, other trade bodies and TNCs must accountable to the UN, and international dispute settlement should be reformed to reflect multilateral responsibilities as well as state sovereignty. 
·	Civil society monitoring - Civil society should report on TNCs’ violations of human rights laws, including: the right to development; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; labour rights and multilateral environmental agreements as framed by the UN. 
·	Consensus building – Convene local and regional gatherings bringing together the full spectrum of civil society to build consensus and national mandates for trade policy to be consistent with the broad framework of human rights.
  It was a pity that no representatives from business appeared to be present to give an alternative view to some of the discussions. As a result there was little debate about improving corporate governance through proactive collaborative approaches, as some NGO’s, e.g. Green peace and WWF, are beginning to do. Nevertheless, it was clear that the main value of the meeting was to building-up NGOs and advocacy groups to work more effectively in the global arena, to share experiences and raise awareness about how groups work in different regions and sectors. It was also refreshing to hear from some participants that there was a need for greater accountability from civil society groups themselves. Thus recognising that, whilst challenging the Private sector and governments to be more accountable and transparent, Civil Society groups also need to be more open about their own flaws and lead by example.
  Further information from: www.fimcivilsociety.org/g02  

Sanitation - Half the Problem
  UNEP Report Highlights Regional Differences in Sanitation Coverage and the Impact of Wastewater on Coastal Populations
  A report, detailing the global threat to coastal populations and the environment from untreated sewage discharges, has been prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in response to a target agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to halve the number of people that have no access to basic sanitation services by the year 2015.
  Almost 40 % of the world population lives in coastal areas, less then 60 km from the shoreline. In South East Asia alone over 800 million people have no access to basic sanitation services, putting them at high risk from sewage-related diseases and death. The report notes that in many parts of the developing world the increased levels of sanitation coverage and wastewater treatment are being overwhelmed by rising populations. 
  Toxic algal blooms poisoning fish and wildlife and precious habitats, such as coral reefs are increasingly under stress as a result of the high levels of nutrients and suspended solids linked with the discharges, impacting the livelihoods of fishermen and the tourist industry. An urgent effort is needed to reduce the risks by harnessing the will and finances of governments, local authorities, affected communities, business and industry.
  This new study highlights the regions where our efforts are most urgently needed namely the seas of Asia, West Africa and the North West Pacific. It suggests setting realistic but ambitious Wastewater Emission Targets (WET), which should be linked to a timetable so that current and future generations can have access to safe drinking water and enjoy healthy coastal environments.
  The report, “Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage in UNEP Regional Seas - Need For Wastewater Emission Targets?”, has been produced by the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA) Coordination Office. It is based on an analysis of data from the Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000 Report (WHO, UNICEF, WSSCC) 2001). UNEP/GPA has worked closely with these organizations in preparing the new report. The report and more information on the WET initiative can be viewed at www.gpa.unep.org under the What’s New section.        

New Delhi's New Climate Talks
  India played host to the 8th Meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change late last month. With positive climate soundings from Johannesburg still wringing in the ears, would governments stride forward with confidence or would we return to the two steps forward one step back approach
  COP6, COP6.5 and COP7 saw high stakes negotiations in order to get the Kyoto protocol negotiated for ratification. Now with a critical mass of countries committing to the Protocol it has now stepped up a gear and is nearing entry into force. This meant that discussions at COP8 have in general been on a much more practical level than past COPs. 
  COP8 has been dominated by discussions on developing the next level of detail on rules for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the process which allows rich countries to fund environmentally-sound progress in developing countries in exchange for emissions ‘credits’. There has been a further round of declarations of emissions from many of the parties, and for the first time the agenda has seen the inclusion of discussion about adaptation policies, i.e. what countries and the populations should do in response to an inevitable amount of global warming - in terms of water husbandry, crop selection, flood prevention etc. 
  The issue with the CDM is that, with the US and Australia having withdrawn from Kyoto, the average price of an Emission credit is much lower than expected. This is pricing many potential CDM projects out of the market - the credits just cannot be produced for the market price. This defeats one of the key objectives of Kyoto. In particular, COP8 has witnessed the sorry spectacle of large and small developing countries fighting each other over CDM rules. The Chinese are campaigning for rules favouring large CDM projects as they stand to make a fortune from power station and chemical plant upgrades, while the small developing countries are arguing for simplified rules for small-scale projects so that their populations do not get bypassed by CDM altogether. 
  Counter-intuitively, the NGOs, are insisting on very high standards (and therefore high costs) in CDM projects, which is going to make many small-scale projects not viable in the first Kyoto Compliance Period. They say they are playing a ‘long game’, putting a peg in the ground for high standards when the volume of CDM goes up in later years – i.e. after 2012. 
  The usual gamut of other movers, shakers and jokers are of course at the COP, among others:
·	the campaigning NGOs, with their spectrum of views on both sides ranging from the pragmatic to the revolutionary. Much of their focus at this COP is on salvaging as much equity for developing countries as they can from the process
·	as the discussion is about CDM, a high proportion of project developers and project researchers, networking away to get their projects off the ground
·	the US, as observers, seeking to influence the negotiations to the relief of some and the fury of others
·	the oil-exporting nations, with their often comic requests for compensation
  Thus the atmosphere has been one of industry, rather than excitement. The hard facts however are still that the US withdrawal has left the market low in both volume and price. Many people in developing countries are going to have to wait until the second Compliance Period (after 2012) to see much benefit from the Kyoto Protocol. 
George Fowkes, Future Forests

Diary Dates, Events & Conferences

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	
4 Nov. - 9 Nov.	33rd Session of the International Tropical Timber Council. Yokohama, Japan. 
Contact: www.itto.or.jp	
7 Nov. - 8 Nov. 	Triple Bottom Line Investing Conference 2002. Brussels, Belgium. Contact: www.tbli.org	
13 Nov. - 15 Nov.	57th Session of the UN General Assembly, 2nd Committee Consideration of the WSSD. New York, USA. Contact: www.un.org/ga/57	
14 Nov. - 16 Nov.	Responsible Finance & Insurance. Monaco. Contact: www.global-responsibility.org	
15 Nov. - 17 Nov.	17th Session of the Global Biodiversity Forum. Valencia, Spain. 
Contact: www.gbf.ch/present_sessions.asp?no=27&lg=EN	
18 Nov. - 21 Nov.	Green Cities, Sustainable Cities Congress. Midrand, South Africa. Contact: www.ierm.org.za	
18 Nov. - 22 Nov.	First International Symposium on Transboundary Water Management. Monterrey, Mexico. 
Contact: www.transboundarywatersmexico.org	
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	
6 Dec. - 7 Dec. 	2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Berlin, 
Germany. Contact: www.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2002/index.htm	
9 Dec. - 13 Dec.	Basel Convention COP-6. Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: www.basel.int/meetings/calendar.html	

What’s in next months Network - 2002…

•	Water & Sustainable Development
•	Basel Convention - COP-6
•	UN General Assembly
•	Energy & Sustainable Development
•	Triple Bottom Line Investing