Network 2015
Building Partnership for Sustainable Development

Implementation,
Implementation,
Implementation!
  Six months have passed since the Johannesburg World Summit. Governments & Stakeholders are now preparing themselves for the review of progress in the form of the 11th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Understandably, there is a degree of anxiety in the air. David Hales separates the fog from the focus.
  As we approach CSD 11, there is much that meets the eye that is encouraging. The Draft Secretary General’s Report on the future of the CSD provides a more than adequate framework for discussion of the way forward. The leadership of the CSD Bureau is experienced and competent. There is broad interest among governments in finding more effective ways to meet the mandate of the Commission on Sustainable Development. There is strong demand from stakeholders for deep and fundamental change. There is agreement among all that the impotent debates of the past have little to do with achieving sustainability. 
  We have the embarrassingly meager output of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development to remind us what we do not want to be ten years from now, providing more than enough evidence and motivation for fundamental reform.
  We have the persistent facts of poverty and pollution, of impoverishment of people and of ecosystems that are increasingly difficult to ignore.
  And yet, I am reminded of watching my father trying to keep time to the music of the Beatles – something is just not connecting. There may be less here than meets the eye.
  Instead of coming together on points of common sense and common interest, too many countries seem bent on emphasizing disagreements. Too many seem ready to settle for the moral high ground of being right and doing little, rather than choosing the practical next step of doing something, and setting the stage for doing more.
  Some want to avail themselves of the cheap headlines available by highlighting the lack of concrete progress in the seven months since Johannesburg. 
  Others want to revisit issues that couldn’t be settled at the WSSD, despite four preparatory meetings, and the attention of media from around the world.
  Some will want to blame lack of progress on insufficient resources transferred from North to South, paying little attention to the gaps between rich and poor in their own countries; others will make the case that progress stalls because of a lack of domestic commitments and willingness to accept responsibility at national levels, while refusing to make firm domestic commitments of their own, even to transparency and accountability.
  Some will want to focus on partnerships as the answer to implementation woes, ignoring the sincere concern of others that partnerships are little more than green wash and smokescreen. Others will charge partnerships with being little more than the rhetoric of implementation without the agony of accountability, ignoring the demonstrable accomplishments of partnerships over the past decade, and the massive potential inherent in coalitions of those who voluntarily choose to do the right thing. 
  Many will want to focus on their issue of choice, ignoring the lessons of linkage inherent in the concept of sustainability. Others will want to embrace everything, oblivious to the lesson of the Rio Decade that to have many priorities is to have none.
  And perhaps in all of this, the one critical point of agreement – that we must find a process and create an institution that will free us from the mistakes of the past -- is at risk of being lost once again.
  The core task of CSD 11 -- the only essential task – is for the CSD to irrevocably change the fundamental patterns and practices of the past decade. It is time for the CSD to assume its unique role as the voice of sustainability, to step forward as an adult in an international system where the wisdom and values of Rio have never been more needed. It is time for the rhetoric of commitment, and pledges of fealty to implementation and action, to be evaluated against real changes in behavior.
  There is some worry that a CSD that focuses on institutional change and procedural reform will not attract Ministers, yet here is the most critical role that Ministers can play. Moreover, Ministers know that it is the strategic decisions that are called for now.
  Rare is the Minister who cares more about what is said than about what is done. And if those who care more about the identity of the speaker and the composition of the audience than about the content of the remarks stay away, they will not be missed.
  Others worry that Ministers will show up for a session that is truly strategic; that Ministers will attend and act, not on the basis of briefs prepared for them by staff, but on the basis of their beliefs. Those who fear this, worry that Ministers will interact with stakeholders who are welcomed to speak not because they hold exalted titles, but because they express common truths.
Should we be satisfied with progress since Johannesburg? No.
Should the amount and quality of development assistance be increased? Yes.
Should anyone use scarcity of financial resources as excuses not to take actions that are well within their capabilities? No.
Should the abuse of partnerships be tolerated? No. 
Should the potential of partnerships be maximized? Yes.
Should we address local issues? Yes.
Should we address global issues? Yes.
  But first, let us do something far more strategic. Let us get our house in order. Archimedes observed that with the proper fulcrum, the world could be moved. We have a narrow window of opportunity to create that fulcrum that will move the world toward a future that is sustainable and just. 
  The Chair and the Bureau of the Commission have demonstrated the wisdom and the capacity to capture this opportunity. They are perfectly positioned to enable and energize strategic change. Yet few will follow an uncertain trumpet. 
  Focus, Ministers, on the art of the possible, and accomplish the necessary. In so doing, you will expand the possibilities for us all.
  The actions needed for this to happen will not make headlines, but they just might make a difference.
David Hales, Stakeholder Forum Chairman

Editorial
  Who exactly are we serving here? Is it ourselves, each other or, and stop me if I’m getting too radical here, we the people? There is a worryingly recurring theme throughout this issue of Network 2015 to do with progress. As the international community gathers itself together, post Johannesburg, and starts to take stock in an increasing and diverse range of forums, the same questions seems to be appearing: What now? 
  At these Forums delegates are entertained with statistics or ever increasing woe, presented with graphs and tables showing trends still heading in the wrong direction and asked to come up with solutions. The real worry is if their answer dilutes back down to ‘business as usual.’ 
  Any of the 50,000 people who were involved in the Summit could fairly claim that 6 months is far too short a time to make substantive progress on any given issue. However, 180 days is plenty of time to develop new ideas and to think about the kinds of structures needed to make them fly. That is likely to require change, and this is the likely sticking point. Familiarity is safe, change is scary. Tradition is predictable, evolution may revolt. Status quo already has consensus, innovation is championed by the few. 
  In a club as complex and diverse as the UN, it is all too easy to focus on differences, to over-examine the implications of the fine print and to suspect the motives of others. The outcome is that everyone rigidly stands by their own flag, and is reluctant to wander towards anyone else’s. And yet the UN itself has a flag, its nice and blue and it represents an institution founded on democracy: one nation one vote. 
  OK, that may be a tad utopian (particularly given the current climate), but it certainly opens an intriguing opportunity to a coalition of the willing. Willing that is to make good on the bold and grandiose statements that echoed around the corridors of a certain conference facility in Johannesburg not half a year ago.
  The cost of not doing so? Well, another 10 years of trudging around the world to attend conferences where ever worse statistics and gloomier graphs can be displayed on ever more sophisticated versions of Power Point, before negotiating ever more elegant text on what we ‘really should do about it.’ Oh, and of course, the continued suffering and plight of ‘we the people’.
  Others in the Journal, both in this and previous issues, have explored at depth the kinds of options at our disposal. There’s loads. Concrete examples of these are being reported in these very pages. Willingness to engage is being expressed similarly. However, there doesn’t seem to be a marriage of the two, not yet at least. Nevertheless, this Journal is an optimist and believes that we can still get to the church on time. The key challenge is for the guests to be less fussy about which family they choose to sit with, but to see the value in making new partners of their own. Linked to this, and critical, is the courage to embrace change where change in necessary. 
  Of course this will need hard questions to be asked, not everyone will be happy with the outcome. Some may be positively disgusted. That is the price of multi-lateralism. With that price comes the potential for benefit for the greater good. 
  We have all the statistics, we have clear visions, we even have a plan. To enact them may come at a price in the short term. Not too would be an unacceptable cost in the long term.
T. Middleton, Editor
News
International Year for Fresh Water &
World Water Day
 “Of all the water on Earth, only 2.5% is freshwater. Of this most is frozen in icecaps, present as soil moisture, or inaccessible in deep underground aquifers, leaving less than 1% accessible for use. Despite progress in the last 2 decades to improve access to safe drinking water, some 1.1 billion people go without.”
  Whilst times may change the statistics, it seems, do not. Trends suggest continued degradation with areas experiencing ‘water stress’ set to increase, particularly in in North Africa & West Asia. Against this total water demand is expected to increase by 40% over the next 2 decades, providing a clear link between water scarcity and development capacity.  
 2003 has been designated at the International Year for Fresh Water by the UN in an effort to draw into ever sharper focus to the global situation. Under particular scrutiny will be progress achieved in meeting the Millennium Development Goal to cut by half by 2015 the proportion of people unable to reach or afford safe drinking water. To this the Johannesburg Summit added an additional target for the same proportion of people to get access to sanitation by the same date. It is estimated that the global investment in meeting these targets may need to double.
  A focal point during the year will be the upcoming World Water Day, planned for March 22nd. This annual event, conceived at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, will also coincide with the Third International World Water Forum in Kyoto & Osaka, Japan, where governments will meet to discuss international water policy, see page 7. 
  World Water Day will play host to a cluster of events addressing a variety of issues within the water sector. In addition the United Nations will be launching the first edition of the World Water Development Report during the Japan conference on the 22nd. The Report, the result of the combined efforts of 23 UN agencies to monitor progress made in water development. This includes cross cutting issues in fields such as health, food, ecosystems, cities, industry, energy, risk management, resource sharing and governance.
  Later in the year events will be planned by UNEP, this years coordinating agency, for Earth Day and World Environment Day, celebrated on April 22nd & June 5th respectively. 
Contact: www.wateryear2003.org
FAO Committee on Fisheries
  “Aquaculture is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors.” This will be the main message from the Food & Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO) State of World Fisheries & Aquaculture 2002 report, which was presented to the FAO’s 25th Committee on Fisheries (COFI), February 24-28. 
  The report shows increases of approximately 25% between 1970 and 2001. How the world manages this rapid growth, including the strains that such trends are placing on the marine environment, will be the focus of the COFI meeting as the only global technical forum for debating International Fisheries issues.
  Those stresses continue to be acutely felt around the world. Nearly half of the main marine fish stocks, the report warns, offer no reasonable expectations for further expansion. “About 47% of the main stocks or species groups are fully exploited and are therefore at or close to their maximum sustainable limits” the report states.
  The report also highlights uneven distribution, with marked differences in regional consumption. As an important source of protein, it is worrying that Africa only consumes 6.5% of the global fish catch. 
  Drawing on this data, COFI must play a delicate balancing act. On the one hand the Committee must address fishing trade practices & subsidies and the effects this has on global consumption trends, against greater use of ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. 
  The COFI session entered its final day as this journal went to press. Whether governments choose to back their Johannesburg positions with bold commitments to redress these worrying trends remains unclear. The outcomes will therefore be a key indicator of the ongoing political will at large to deal with the worlds problems in a meaningful way.
New International Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development
  WSSD recognized that one shortcoming in the implementation of Agenda 21 was the insufficient contribution by science and technology to the changes needed in making development sustainable, in particular at the local level. In response to WSSD, the International Council for Science (ICSU) ), the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability (ISTS),  and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) have decided to establish a Consortium for Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. Other organizations may join later.
  The underlying purpose of the Consortium will be to promote and strengthen efforts around the world to enhance the contribution of science and technology to sustainable development. To this end, the Consortium will take into account whenever possible ongoing and planned efforts of numerous individuals, groups and institutions worldwide currently engaged in science and technology for sustainable development. 
  The Consortium partners have agreed that an Ad hoc International Advisory Group should be formed to help formulate  goals, an integrated agenda for (i) research and development, (ii) capacity building, and (iii) linking research to action and  an implementation plan. The Consortium activities should be complementary to ongoing activities of the Consortium Partners and other activities looking at the human-environment system from the perspective of sustainable development.
  The planning and implementation phases should also include as much as possible participation from the wide range of other major groups and stakeholders, as well as  initiatives that are based locally and work on the implementation of sustainability transitions world-wide.
  The present three Consortium Partners have also agreed to implement already in 2003 and 2004, while the work of the Advisory Group will be going on, a series of  “rapid actions” aimed at enhancing science and technology for sustainable development. 
For further information, please contact 
Daniel.Rodary@icsu.org. 

CSD Reform Interview
Jonathan Margolis 
US State Department
Bureau of Oceans and Int. Environmental & Scientific Affairs
  What are your expectations for outcomes from the 11th CSD session?
  This will be the first CSD since Johannesburg Summit, where changes to the Commission were mandated. These changes were designed to stress the importance of implementation, rather than just setting norms.
  We need there to be basic changes in the way the CSD does its business, especially since we will not be negotiating text every year.  These non-negotiation sessions are critical and present a unique opportunity for us to learn from those who carry out projects that contribute towards implementation.  The CSD must find ways to create the space that will enable experts and practioners to learn from one another and to work with each other in new ways.  The outcomes that we are looking for are not measured by text.  Instead, the outcomes we believe are critical include sharing best practices, lessons learned, identifying gaps, and promoting a focus on implementation.   This will require a significant change in the mindset of those who participate in the CSD.  Changing our collective approach is a critical outcome for this CSD.  This new approach means that participants begin to explore the implications of constructing CSD sessions that do not produce negotiated text as the outcomes.  
  Whilst you mention the need for change, are there successes from the CSD’s first 10 years that can be carried forward?
  Absolutely. The CSD has become and remains the premier intergovernmental institution for stakeholder engagement, particularly via Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues. This part of the CSD’s work needs to increase dramatically; sustainable development is no longer just an issue for governments. Also, the CSD has succeeded in picking out specific issues needing a push at the international level when it seemed most needed, notably Oceans and Forests.
   f we keep the CSD in its current location in the UN, what mechanisms could it use to help ensure that governments and stakeholders more effectively implement the Johannesburg commitments as well as those originally in Agenda 21?
  The question will be, “How do we focus on implementation?”  We need to move away from measuring success by ‘text’ towards ‘what have you done?’ or ‘what are you doing?’  I believe we have to create a venue to exchange success stories with the CSD operating more as a learning centre and a forum to foster concrete action. Governments have to respond to this challenge.  It is a question of changing our approach to the CSD from ‘getting through it’ to ‘bringing to it’.  Governments, as well as all stakeholders will need to consider what they intend to bring to the meetings in terms of lessons learned, technical experts, and potential new partnerships and initiatives.
  What do you feel will be the value added of sharing lessons learned?
  It will help to reinforce the message that we are going to meetings at the UN to do more than just negotiate.    In sharing lessons learned stakeholders could explore whether certain initiatives can be expanded or replicated in other parts of the world. This is a significant change in culture, with governments & non-governmental stakeholders coming to the CSD with a willingness to say not only what has succeeded, but also what has not, and the reasons for this. For this we need different kinds of organisations in attendance, not only those that advocate, but also those that implement.
  What role do you see for UN agencies at both the regional and global levels relating to preparations, follow-up/implementation & partnerships?
  A big part of the preparations will be collecting the information on what relevant UN agencies have done on implementation in the particular subject area under discussion. The UN will have to work out its own internal processes for how to ensure that such information can be brought to future CSD meetings.  The CSD Secretariat will need to play a role in this effort; arguably a different role from what is has played up until now.  
  I think we need to think through a bit more what we want to come out of regional preparations.  There is merit in having a regional focus for discussions of implementation.  However, it is not clear to me that the UN regional commissions are necessarily best positioned to produce a regionally focussed discussion.  Part of what should emerge from a regional discussion is examples of regional programs that have worked and might be expanded.  Some of those programs will involve regional parties, but others would involve the broader donor community as well.  We will need a process that allows for a regional focus, but in such a way that interested countries from outside the region can meaningfully participate.  
  Weak integrated monitoring, reporting and indicators inhibited the CSD in its first 10 years from substantively moving the debate forward. What can be done in the next 10 years to redress this?
  I would have to start by saying that I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem with the UN’s effort on indicators, but more of a weakness in the state of the intellectual debate on indicators. The field has to evolve and develop which is not something that the CSD can necessarily address. In this context the intellectual discussion on indicators is a growth area of tremendous importance.
  One of the conclusions in Johannesburg was that the CSD should provide for "more direct and substantive involvement" of Major Groups. What changes would you recommend to achieve that objective?
  Part of the equation involves stakeholders themselves examining the way they are operating. In the past, the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues seem to have become an opportunity for stakeholders to prepare set speeches rather than an opportunity for discussion focused on outcomes.  Participants seem to measure their success by whether they deliver their talking points rather than by the outcomes of an exchange of views. The question is can stakeholders adapt to a changed approach?  I’m optimistic that stakeholders can do this, and by doing so will attract new and additional participants making the CSD a more robust forum.  
  Structurally we need to establish specific norms of stakeholder engagement; we are not there yet. Indicators of when we are would be of dialogues with free flowing open discussion involving the relevant groups, not blanket coverage of all stakeholders regardless of their relevance to the issue.  Instead, dialogue should be among specialists focused on information exchange.  Critically, governments need to be comfortable with this.  We need to recognize the value of listening to and learning from the relevant stakeholders.  Similarly to the type of stakeholders attending, this will also mean questions about getting the right kind of government officials to attend. Not necessarily negotiators, but those working specifically on implementation. This must be our focus. 
Catherine Day
European Commission DG Environment
International Affairs, Trade & Environment
  What are your expectations for outcomes from the 11th CSD session?
  CSD11 will have the very important task of turning the Johannesburg conclusions into a long-term work programme which delivers results and allows everyone to see that we   implement our commitments. 
  The work programme should be firmly based on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation; with focus on the WEHAB issues but also on cross-sectoral issues such as sustainable consumption and production an corporate social and environmental responsibility and accountability.
  CSD11 should also give clear direction to the partnership initiatives successfully launched at Johannesburg. We need a mechanism to monitor and review the existing initiatives, to see how they contribute to achieving the Johannesburg commitments. 
  Last but not least, it is important that the momentum on sustainable development created in Johannesburg is carried on in CSD11, with active Ministerial participation and guidance on the future work programme. As the EU we will be aiming to show that we are taking our commitments seriously. 
  If we keep the CSD in its current location in the UN, what mechanisms could it use to help ensure that governments and stakeholders more effectively implement the Johannesburg commitments as well as those originally in Agenda 21?
  I believe that the new cycle of work as proposed in the Secretary General’s report is a step in right direction. The focus is now strongly on implementation
  The CSD should also provide a forum on exchange of information and best practice, and enhance co-operation between stakeholders and regions. In this context I agree with the Secretary General’s proposals that the emphasis should be shifted more to the regional level; both in reviewing implementation and in defining key issues. 
  The work programme of the CSD should be focused on a smaller number of key priorities and thus allow for a much more effective review and preparatory process. Ongoing Ministerial level involvement in the work of the CSD will be important.
  What role do you see for UN agencies at both the regional and global levels relating to: Preparations /Follow-up/implementation/Partnerships
  First of all; sustainable development needs to be mainstreamed and recognised as a key element in the overarching framework of UN  activities. Strengthened involvement of and co-operation by relevant UN organisations is a necessity for the CSD to be able to fulfil its role as the facilitator and high level policy co-ordinator on sustainable development. And this need for a strengthened engagement in the work of the CSD should extend to the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, which deal with the financing and trade issues that are crucial for poverty eradication. Perhaps the heads of these organisations should be invited to participate in the high level discussions in the CSD on issues relevant to their field of activities?  The role of the UN regional commissions will be highlighted by the strengthened focus at the regional level, and it will be a challenge for them to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development into their work. 
  Key issues such as energy, water or sustainable consumption and production are not being comprehensively addressed anywhere else in the UN system, and an integrated and holistic approach is needed. In these areas finding new and strengthened ways of co-operation and partnership between the relevant UN organisations is crucial.   
  Weak integrated monitoring, reporting and indicators inhibited the CSD in its first 10 years from substantively moving the debate forward. What can be done in the next 10 years to redress this?
  Integrated, focused monitoring and reporting will have a key role in the review of implementation. Reporting is not as an end in itself, but a tool we are find useful to monitor and encourage implementation. Reporting requirements should be closely linked to the actual work programme and to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, with emphasis on the quantitative targets we have adopted. As there will be more emphasis on the regional level in the future work, reporting could be of most use when targeted closely on the regional level. Reports should be concrete and understandable enough to attract media attention and be also of use when informing the public on the implementation of the Johannesburg Plan on Implementation and Agenda 21. 
  The development and use of indicators is a crucial part of this process; and should be continued even if on a voluntary basis. At the international level, the valuable work done by the CSD work programme on indicators should be further encouraged, with an emphasis on transparency and participatory nature of this work. 
  One of the conclusions in Johannesburg was that the CSD should provide for "more direct and substantive involvement" of Major Groups. What changes would you recommend to achieve that objective?
  In the UN system, CSD has been a forum where major groups have had an active and important role in identifying key issues for discussion as well as solutions to overcome obstacles. In Johannesburg, this was further stressed by the commitment of various stakeholders to the partnership initiatives launched. This work must be further encouraged and facilitated by the CSD. But it is important that major groups are not seen as having a separate track from the ‘governmental track’ but as partners truly contributing to implementation and the policy discussions. The new work programme of the CSD needs to engage major groups in the implementation review and policy discussions together with governments and international organisations. It is also important to encourage major group participation at the national and regional levels. 
I would like to specifically mention the valuable input of NGOs that prevailed in the preparations for Johannesburg and will no doubt continue in the follow-up process, as well as welcome the growing involvement of business in sustainable development work in the CSD. Promotion of corporate social and environmental responsibility and accountability is an issue where co-operation between the business sector, governments and NGOs will be crucial in the years to come.  

UNEP Governing Council
  Governments returned home from the UNEP Governing Council in a state of almost utter exhaustion. The reason for their fatigue was the breadth of the week’s agenda – it was so large that governments had to reach agreement on a whacking total of 40 decisions. Several delegations complained of not being able to cover all the agenda items effectively. Some governments appeared confused about where the actual negotiations were being agreed – there was the drafting group, several break out groups – on issues including chemicals, environment and culture, and UNEP’s two-year budget - and the conference of the whole (COW), aside from the plenary and high level ministerial debate. The same topics were discussed in the different rooms without seeming awareness of what was going on in other locations. 
  In spite of these problems some more notable outcomes from the meeting included: 
On Poverty and Environment in Africa, the Executive Director was requested to develop a strategy for implementation of the poverty eradication commitments from WSSD
UNEP will take an active role in developing the 10-year framework of programmes for sustainable production and consumption
UNEP will cooperate with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), in particular to assist the development of its environment initiative
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management will be further developed
The Executive Director should regularly review the strategic framework on emergency prevention, address capacity building needs in developing countries and supporting refugee hosting countries
Regarding the ever-controversial Rio Principle 10, on access to information, decision-making and justice relating to environmental matters, governments invited the Executive Director to produce a report on the progress made for producing global guidelines which would support implementing Principle 10.  
The Executive Director was invited to support the International Coral Reef Initiative, in particular to realise coral reef commitments coming out of WSSD
  Other topics were less progressive in their outcome. For example whilst EU and Norway sought a legally binding agreement on Mercury. Opposition countries, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA said that resources could be better used to tackle the problem straight away. Similarly, regarding existing multi-lateral environmental agreements the decision merely stated that it “invites countries to consider signing, ratifying” etc the environmental agreements. On the amendment of Rule 69 of the rules of procedure, many governments had dreaded the topic being raised in the negotiations, however when it finally came to being discussed in the drafting group the chair managed to push them through it with surprising speed. The reason for this was in fact that he proposed delaying the debate for another year to allow the Committee of Permanent Representatives to look into the topic – one asks the question whether it’ll be any easier to address next time round? Also disappointing – the final decision of enhancing the engagement of civil society did not event refer to the Executive Director’s strategy paper which had made some quite concrete proposals about enhancing engagement in UNEP’s programmatic as well as policy making areas. Governments had been invited to address the issues of the Asian Brown Cloud. Somewhat unsurprisingly a number of Asian governments indicated their unwillingness, unlike African governments, to have other governments discuss issues specific to their region. And as one government delegate neatly put it the Brown cloud wasn’t a problem anyway – it was simply a “seasonal haze”!!  
  Unfortunately, some criticism can also be made of the two-day Global Civil Society Forum that took place just before the Forum. On the first day participants were given a large folder containing a whole set of documents about NEPAD and invited to comment on it. Whilst it was nice to be freely given this material – it was slightly strange to expect participants to be able to substantively talk about it without actually having read any of it! The rest of the event was more productive in terms of producing some position statements around four of the UNEP Governing Council topics. Nevertheless, for the entire formal contribution of civil society to be limited to a ten-minute statement one the first day of the official UNEP meeting was far from inclusive. Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the civil society participants in the sense that Rule 69 of the Governing Council Rules of Procedure is fairly open on the issue of written and oral statements, therefore the organisations could have asked the chairs in different groups to use their discretion and allow for further opportunities to make substantive civil society inputs throughout the week. However, the notable low turn out from Northern Europe and North America could also be attributable to the fact the for the last few years UNEP has continued to be pretty limited in allowing more active participation from the major groups. Youth are the only other group that were given a speaking slot in the government meeting but, with a surprising lack of forethought UNEP gave them their slot during the opening evening reception where no one could actually hear them over the noise. To further complicate issues, as a result of previous consultations within NGO groups, both business associations and local authorities were not invited to attend the global Civil Society Forum, but because of the lack of other opportunities to proactively engage still sat in on the forum to try and have their perspective heard. It seems there are a number of areas which could be improved upon for the next meeting. Some NGOs are already coming up with ideas, for example they have proposed establishing issue-based caucuses that can help ensure advanced and substantive preparation on key issues before UNEP. Such steps can only bring about positive change. 
Rosalie Gardiner, Stakeholder Forum

Partnership Initiatives
Eco-Agriculture Partners
Half a year on from the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), a key reflection of its success continues to be the extent to which commitments made are being upheld and translated into action. Specifically focussed on fostering concrete, collaborative implementation, it is vital that the energy surrounding WSSD’s Type II partnerships is not allowed to dissipate.  
Formally established during Stakeholder Forum’s Implementation Conference (IC), Ecoagriculture Partners has already gained significant momentum since WSSD. Seeking to promote ‘Ecoagriculture’- sustainable agriculture and associated natural resource management systems that embrace and simultaneously enhance productivity, livelihoods, ecosystem services and biodiversity – Ecoagriculture Partners now comprises an extremely significant, network of innovators, already engaged in the development and scaling up of extant ecoagriculture systems. Including conservation and agricultural NGOs, research institutions, producer organisations (farmers, fishers and foresters), private sector companies, inter-governmental organisations and public agencies, the partnership’s proposed activities will not only add value to partners’ ongoing work at a ground level but also provide a platform for inter-institutional collaboration. 
The rapidity with which the partnership has gained momentum and strengthened its stakeholder engagement is testament to widespread recognition amongst practitioners of the vital role ecoagriculture will play in the implementation of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation commitments, Convention on Biological Diversity and particularly the Millennium Development Goals. 
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) recently hosted a strategic planning meeting for 45 Ecoagriculture partners from 20 countries, at itsheadquarters in Gland, Switzerland  (February 4-6). The meeting enabled participants to consolidate a shared understanding of ‘ecoagriculture’ and develop a comprehensive work plan, with assigned responsibilities for implementation. Working groups focused upon key priority activities for promoting and supporting farmer innovation and the adoption of ecoagriculture:
Facilitating communication and knowledge brokering amongst innovators, through
an international conference in 2004  to spotlight Ecoagriculture – advancing its context, principles, strategies and practices 
the development of an international database of ecoagriculture systems and practices to provide a comprehensive information resource for practitioners
the development of an Ecoagriculture training module 
the development of a small grants program to facilitate co-operation amongst ecoagriculture practitioners in the field 
Catalysing and supporting an inter-disciplinary research assessment on ecoagriculture 
Establishing criteria and policy recommendations for scaling-up successful practices through participatory processes
Raising awareness of ecoagriculture’s potential amongst civil society, especially policymakers, employing ground-level case studies to substantiate the mandate of the of the Monterrey Bridge Coalition  - a closely linked and complementary policy level initiative seeking to integrate agriculture, poverty reduction and biodiversity in policies and strategies for effectively achieving the Millennium Development Goals and commitments to the Johannesburg Plan of Action. 
Ecoagriculture Partners is an initiative jointly sponsored by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the Future Harvest Foundation.  The Secretariat for Ecoagriculture Partners is at the Future Harvest Foundation in Washington, D.C.
For further information regarding membership of Ecoagriculture Partners or their on-going activities, please contact: 
Sara J. Scherr, Coordinator, Ecoagriculture Partners
c/o Future Harvest Foundation
PMB 238, 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2006-1846
Tel: ++202-473-1142, or ++703-758-2548
Fax: ++202-473-8110; E-mail: SScherr@futureharvest.org
Further useful information:
Monterrey Bridge Coalition
Contact Information: 
Judith Symonds, Executive Director, Future Harvest Foundation
Jsymonds@futureharvest.org
Web links
The Ecoagriculture Partners website (forthcoming): 
	www.ecoagriculture.org
World Conservation Union (IUCN): www.iucn.org
Future Harvest: www.futureharvest.org
Stakeholder Forum’s Implementation Conference:
	www.earthsummit2002.org/ic
World Summit for Sustainable Development: 
	www.johannesburgsummit.org
	(includes details of Type 2 outcomes) 
Ecoagriculture Publications 
Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity (Jeffrey A. McNeely & Sara J. Scherr, 2003) Island Press
Reconciling Agriculture and Biodiversity: Policy and Research Challenges of Ecoagriculture 	(Sara J. Scherr & Jeffrey A. McNeely, 2002) 
	www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/pdf/ecoagriculture.pdf
Common Ground, Common Future: How Ecoagriculture Can Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity (Jeffrey A. McNeely & Sara J. Scherr, 2001)
	www.futureharvest.org/pdf/biodiversity_report.pdf
Claire Rhodes, Stakeholder Forum
crhodes@earthsummit2002.org

Project Updates
Nutrition online discussion
Stakeholder participation in action!
  Stakeholder Forum is working with the World Health Organization to gather input from civil society on the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The strategy is due to be formally launched at the World Health Assembly in May 2004, and is currently in a consultative process with civil society and business. This is an important opportunity for experts and lay people to make their contribution to a WHO priority area for the coming year. As well as gaining input, the WHO is also hoping through this process to raise awareness of the Strategy and the broader work of the WHO in the reduction of chronic disease.
  The 53rd World Health Assembly (2000) adopted a resolution endorsing the WHO Director-General's global strategy for prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. The strategy emphasised integrated prevention by targeting three main risk factors: tobacco, unhealthy diet and physical inactivity. At the 55th Assembly, the global strategy on diet, physical activity and health was initiated, as well as a request for the WHO to “strengthen collaboration with (…) international nongovernmental organizations and the private sector for implementation of plans at global and interregional levels and to promote capacity building at national level”.
  The guiding principles of the WHO’s strategy process are:
A. Stronger evidence for policy: synthesize existing knowledge, science and interventions on the relationship between diet, physical activity and chronic disease;
B. Advocacy for policy change: inform decision-makers and stakeholders of the problem, determinants, interventions and policy needs;
C. Stakeholder involvement: agree on the roles of stakeholders in implementing the global strategy; and
D. A strategic framework for action: propose appropriately tailored policies and interventions for countries.
  During the month of April, Stakeholder Forum and partners will be hosting a moderated discussion on the internet to canvas suggestions and support for the promotion of healthier eating and increased physical activity. Your comments are welcomed! We are finalising the necessary technology, which will be accessed from a link on the www.stakeholderforum.org website once ready.
  Discussion topics are expected to be along the following themes.
  Week 1. How can the production of nutritious food be promoted or influenced?
  Week 2. How could we increase the levels of physical activity of the population? 
  Week 3. What partnerships with governments and stakeholders would promote distribution of the recommendations of the Strategy? How could these recommendations be implemented?
  Week 4. How can we improve the delivery of health messages that make people alter their behaviour and consumption choices? 
Implementation Conference Africa (ICA)
  Stakeholder Forum has engaged in a programme to support African stakeholders, governments and intergovernmental bodies to implement the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through multi-stakeholder participation and partnerships. 
  ICA was initiated by the Ghanaian Minister of Environment, Prof Dominic Fobih, following the Implementation Conference Johannesburg process. However, ICA will focus specifically on the African context. ICA will be organised in partnership with African institutions such as: UN Economic Commission for Africa, UNEP Reg. Office for Africa, UNDP Reg. Office for Capacity 2015, African Union, other African Governments and stakeholder organisations.     
  ICA is a programme that aims to empower stakeholders to fulfil their role in sustainable development policy-making and implementation; to bring together stakeholders to develop and commit to concrete, collaborative action plans; to promote knowledge exchange among partnership initiatives; and to promote regional unity through collaborative implementation of regional, sub-regional, and national programmes.
  It is a 4 phased programme: Programme Development is dedicated to establishing a partners group and jointly raising funds. Consultation with all stakeholders on the overall priority themes is key. The Capacity Building phase will include 5 sub-regional workshops. These will aim to raise awareness of the Johannesburg Summit outcomes and the MDGs, and to help build knowledge and skills that enable stakeholders to develop and implement effective partnership programmes. Initiating Collaborative Stakeholder Action will aim to inspire, create collective, clear and measurable on-going action to deliver the Summit outcomes and the MDGs in Africa. It will build on existing partnership programmes and initiate new ones. This will culminate in an multi-stakeholder event to be held in Accra, Ghana, with up to 700 participants. The Monitoring and Knowledge Management phase will provide services that help partnerships in their effective implementation and aim to feed experiences back into policy-making processes.
  ICA has attracted overwhelming interest, and we are communicating with 70+ organisations. At a recent West African consultative meeting in Accra, Ghana, a collaboration network was initiated. We also held a consultative meeting with stakeholders in Nairobi during the UNEP Governing Council. 
  ICA is a programme with a great potential to facilitate an effective approach for the accomplishment of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the MDGs in Africa. It is also very much along the lines of the UN Secretary General’s Report for CSD-11, which recommends regional implementation processes.
We call upon all interested parties to get involved! 
Contacts: Musa Salah, msalah@earthsummit2002.org

Conferences & Events

16 Mar. - 23 Mar.	Third World Water Forum. Kyoto, Japan. 
Contact: www.worldwaterforum.org	
17 Mar. - 19 Mar.	CBD Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Multi-Year Work Programme. 
Montreal, Canada. Contact: www.biodiv.org	
22 March	World Water Day 2003. Contact: www.waterday2003.org	
23 Mar. - 25 Mar.	OECD Conference on Sustainable Transportation. Nagoya, Japan. 
Contact: www.oecd.org/pdf/M00034000/M00034076.pdf	
27 Mar. - 28 Mar.	UNEP Capacity Building Meeting on Environment, Trade & Sustainable Development. Mexico City, Mexico. Contact: www.cec.org/symposium	
13 Apr. - 16 Apr.	Fourth Annual Asia Pacific Cities Summit. Brisbane, Australia. 
Contact: www.apcsummit.org	
25 Apr. - 26 Apr. 	Sixth Workshop on International Climate Policy. Vienna, Austria. 
Contact: c.ploechl@ic-vienna.at	
27 Mar. - 28 Mar.	UNEP Capacity Building Meeting on Environment, Trade & Sustainable Development. Mexico City, Mexico. Contact: www.cec.org/symposium	
28 Apr. - 30 Apr. 	Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 
Vienna, Austria. Contact: www.mcpfe.org	
28 Apr. - 9 May	11th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. 
New York, USA. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd11/csd11_2003.htm	
12 May - 17 May	34th Session of the International Tropical Timber Council. Panama City, Panama. Contact: www.itto.org.jp	
21 May - 23 May	Environment for Europe Fifth Ministerial Conference. Kiev, Ukraine. 
Contact: www.unece.org/env/wgso/index_kyivconf.htm