Network 2015
April 2003
Contents
Third World Water Forum
Editorial
news
CSD Reform Questionnaire
CSD Informal
National Regional Government Conference
Sustainable Development Partnerships
Conferences, Diary Dates & Events

We Must Stop Meeting Like This
The Third World Water Forum
  6 months on from the Johannesburg Summit, the first of the Secretary General’s WEHAB issues, Water, came under scrutiny. With a wealth of agreed texts, targets, principals and guidelines to draw from, was the Third World Water Forum able to move the agenda forward. Tearfund’s Joanne Green reports from Kyoto, Japan.
  The water sector appears to be suffering from summit fatigue.  We had the Second World Water Forum in 2000, followed by regional Prep. Coms. for the WSSD, then the Second World Water Forum, Bonn December 2001, followed by the three Johannesburg Summit Prep. Coms. and then the Summit itself! My thoughts prior to The Third World Water Forum, March 17-23, were that if all those meetings were unable to agree all that is necessary to halve by the year 2015 those without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, then it is doubtful another conference six months on from the last will be able to do so.  Particularly when this Forum lacks official UN status.  
  Unfortunately the Forum lived up to these expectations in terms of political outcomes. The Ministerial Declaration was weak and failed to agree concrete actions and build on previous commitments such as the sanitation target agreed at the WSSD and the ECOSOC general comment acknowledging water as a human right. It was as we have come to expect from these conferences, long on rhetoric and short on actual commitments. The declaration has even gone back on agreements made in the Bonn recommendations, and that is very disappointing.
  NGOs were not the only ones frustrated with the ministerial declaration, so were many of the EU government delegation. It is important that these meetings at least help build trust between governments, institutions and NGOs but this Forum seemed to have the opposite effect. The frustration was heightened at the launch of the Camdessus Panel’s report on ‘Financing Water For All’. The meeting was severely disrupted by civil society demonstrations - such is the anger felt at the recommendations of this report. The feeling amongst many is that the report focuses on promoting mega projects such as dams, hydropower and private sector involvement, rather than learning the lessons of community involvement and low cost appropriate solutions. There are some good suggestions in the report that need to be explored but concerns about the unbalanced membership of the Panel and the absence of any form of accountability and legitimacy means that the whole report is being dismissed by some.  
  Yet there is some hope for the water sector on one of the most controversial issues in recent years – the involvement of the private sector in water service delivery. For years the gulf has widened between those for and against this option of reform in developing countries and in some respects the gulf is still there. The arguments and energy spent over fruitlessly debating this issue is time not spent focusing on getting water and sanitation to the poor.  
  In the light of this debate Tearfund and WaterAid have spent the last two years researching whether private sector participation in water services does benefit the poor. We launched our findings in Kyoto and have found already at this early stage that many people and organizations with diverse positions on this subject can agree with our findings. We have tried to be objective and put ideology to one side. Our findings show that PSP is not tackling the underlying causes of lack of access to water and sanitation to the poor and that therefore it is not a sustainable solution to those currently without access. We call for a refocusing on a context driven approach and on building government capacity because no reform can be successful if the government cannot effectively facilitate it. We draw attention to the often learned but often ignored principle that communities have to be centrally involved in all water and sanitation projects and that large and small scale companies have very little experience in this area. We also found that the international private sector is losing interest in running services in developing country cities because of lack of financial sustainability, political unrest and poor regulation by governments. We do not see this report as the final word but we hope it is a starting point that others can build on.  
  There is strong interest from some EU governments to hold a multi-stakeholder review on private sector participation mirroring the process of the World Commission on Dams. Tearfund and WaterAid hope that such a process can bring the differing parties together to a consensus so we can focus on getting water and sanitation to the poor and stop wasting time and energy on fruitless debate.
  If we are to meet the water and sanitation targets we need as a sector to learn to work together better in an atmosphere of trust. This means that governments and institutions like the World Water Council, World Bank and IMF need a lot more political will to implement what is needed but to do it in a much more open, transparent and accountable manner. And civil society should be prepared to praise good things, constructively criticize the bad as well as playing a more strategic role than simply service delivery. 
   If the 3rd World Water Forum can be said to have achieved anything it is to demonstrate that we must stop meeting like this. 
  Copies of “New Rules, New Roles: Does PSP benefit the poor?” can be downloaded from www.wateraid.org.uk
Joanne Green, Public Policy Officer
Tearfund

Editorial
Delivery at any Cost?

  Have we reached the high water mark for sustainable development issues? Is this as good as it gets? You’d be forgiven for coming to this conclusion if you had been tracking last weeks’ Third World Water Forum. Those of you who have just read our front page article will have a good idea of what I’m getting at: treading water over existing agreements while scrabbling in vain for any new ground. Problem is, there are signs that this inability to move a process forward is a worrying trend, rather than an isolated incident.
  Of course, one has to take on board the current international political climate, and the strains this puts on multi-lateralism. Nevertheless, slowing political will was evident long before the guns were. Dare I say it, dating as far back as Johannesburg.
  Yet, is this all caused by a communal apathetic shrugging of shoulders by governments? Not if one is to believe the rhetoric coming from heads of state, ministers and other high level dignitaries in recent months. Perhaps this is just the perennial problem of turning words into action? Kyoto’s water conference also played host to a forum which invited practitioners of all kinds from the sector to share experience and good practice. Why can’t these voices be heard and translated into inter-governmental agreements? Barriers to implementation could be dismantled, hurdles leapt and pitfalls avoided. 
  Thing is, all too often such government texts end up as a shining example of the lowest common denominator. The vaguest interpretation of what offends none and invariably serves equally as few. Seems that the first barrier to implementation is the process itself. If the way we go about meeting, with the goal of keeping everyone happy at all costs, is destined to deliver a 1% gain at each sitting then we are all in for a long and painful ride. So, how to engage those surplus percentages of opportunity waiting in the (multi-stakeholder) wings?
  OK, downside first: I don’t have all the answers. Sorry. But a significant aim of this fine journal is to provide a bit of space for others to suggest their own. You will see further on in this issue coverage under the Sustainable Development Partnerships section. Initiative upon partnership upon collaboration abound. Many are familiar faces, who know the game, others are engaging those who have yet to be warmed by the UN Sustainable Development fire. Governments said they can’t do sustainable development on their own need look no further.
  The Eleventh Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development meets at the end of this month. Here governments will be tasked with setting down the process by which the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation is delivered. Within this modalities will need to be agreed to engage the aforementioned partnerships showing words being translated into action. The great challenge will be where a successful partnership of, say, business working with local communities to deliver water services goes against the policy position of a country opposed to private sector involvement in the provision of this natural commodity. It may contribute to achieving certain Millennium Development Goals, to which governments committed, but it may go against the ideology of a government. What now?
T. Middleton, Editor

Let Many Flowers Bloom
Convention on Biodiversity Lays Down 10 Year Work Programme

  Convened as an inter-sessional meeting, the Multi-Year Programme of Work conference, elegantly known as MYPOW, was tasked with setting out a 10 year work programme for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The meeting, taking place in Montreal, Canada, March 17 - 20, faced the challenge of integrating relevant agreements from the Johannesburg Summit including meeting the 2010 target for reducing biodiversity loss, the Millennium Development Goals as well as furthering the achievements of the CBD to date.
  Building on the outcomes of Convention’s last Conference of the Parties, COP-6, and the emphasis of the WSSD, delegates were focused increasingly on implementation rather than policy development and negotiation. This is a shift which has also been reflected in a number of other policy forum’s since the Johannesburg Summit. 
 What could have proved an overwhelming remit for the CBD, was addressed by delegates streamlining the work programme by prioritizing issues. It is hoped that this will avoid the overburdening of COP meetings, allowing specific emphasis on the 2010 target. With this approach, the CBD will be armed to undertake detailed consideration of progress towards implementation.
  The streamlined agenda, focussed at the 2010 target, incorporating relevant MDGs as well as the Johannesburg Summits social agenda, puts the onus on Parties to the convention to include these priorities into their national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
  Unsurprisingly, the controversial issue of access and benefit sharing (ABS) took up much of the meeting, with address focused on whether a legally binding regime was appropriate, how and in what capacity. Inevitably initial discussion on these issues at MYPOW saw the emergence of negotiating positions and groups relating to Intellectual Property Rights, sovereignty over natural resources and indigenous knowledge & participation. Issues which the CBD will have to increasingly engage in future negotiations. The African Group and Mexico on behalf of the Mega Diverse Countries were again calling for an international legally binding instrument for benefit sharing, building on paragraph 42(o) of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. 
  Others, notably Switzerland, Japan, Jamaica and Norway, called for first giving the agreed Bonn guidelines a chance and learning from them. Final recommendations were eventually reached whereby the ABS Working Group was requested to “consider the process, nature, scope, elements and modalities of the international regime in its consideration of other approaches, and provide advice to COP-7.” Of note, whilst the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation only calls of a regime on benefit sharing, MYPOW delegates have included access as well, and without much controversy. 
  In relation to this, the Cartagena Protocol was discussed,  which it is hoped will soon have enough signatories to enter into force. It deals with the effects of modern bio-technology on biological diversity, and includes requirements for access and benefit sharing of technology, knowledge as well as capacity building. Other issues of significance included contributions of the MDGs and the CSD process; ecological networks and corridors; legal and socio-economic aspects of technology transfer and the evaluation of progress in implementing the Convention and the strategic plan. Seven recommendations were adopted to be forwarded to COP-7.
  At this early stage, that delegates left with mixed feeling, and outlooks for the future were not surprising. The next substantive meeting now is the next Conference of the Parties (COP-7) which is due to take place March 2004 in Kuala Lumpur. Until then a series of regional and technical meetings will see positions firm up on how to achieve the global biodiversity targets and goals over the coming 10 years.

A Bridge Over Troubled Waters
Pioneering Atlas on Freshwater

  Around 150 river basins upon which millions of people depend for drinking water, irrigation and in some cases energy, could be the flashpoints for future disputes unless urgent action is taken.
  That was the message expressed by a joint study launched on World Water Day, March 22nd, by the UN Environment Programme, the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation and Oregon State University. 
  The study, an Atlas of International Water Agreements, highlights that many of the water stressed regions of the world are in Asia, Latin America and Africa, where cooperation between countries covering these basins remains patchy or is completely absent. These areas face increasing tensions over water resources due to population growth, existing political, social and environmental upheavals that are likely to add to current levels of water stress. 
  At the study’s launch in Kyoto, Japan, during the Third World Water Forum, UNEP’s Executive Director, Klaus Töpfer emphasised the Atlas’s two faces. ‘This Study is both cause for alarm and cause for optimism. It chronicles the history of water agreements and treaties as far back as 2,500 BC and shows us that cooperation between countries, that sharing of resources, has been the historical norm. It also highlights the need for vigour in ensuring that this cooperation is maintained and extended,’ stated Töpfer.
  ‘Although over 3000 treaties and agreements covering over 100 international river basins have been signed over the centuries, 158 of the world’s international river basins lack any type of cooperative efforts’, he said, adding ‘There is an urgent need for international organisations to apply the lessons of the past, for the benefit of present and future parties.’
Contact: www.unep.org

A Time To Act
CSD Reform

  Interview with H.E. Mohammed S. Hidayat, Ambassador, Charge d’Affaires Permanent Mission Of Indonesia to the United Nations
1. What are your expectations for the outcome of the 11th CSD session?
  CSD 11 is critical for keeping the momentum of Johannesburg moving forward. For this purpose we must ensure that the work of the CSD is channelled towards and focused on promoting the concrete implementation of the agreed targets and goals contained in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI). 
  As we all agreed, the CSD should serve as a forum of implementation and a deliberation related to the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development. In this context, the CSD should not be expected to address all sectoral issues as contained in the Johannesburg Plan of Action (JPOI) but rather should focus its work where it will be able to provide added value in promoting effective and full implementation of the agreed targets and goals. 
  The CSD should also provide integrated recommendations in promoting implementation of the agreed targets and goals of sustainable development by the operational mechanisms and by the ECOSOC in its function as the system-wide coordination mechanism of the UN system.  Thus, CSD 11 is not only crucial for providing guidance for the work of the CSD for the next 10 years but also critical in designing the modalities of the “implementation cycle of the CSD” which will be divided into non-negotiation and negotiation years and the comprehensive selection of its respective sectoral and cross-sectoral themes as its programme of work.   
2. 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?
  Participation and high-level engagement are very important principles in ensuring the successful work of the CSD for achieving the objectives of sustainable development. In this regard, its current location is still an ideal one for fulfilling those two principles. As to how it will promote effective implementation, we are of the view that the design of the programme of work to be developed during the CSD 11 is crucial. In addition, member countries should also promote the active involvement of various ministers who are also responsible for some of the critical sectors of the JPOI. They should also encourage the active participation of the UN specialized agencies so as to ensure a more coordinated and integrated implementation of the various commitments, targets and goals contained in Agenda 21 and the JPOI. The role of ECOSOC is of critical importance for promoting better coherence between the policy development and operational mechanisms of the UN at the national, regional and global levels. In addition, the role of major group should be enhanced through effective mechanism of multi-stakeholder engagement in the CSD sessions. The role of the major groups post Johannesburg summit should be shifted to improving their capacity as operational implementation agents in implementing the WSSD outcomes in addition to the other role envisaged during the previous CSD sessions.  
3. What role do you see for the UN agencies at both the regional and global levels relating to:
Preparations; 
  In preparing the “implementation cycle of the CSD”, I believe the UN agencies should enhance their contribution not only by providing reports on achievements gained but also on constraints as well as concrete recommendations to be undertaken at the global level. They should be able to produce a report that reflects on their findings and assessments of what is happening on the field. In promoting the coordinated implementation of the JPOI, the programme of work of the UN Agencies should be, to the fullest extent possible, to take into account the programme of work to be adopted by the CSD so as to promote better coordination.  
Follow-up/implementation;
  Each of the UN Agencies has its own governing body that is responsible for designing the priorities for its activities. In this context, the Agencies should be able to integrate and elaborate, based on their respective mandates, the Johannesburg plan of implementation in their respective programmes of work. The means of implementation, particularly that of the additional financial resources, need to be mobilized in order to enable the UN agencies, including the specialized agencies and the funds and programmes to contribute to effective and coordinated implementation to achieve sustainable development objectives. 
  The role of coordinating mechanism within the secretariat to facilitate a focus deliberation in the CSD as well as to ensure coherence and coordinated follow-up and implementation of the agreed targets and goals is critical in this context. An integrated approach in planning of the follow-up activities of the UN agencies, funds and programmes requires effective role of the Chief Executives Board (CEB) of the High-Level Committee on Programme, including the United Nations Development Group (UNDG).  
Partnerships;
  We must bear in mind that partnership is not a substitute to the implementation of Agenda 21 and JPOI, thus, the UN agencies should be able to utilize partnerships initiatives in enhancing the involvement of the other stakeholders or major groups as agents of operational implementation of the WSSD outcomes. Partnerships should complement the concrete implementation of government commitments on sustainable development and it should be developed based on the “Bali Guidelines” as developed by the WSSD preparatory committee.
4. 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?
  Lack of concrete implementation in the part of commitments particularly the means of implementation considered as the major inhibit the work of the CSD in promoting a full implementation of Agenda 21 in the last 10 years. Sustained and firm high-level commitment and concrete demonstration in translating commitments into actions could substantively contribute to fruitful discussions of the CSD in moving forward our effort to promote full implementation of Agenda 21. For the next 10 years, the CSD should be able to shift from general discussion on themes and debating over the conceptual issues to evaluation of concrete progress towards achieving WSSD targets and goals of the JPOI and considering further ways and means to improve such progress. The year of non-negotiation provides best opportunity to study lessons learned and to exchange experiences on the achievements and constraints in the implementation of sustainable development. Furthermore, the report of the Secretary-General is crucial to provide the status of the achievements gained and constraints impeded the implementation of targets and goals of JPOI based on relevant inputs from the regional commissions and the relevant UN agencies. It should also provide applicable and concrete recommendations on how to overcome such constraints and promote more achievements. While recognizing the importance of the issue of reporting, monitoring and indicators in the work of the CSD, we have to bear in mind that development of such indicators to measure the achievement of targets and goals of sustainable development should be elaborated by an intergovernmental mechanism in the United Nations system. In the absent of such indicators, we could utilize indicators developed at the national level. 
5. 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?
  The role of major groups in the process of implementation is a crucial one, particularly for developing public awareness.  Their role should, however, be further enhanced in the efforts to promote concrete implementation of the agreed commitments, targets and goals agreed in the JPOI. The engagement of the major groups in the CSD should not be limited to the dialogues with governments but should also take place among each of the components of the major groups. In this context, the CSD should also provide the forum for the major groups to promote their contribution as agents in the operational implementation of the WSSD outcomes, particularly through partnerships initiatives.  
Interview by Toby Middleton, Stakeholder Forum

A Clearer Vision
CSD 11 Preparations & Associated Papers

  As we enter the final stages of preparations for the Eleventh Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, two tools are emerging which give hope for serious and substantive reform of the CSD.
  The first of these is the Report of the Secretary General. It provides a firm platform for beginning deliberation. There are elements that Stakeholder Forum would elaborate, and there are additions which would give meaning and add momentum, but it deserves careful consideration, and efforts to improve it will be well invested. Stakeholder Forum has advanced suggestions along these lines and certainly invites additional comments and engagement as our documents evolve over the next several weeks. (see our website at: www.earthsummit2002.org).
  Equally important is the emerging vision of the Chair of CSD 11, South Africa’s Environment Minister, Valli Moosa. He has begun to define “success” for CSD 11 in terms that can give direction, and allow evaluation of our efforts later this month. The criteria that have emerged so far include:
A clear vision for the future of the CSD, with clear priorities for immediate action
The engagement of “business leaders and stakeholders”
The coordinated engagement of the UN agencies, the Bretton Woods institutions, and the WTO
A clear work program for the next decade.
  Minister Moosa has also begun to articulately argue for the reinvigoration – perhaps the creation – of a multilateralism “that works”, and that will be seen by the “most well resourced” countries as being worthy of investment. In his comments, there is subtle acknowledgement that this will require acceptance of the legitimacy of good governance issues. While the actions of the United States, the United Kingdom and others in Iraq have made any productive discussion of governance issues impossible for CSD 11, these issues can and must be addressed in the context of defining a new partnership of all stakeholders to promote sustainability.
  The Chair has also explicitly acknowledged that “there can no longer be an exclusive government solution”, a position long held by Stakeholder Forum, and strongly argued in the October issue of Network 2015. The Ministerial Dialogues at the CSD have the possibility for breaking new ground for dynamic and meaningful interaction, and all stakeholders should endorse the opportunity.
  On this point, it is critical that all concerned adopt a comprehensive approach to “partnership”.  While the Type II Partnerships are important efforts, and while serious issues of transparency and accountability must be resolved, the broader issues of true partnership must be addressed as well. Minister Moosa characterizes the core business of CSD as determining “who does what, when, and how.” For many in civil society, the answer to this challenge will determine willingness to continue to invest in the CSD. 
  There are no major groups who consider the “multistakeholder dialogues” of the past to be sufficient for the future. There are none who are unwilling to engage in real and comprehensive partnerships, based on increased participation in every phase of the process.
  The participation challenge epitomizes the risk and the opportunity for CSD 11. Successful strengthening of the pursuit of sustainability and of relations with the Commission is within our grasp. Failure, however, is likely to lead to a downward spiral of disengagement.
David Hales, Chair
Stakeholder Forum

From Gauteng to San Sebastian
2nd National Regional Government Conference

  One of the outcomes from the  Johannesburg Earth Summit was the setting up of a new global network this time for Regional Government. The first meeting of the network happened in Gauteng during the Summit and agreed the Gauteng Declaration the second meeting of the Network happened in San Sebastian in the Basque Region from the 27th to 31st of  March.  The Conference was opened by Derek Osborn Vice Chair of Stakeholder Forum who have been acting as the interim secretariat for the network reading a message from the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
  “Let me first thank you for your commitment and your efforts to carry forward the global agenda of sustainable development at the regional level. While national governments have the primary responsibility for defining and promoting strategies, it is most often at the local and regional levels that specific policies and measures are implemented to address concrete sustainability issues. Indeed, solutions to many of today’s problems imply changes very close to home -- in our communities, on our streets, in our individual life-styles and choices.  As representatives of regional authorities, you are well placed to raise awareness and encourage such alterations in both attitude and behaviour.  I look forward to the contributions you will make, and assure you that the United Nations will do its part to build a safer, more just, more equitable world. ”
  The Basque President Jose Ibarratxe Lehendakari delivered a powerful speech explaining how important sustainable development is to the Basque Government
 Also speaking at the Conference were high level representatives from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Habitat Programme. Both UN Agencies are keen to support the development of the new Network. In his support for the Conference UNEP Executive Director Dr Töpfer said:
  “This Conference represents a unique opportunity to promote the role of regional government worldwide in the pursuit of sustainable development. The new regional government network for sustainable development and the Gauteng Declaration fill an important gap, and we are glad to be associated with it. Regional Governments must ensure the relay between national targets and local action.” 
  Dr. Töpfer’s colleague at UN Habitat, Mrs Anna Tabaijuka, added:
  “It is with great satisfaction for me to take part in this important conferenc on behalf of UN HABITAT and the United Nations and share your debates and discussions on the challenges of sustainabile regional development worldwide, in context of globalisation of the economy, of ideas and knowledge and culture, and on the role of regional and sub national government in the follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. We consider the strengthening of good local -city and regional goverance as a key element in building national capacity for sustainable development.”
The Conference focused on a number of  key areas, including:
Sustainable Development Strategies.
  There were a number of good presentations by IIED, South Africa and a number of Regional Governments  on what has already been done on sustainable development strategies for  national and regional government. The Conference identified a number of key elements  for how Regional Government should produce sustainable development strategies which will be drawn into a guidance note for regional governments to sues as a starting point. This included that all regional government sustainable development startagies should include the following principles:
Integration
Coordination and balance
Broad participation
Regional Ownership
Priorities and outcomes
Linkages to budget and investment processes
Continuous monitoring and evaluation
  The conference also identified that there were a set of individual components for a good sustainable development strategy these included:
Good governance
Education
Communicating th3 concept of a strategy, the vision etc 
Addressing sustainable consumption  patterns in a global context
Economic and Social regeneration
Diagonostic tools and analysis
Indicators and Targets
Mainstreaming
Decision making tools
Subsidiary
Mythology and codes of conduct for applying the strategy at national and local levels
  The other issue addressed by the conference was on bi-laterial cooperation and it is hoped shortly to agree some new bilaterial cooperation agreements 
  Also held at the same time was the first meeting of the Academic Network for Regional Government  which will offer acadeic underpinning to the regional government network. 
  The Conference has also agreed to hold the third Meeting of the network in Western  Australia and the fourth in Wales.
  The two Co-Chairs of the Conference were Sabin Intxaurraga Basque Minister of Planning and Environment and Mary Metcalf MEC Gauteng Provisional Government.
More information will be placed on the website:
www.nrg4sd.net

Vocational Sustainability
Trade Unions Promote Workplace Assessments 

  The world’s trade unions have launched an internal process to produce a draft programme of work on sustainable development in time for an international meeting of their occupational health, safety and environmental experts in Brussels next October. This will be the first such meeting of trade unions in the post-WSSD period, and will establish a schedule for implementation  up to RIO+20 in 2012.
  Workplace assessments will occupy a central place in these discussions. At the same time, they will be explaining to other stakeholders why this strategy is so crucial to any implementation plans that involve the workplace. At CSD 11 trade unions will demonstrate how workplace assessments can achieve WEHAB objectives. They have already begun to collaborate with the ILO, UNEP and others to create a framework for workplace action on each continent and in all industrial sectors.
  Workplace Assessments (WA) refer to a process whereby trade unions and employers in one or several worksites, sectors or regions agree to joint assessments of workplace performance with agreed checklists of environmental, occupational and social criteria. The results of these assessment would inform planning of joint programmes to identify and address problems ranging from the simple (e.g., workplace water & energy waste) to the complex (e.g., improving workplace conditions on employment, social security or technology issues), with short or long  action plans  to fulfill complex objectives.
  Global Unions, which assemble trade unions from every region and sector, approach WA’s as the key to an overarching framework that could accommodate all Type II workplace partnerships they intend to develop in the upcoming years. In 2003, they intend to engage in consultations with governments, key intergovernmental bodies and other stakeholders to explore how these plans can best be implemented.
  In late March, the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC) led a delegation into a consultation with OECD Environment Ministers to explore ways in which WA’s could be used to implement climate change and energy conservation measures. These discussions will now be carried into CSD11, where they will ask governments to collaborate on these priorities over the longer term. Additional meetings are planned this Summer and early Fall to consider how WA’s can be applied to a wide range of issues; e.g., HIV/AIDS, occupational health & safety, water conservation in strategic industries, etc. 
  In spite of successful collaboration with employers, NGO’s and governments on thousands of joint initiatives, trade unions have yet to register Type II partnerships with the UN Secretariat. They intend to take this step only after they have established the basis for well-planned projects that will deliver on defined aims, including social objectives. They have identified a number of possible partnership groupings through which they can plan and implement Agenda 21 objectives and WSSD outcomes:
Workplace assessment partnerships focusing on environmental & sustainability impacts, as part of an overall effort to define more clearly the role of work, workplaces and worker approaches to implementation;
Partnerships to address each of the five WEHAB priorities in a manner that integrates all three pillars of sustainable development;
Research partnerships directed at social and employment concerns related to change for sustainable development, including industrial relations considerations; 
Partnerships to identify and promote the social dimension, as the ‘pillar’ most requiring advancement in the post-WSSD period;
Partnerships to advance employer accountability at the workplace as a vital element of corporate social responsibility;
Partnerships to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic, using the workplace as a focal point for the population which is most at risk;
Partnerships to capitalize on the synergy between public and occupational health;
Training, education and capacity-building partnerships, to include partnerships to promote the use of information technology for these purposes;
Partnerships to promote eco-labeling and other consumer awareness strategies to improve workplace performance; and
Partnerships to promote action on Flags of Convenience, as a leading issue for sustainable transportation.
  Trade unions will work to identify possible partners, develop effective plans of action, and build the tools that are needed for workplace assessments. At CSD 11, they will primarily focus on working with governments and other stakeholders to: 
Facilitate dialogue with social partners, member & non-member governments and other intergovernmental bodies;
Identify priorities for workplace assessments and pilot testing projects;
Develop workplace tools for target-setting, measuring, reporting and evaluating progress, integrated with impact assessments, indicators and management systems;
Link workplace assessments to local, regional and national reporting, environmental reviews and other strategies for national implementation and evaluation; and
Identify training and education necessary to implement workplace assessment procedures
Trade unions will promote WA’s at CSD, confident that this strategy can yield substantial gains for sustainable development – but only if government are willing to address barriers to implementation in the workplace. Implementation measures must, first and foremost, address basic security issues, as identified by the ILO’s Socio-Economic Security Programme. Workers will support change only if they believe that their security concerns are being addressed through transition programmes that include retraining, re-employment, compensation, and an otherwise sustained livelihood.  The extent to which trade unions succeed in obtaining support for social and employment transition programmes at CSD11 will largely determine the effectiveness of all other plans for implementation of change at the workplace. 

Partnerships Receive a Boost Post-WSSD
Online Partnership Resource

  A major new partnerships platform is to be launched to promote, facilitate and build the capacity of partnerships for achieving sustainable development.
  The Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Partnerships will shortly launch Partnerships Central, an online, interactive central clearinghouse of best practice, capacity-building tools, information, services, brokering and networking opportunities based around a global showcase of partnership projects. 
  A major outcome of the World Summit for Sustainable Development was the mandate given to partnerships as an essential implementing mechanism for the achievement of sustainable development goals and a large number of partnerships were announced during, and in the lead up to, the Summit. However, as Kofi Annan notes, “The true test of what the Summit achieves, [will be] the actions that are taken afterward”.
  Despite the significant responsibility placed on partnerships, there is little structured or centralized support available to help them succeed, or indeed to assist in the creation of new partnerships. It is to help provide these kinds of support that the Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Development Partnerships was recently founded under the Chairmanship of Lord Holme, an active campaigner in sustainable development for many years.
  Partnerships Central, the Centre’s flagship project. will bring together a broad alliance of actors involved in sustainable development from intergovernmental organisations to industry sector associations to create a central hub for sustainable development partnership activity worldwide. Its specific objectives are to support the development and potential of partnerships (access to information, capacity-building and networking); promote and multiply innovative partnership solutions (communication, knowledge exchange and dissemination of best practice); link partnership achievements to government commitments and development goals (policy in action); and improve the efficiency and transparency of information between donors and project implementers.
  As the Centre’s CEO, Jeffrey Hardy, explains, ‘We are creating a technologically sophisticated but easily navigable central resource for everything relating to partnerships, from guides to setting up new partnerships and finding funding to examples of good practice and innovation throughout the world. Most importantly, however, we are providing a forum for the exchange of knowledge and experience, bringing stakeholders together through regional and sectoral sub-networks, and facilitating partnership opportunities to benefit governments, civil society and business alike’.
  The extensive Partnerships Showcase will demonstrate the contribution of partnerships to international development goals and allow those involved to publicize the work they are doing.
Although business is firmly behind Partnerships Central, it is not a business-led initiative. Partnerships Central is a fully independent, neutral platform which will bring together all sectors – business, government, intergovernmental (including UN agencies), non-governmental and local civil society – all of whom will be contributing to and benefiting from the initiative. 
  “Partnerships Central (PC) is ‘stakeholder’ driven in that it combines the expertise and content of a broad range of sustainable development actors, and leverages their resources collectively, thereby multiply the value of their contributions to sustainable development partnerships at work in any region, sector or stage of development”, explains Mr. Hardy.
  To focus information access and facilitate networking and partnership brokering, Partnerships Central is based around sector portals, starting with the WEHAB priorities identified at the summit. Each portal is run by a Portal Enabling Group or ‘PEG’ made up of a broad base of willing organisations with active sustainable development agendas. As the initiative grows, the number of portals will increase, covering the whole gamut of sustainable development.
  The Partnerships Central concept has already garnered tremendous support from across the board, including the UN. Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, has personally pledged his support and Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP, writes of Partnerships Central, ‘I am sure that the new initiative will make an important contribution in the follow-up to the Summit.’
Contact: http://partnershipscentral.org. 

Waterworks
WBCSD launches new urban water project

  Through a new project on Urban Water, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is looking to build partnerships  to not only meet the Millennium Declaration Goals (MDGs) of halving the number of people without access to fresh water by 2015, but to go beyond. The WBCSD will aim to find ways to deliver affordable and sustainable water supply and sanitation for 100 percent of urban and peri-urban populations. 
  Meeting the MDGs is an enormous challenge for all stakeholders, including business. There is an emerging consensus that governments need strategic alliances with business and other key stakeholders to achieve these challenging goals. And in order to facilitate this process, the WBCSD is urging the United Nations to create specific local and national targets, with specific deadlines.  
  Launched at the third World Water Forum in Japan last week, this new WBCSD project is co-chaired by Gérard Payen of Suez, and will be supported by a broad cross section of business, including water users, water operators and the financial sector. The project will also seek to engage various stakeholders in a dynamic process, and create a ‘sponsor group’ of member companies, NGOs, governments, and other external organizations.
  “Water has traditionally been a public responsibility, and the WBCSD believes that governments must retain ultimate ownership of water and control of its allocation,” said Al Fry, Urban Water project manager. “However, it is clear that business, through alliances and partnerships, can play an important role in the efficient delivery of affordable water services to all consumers. And for that we need to be given clear and specific targets.”
  The primary goals of the Urban Water project is to work with governments and the private sector to clarify what they need to do to meet the MDGs for water, and agree on the framework conditions and appropriate regulatory structures needed to encourage the development of viable water delivery systems in urban and peri-urban areas within developing countries and countries in transition. 
  The project will build coalitions  through the use of stakeholder dialogues to clarify the rights, roles and responsibilities of each potential water partner in an on-going working relationship, as well as find areas of agreement and test application of these ideas on the ground.
  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that an increase of $15 billion is required to boost current water infrastructure in developing countries. The international community now realizes that the world needs urgent action to provide safe drinking water to the 1.2 billion people who lack it, and access to basic sanitation facilities to the 2.5 billion without.
  Halving these figures by 2015 is one of the main Millennium Development goals reiterated at the World Summit in Johannesburg. And the WBCSD sees public-private partnerships as the best way to achieve, or go beyond, this goal. 
Contact: Al Fry, Urban Water Project Mng., fry@wbcsd.org
  The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a coalition of 165 international companies united by a shared commitment to sustainable development via the three pillars of economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. Our members are drawn from more than 30 countries and 20 major industrial sectors. We also benefit from a global network of 43 national and regional business councils and partner organizations located in 39 countries, involving some 1,000 business leaders globally.

Something to Build On
Global Alliance for Building Sustainability

  The eleven years since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 have seen the world of sustainable development dominated by one phrase: "Think global, act local". These four words have galvanised countless groups and individuals into action, persuading them that a sustainable future must involve everyone. But the "think global, act local" mantra may also have done sustainable development a disservice, over-simplifying the issues and creating a smoke screen hiding inaction and procrastination. It is overcoming this challenge that forms the core focus for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Foundation in its work within land, property, construction and development. 
  Perhaps the most important of the failings of "think global, act local", is the weight given to the last two or three words. The phrase was intended to convey sustainable development's take on “charity begins at home”, but this emphasis on action has made the first word, “think” appear almost superfluous. We are instructed to act locally - the thinking will be done somewhere else, by someone else, seated around a large global conference table someplace between here and the heavens. Such an approach is costly - knowledge and research are essential to making sustainable development work and must occur on every level in every walk of life. 
  The RICS Foundation oversees and publishes a large quantity of research every year specifically aimed at helping those working in and around the built environment to plan and develop sustainable working practices that are timely and effective. Reports such as Red Man, Green Man, which provides and introduction to sustainability performance indicators for built environment professionals, play an important role in ensuring that thought and action go hand in hand. 
  The second failing of “think global, act local” is that it lets politicians off the hook. Those charged with dealing with our global affairs - that is, the collective whole made up of the world's national governments - seem to have taken the instruction rather too literally. They think, or at least speak (sadly one does not necessarily imply the other), the language of sustainability, but too often fail to act on their handsome declarations. Grand anticlimaxes such as the Johannesburg Summit may be testimony to the fact that governments have taken their Rio Handbook at face value and decided to leave action to the locals. 
  Unfortunately, we are limited in our ability to influence the manoeuvring and machinations of national and global politicians, but that does not stop us facilitating global action. One of the good things to come out of the Johannesburg summit was formal recognition of the importance of “Type 2 partnerships” - those initiatives operating beneath the level of national government. The RICS Foundation has worked with many key organisations from the built environment sector to establish one such partnership - the Global Alliance for Building Sustainability - a network of organisations from around the world committed to making sustainability a reality. The Alliance, once fully developed, will act as a catalyst and a facilitator, enabling these groups to work together to make real advances. 
  Lastly, local action has sometimes taken place without due thought being given to the how's, whys, wherefores and there fore's. Whilst doing something may generally be preferable to doing nothing, doing something without proper reason, planning or follow-up can lessen the value of action and can occasionally even be counterproductive. 
  In January of this year the RICS Foundation published “Painting the Town Green” - a review of the use of urban sustainability indicators in the United States. The report was written by US architect and urban planner Anindita Mitra, who's comprehensive research revealed that indicator projects often failed to make use of the data they had collected. This is not to demean the significant accomplishments of such initiatives - it is simply a reflection that there is a need to give thought and attention to the way indicators can be used to drive policy and change. 
  At the recent sustainability indicators conference in Canada, the RICS Foundation received substantial support for a project that would see the creation of an online portal for indicator initiatives - allowing local projects to think, and act, globally, sharing ideas and resources and ensuring that their work achieves the maximum benefit. 
  By filling the gaps in the “think global, act local” philosophy, the Foundation hopes to make genuine improvements in our built environment. The message that sustainable development is the responsibility of every individual may have been heard. Perhaps it is time to make the rules even simpler. 
Think. Act.
	Conferences & Events

31 Mar. - 3 Apr.	Expert Meeting on Sustainable Consumption & Production. Marrakech, Morroco. Contact: chipman@un.org	
8 Apr. - 10 Apr.	International Scientific Conference on Global Climate Change & 
Biodiversity. Norwich, UK. Contact: www.tyndall.ac.uk/biodiversityconf/	
7 Apr. - 11 Apr. 	International Workshop on Integrated Water Resources Management. Denver, US. Contact: www.usbr.gov	
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	
28 Apr. - 30 Apr. 	Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 
Vienna, Austria. Contact: www.mcpfe.org	
28 Apr. - 30 Apr.	OECD Forum and Ministerial Summit. Paris, France. 
Contact: www.oecd.org/forum2003	
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	
5 May - 9 May	19th Session of the Governing Council of UN-Habitat. Nairobi, Kenya. Contact: www.unhabitat/org/governingbodies/default.asp	
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	
26 May - 6 Jun.	Third Session of the UN Forum on Forests. Geneva, Switzerland. 
Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm