Network 2015
June Issue

Contents
CSD 11 Report
SD News
CSD 11 Stakeholder Views
CSD 11 Outcomes Summary
Project Update
SD Partnerships
Diary Dates

CSD 11 Report
If you build it, they will come

  The eleventh session of The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 11), 28 April to 9 May, UN headquarters, New York, was the first substantive meeting of the CSD since the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).Chaired by Mohammed Valli Moosa (South Africa’s Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism), the primary objective of the meeting was to discuss and make decisions on the organisational reform and future work programme of the CSD, as mandated in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI). CSD 11 was opened with delegates being urged to illustrate through their actions that multi-literalism in the UN works. The session was highlighted as an unparalleled opportunity to build a clear path for implementing internationally agreed targets and commitments. 
  Strong Chairing and the use of well facilitated contact groups led to the adoption of the resolution ‘Future Programme, Organisation and Methods of Work of the Commission on Sustainable Development’. Reflecting on the strength of the resolution it was stated that nobody is entirely unhappy, but nobody is entirely happy, which is the sign of an operative UN decision. In essence the resolution outlines a multi-year programme of work built around a series of two year Implementation Cycles, focused on a pre-determined thematic cluster of issues. Included within the resolution are decisions on; the modalities for reporting on progress, partnerships, the role of the regional level, the contribution and involvement of Major Groups, and on the enhancement of system-wide coordination. 
Organisational Reform
  It is the function of the CSD to review and expedite the implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation through the mobilisation of all Stakeholders to overcome obstacles and challenges to implementation. The multi-year programme of work will feature a series of action orientated Implementation Cycles consisting of a Review Year and a Policy Year.
  It is anticipated that regional implementation meetings, which the Regional Economic Commissions are invited to consider organising, will take place prior to the Review Session. The recognition of the role of the regional level is an important one, and provides an exciting opportunity within the CSD. Although there was general agreement on the need to reference the regional level, the modalities of their involvement was contested. Despite the US favouring the hosting of the regional meetings in New York, it was finally agreed that they would be held within the appropriate regions. Discussions also ensued over the disparities between the rules of procedure for stakeholder engagement at the regional level. This is one area where a close eye on the functioning of the work programme will have to be cast. There is real potential here, and regional/sub-regional bodies should be encouraged and enabled, through the provision of resources, to engage with and participate effectively in the Implementation Cycle. This important step allows regions to identify solutions to obstacles, challenges, new and emerging issues and opportunities specific to their region.
  An innovative step forward has been made in including a forum for the sharing of experience, best practice and capacity building during the Review Session. This will take place separately to the inter-governmental segments and will include Partnership Fairs and Learning Centres. It is anticipated that this will enable implementation activities to be reviewed at all levels.
  The Policy Session, although predominantly a negotiating session, will also address actions to further progress implementation through the launching of partnerships and initiatives. This decision has come under criticism due to the potential for governments to use the launching of partnerships as a substitute for strong policy decisions. The guidelines for partnerships detailed within the Resolution will be essential in ensuring that this concern does not materialise. 
  The future organisation of work of the CSD in theory looks to be an extremely robust model with sufficient flexibility to allow the involvement of stakeholders at all levels at appropriate times. The structure of the work programme will enable the CSD to function in a more coherent and consistent manner, providing governments and stakeholders with a better understanding of what is expected of them, and what they can expect from the Commission. It also supports system-wide coordination across the UN. Most importantly, the Resolution looks to adopt a bottom-up approach, with review commencing at the national level, progressing up through the sub-regional and regional to the international. 
  Despite this relatively positive view on the Resolution, real concerns do exist over the practicalities of the future work programme. The adoption of a bottom-up approach is a good thing, as is the flexibility of the work programme to allow contributions to be made at any time. However, this does raise the question on the capacity of relevant actors. A real challenge exists for stakeholders and, primarily developing country governments in providing information and participating in a timely and productive manner. 
Future Programme of Work
  The CSD was initially split on how the programme of work should develop. Essentially two polarised schools of thought existed, with the US supporting the review of only one issue per Implementation Cycle, and the G77 + China calling for broad thematic clusters of issues to be dealt with.  The EU, supported by a range of other countries opted for the middle ground suggesting that a select number of issues be addressed in each cycle, this suggestion was finally adopted. The work programme was set for the next 7 cycles. Although this is useful in allowing predictability and therefore preparedness, the consequences of fixing the work programme for the next 14 years should not be taken lightly. Consideration needs to be given to the time-frame which in some instances, such as the biodiversity target is inappropriate; with biodiversity being addressed at the CSD after the target date has passed. Further thought should be given as to how a fully integrated approach will be adopted, to ensure the process becoming too unwieldy. 
  It is the mandate of the CSD to strike a balance between the three pillars of sustainable development. In theory this has been achieved by the identification of cross-cutting issues, as detailed under the Chapter Means of Implementation of the JPOI. Further issues such as Small Island Developing States, Africa, Education, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Gender Equity and have also been highlighted. Although attempting to address the interconnectedness of sustainable development, this matrix based approach has the potential to become unmanageable. Guidance is required from the Secretariat prior to the commencement of the work programme as to how governments and stakeholders should report on thematic clusters of issues using these cross-cutting issues.
  Dealing with Water and Sanitation in the first cycle is sensible and appropriate. Following on from the Third World Water Forum it is anticipated that a large amount of the required preparatory work will have already been conducted. This will assist the CSD through the transition into it’s new work programme. Although consistency and the adoption of an integrated approach is demonstrated in this instance, greater thought needs to be given as to the capacity of UN Agencies, such as Habitat - required to address Human Settlements in the first cycle - where consideration has not been given so as to coordinate their commitments to the CSD and their ongoing work programmes.
Partnerships
  Concerns over the use of partnership initiatives for implementing international commitments were apparent again. However, it is clearly stipulated that partnership initiatives complement, but not a substitute for government commitments. Whilst the CSD remains the focal point for discussing partnerships, the Secretariat no longer holds responsibility for assessing their credibility. The burden of responsibility now falls to the partnerships themselves to report, preferably bi-annually and on a voluntary basis, on progress made. This is a significant move forward in enabling partnerships to be assessed on their practical contribution to implementation, and in ensuring transparency and accountability. 
Further issues
  Whilst the clear move to adopt a coherent and integrated approach is welcomed, and appears to be supported by the reform of the CSD, strong facilitation of this process will be required to ensure that the system-wide coordination that the CSD is working towards is achieved. A growing concern is the way in which the CSD interacts with bodies such as the WTO, who are invited to participate. This issue must be resolved to ensure consistency in policy making at all levels, and to ensure that sustainable development agreements do not become subservient to conflicting decisions made elsewhere.
  There are no references to the local and sub-national level in the resolution. This is a real shortcoming of the CSD, and one which undermines the fundamental role that these levels have in implementation of commitments. This concern extends to weak reference to the involvement or recognition of stakeholders. If the CSD is to achieve it’s objective of encouraging and adopting a fully participatory approach to sustainable development, official recognition must be given to these valuable levels of governance and to stakeholders beyond the Major Groups. 
Where Next?
  The 11th session of the CSD completed it’s tasks in agreeing a reform of the organisational structure and programme of work for the Commission. The Resolution strengthens and reaffirms the mandate of the CSD. The Session was also a political triumph in illustrating that multilateralism remains a plausible and valuable mechanism for achieving international agreement. 
  The political will to revitalise the CSD clearly exists amongst governments and stakeholders, and if the perennial problems of inadequate funding, lack of integrated thinking, and the attendance of appropriate ministers can be over come, then the Commission could become the powerful body it was set out to be 10 years ago in ensuring effective implementation of sustainable development commitments at all levels.
  The 1st Implementation Cycle will be the most important, in putting the theory into practice. It is hoped that as well as assessing actual progress, the Review Session will seek to review the functioning of the Commission, with the Policy Session offering an opportunity for reform options to be developed and adopted. If this model is undertaken, then the working of the CSD can only improve over time.
Georgina Ayre, Stakeholder Forum

SD News
UN HABITAT Session Full of Promise

The 19th Session of UN HABITAT’s Governing Council ended on May 9th with governments approving a $44.4m budget for the 2004-2005 biennium. Representing an in crease of 40% on previous allocations, the hike in funds was complemented by a record number of resolutions, most of which were committed to strengthening the agency.
  Included in the range of outcomes was the creation of a new division that will work on human settlement financing, as governments charged UN HABITAT to increasingly work with all partners to find innovative sources of finance to deliver the agreed programme of work.
  Affirming this, Bo Göransson, the newly elected President of the Session, stated ‘The resolutions and recommendations that have been passed today (May 9th) will require the commitment of all Habitat Agenda partners, governments, local authorities, the private sector, NGOs and ordinary citizens. We need to find new ways to prioritise the funding and financing of shelter strategies for the urban poor.’
  The resolutions tabled at the Governing Council were designed to improve the capacity of UN HABITAT to meet the challenges of urbanisation. In particular, the recommendations were aimed at strengthening UN HABITAT’s ability to help governments implement the Habitat Agenda and to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Perhaps most prominent of these Goals was the recognition of UN HABITAT’s leading role in the field of providing clean water and decent sanitation to the urban poor. 
  Such a focus is likely to see the agency linking hands with the CSD over the next 2 years as both agencies put water at the centre of their efforts. 

WTO Hosts Public Symposium:
Challenges Ahead on the Road to Cancun

  The World Trade Organisation will host a public symposium from 16-18 June on the challenges WTO Members face ahead of the WTO’s 5th Ministerial Conference this September in Cancun, Mexico. Participants from governments, parliaments, civil society, the business sector, academia and the media are invited to discuss how the new negotiations can address key challenges facing the multi-lateral trading system.
  ‘It is essential to finish these negotiations successfully and on time, by 1 January 2005’ said WTO Director-General Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi at a 3 April Meeting of the Trade Negotiating Committee, the body which oversees progress in the eight negotiating groups comprising the Doha Development Agenda. ‘What we are doing here is immensely important to economic growth and development prospects for all participants. It will also make an irreplaceable contribution to achieving a more stable, more equitable—and ultimately more peaceful world. At a time of growing global economic uncertainty, progress in the Doha Round toward its timely conclusion can make a much-needed contribution to confidence,’ he said.
  The symposium will feature an opening plenary followed by work sessions on key subjects being negotiated in the Doha Round. Topics include trade and development, issues related to agriculture, trade in service and trade and environment. In addition, time will be set aside for governments parliamentarians and civil society to organise their own events during the symposium on issues of their choice.

5th Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference

  “The ‘Environment for Europe’ process has become and important platform for dialogue and cooperation not only among governments but also with international organisations, non-governmental and the private sector. Your efforts to extend the environmental legal framework, to ensure that existing international environmental law is applied, and to keep the environment high on the international agenda demonstrate your conviction to work together, we can make a difference and build a better and greener work for our future generations.”
  This was the statement given by Ms. Brigita Schmognerova, Executive Secretary to the UNECE, on the opening of the 5th Environment for Europe Conference in Kiev, Ukraine, from May 21-23.
  And so it proved to be the case as, over the following 2 days, a number of new legal instruments, treaties and Protocols were launched. 
  The most progressive of the agreements met, and likely to be most contentious, was the Treaty on Pollution Information Disclosure. 37 countries including the European Commission signed the ground breaking treaty, developed over 2 years in the form of a legally binding protocol to the Aarhus Convention.
  Under the new protocol, companies (registered in the signatory countries) will be required to report annually on their releases into the environment, and transfers to other companies of certain pollutants. The information will then be placed on a public register, known as a pollutant release and transfer register, or PRTR.
  Through the ‘name and shame’ effect, PRTRs can be an effective instrument for indirectly encouraging companies to reduce pollution. Although the Protocol has been developed under the auspices of UNECE, it is open to signature and accession by any member state of the United Nations. In this way it is expected to establish a new global benchmark.
  Also agreed was a new Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment. The 36 signatories are required under the protocol (once in force) to evaluate the environmental consequences of their official draft plans and programmes. Moreover, the Protocol enables environmental objectives to be considered on a par with socio-economic goals, bringing sustainable development closer. 
  A further 22 countries signed a new Protocol on Civil Liability and Damage Caused by the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents on Transboundary Waters to the UNECE Convention of the same name.
  The Protocol provides both a means of recourse to individuals affected by industrial accidents on international watercourses, as well as holds operators of industrial instillations liable for any such damage. 

Major Group Perspectives on CSD 11 Outcomes

Report of Global Unions on CSD11
  Trade unions emerged from the last Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development with a number of concerns, but were nevertheless satisfied with progress achieved. They were particularly concerned about insufficient attention to the social dimension of sustainable development. This was clearly evident in the lack of reference to the International Labour Organisation, identified by the WSSD as the lead agency for the Social Pillar.
  In addition, while poverty eradication received a great deal of attention, no clear link was established to the world of work, a deficiency also evident in the Partnership Fair. Trade unions will continue to promote the view that poverty-eradication can be best achieved through decent, income-producing employment and sustainable natural resource management.
  Overall the Session provided a boost for efforts to direct attention to the impact of unsustainable patterns of decision-making on workers and workplaces. A special publication, WSSD Implementation Priorities of Global Unions was distributed to governments, asking them to consider ways of cooperating with national trade unions on the linkages between occupational and public health, called for in WSSD text. 
  The Session also allowed trade unions to strengthen ties with other stakeholders to advance workplace and worker connections to actions they were proposing. It provided an opportunity to discuss “Workplace Assessments”, proposed as a framework for action by trade unions. A power-point presentation to the Partnership Fair produced useful feedback, which allows them to rethink their approach to partnerships, and focus on new types of social and worker issues they can pursue.
  The Global Union statement to the closing Plenary welcomed amendments that highlighted the social dimension, and socio-economic security. It noted opportunities for workers and trade unions to engage in workplace action, but reminded governments that financial resources must be found. They also welcomed commitments to link production with consumption, and identify barriers to stakeholder involvement, but added that these must be tied to employment and transition issues, as well as worker participation. Finally, a commitment to work with intergovernmental bodies must open the way for greater ILO involvement and support for the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 
  Trade Unions will continue to call on governments and other Major Groups to commit themselves to the social dimension in the new Programme of Work. Amongst other things, all stakeholders must have an opportunity to participate in the development of guidelines for CSD-approved Partnerships, and in monitoring them to ensure compliance.
Lucien Royer, ICFTU

Civil Society V’s.  Local Level Experts at CSD 
  If you take the subway in New York, or have your appendicitis operated at a City Hospital, are you dealing with an NGO, with Civil Society or with a Major Group at the local level? But if you see a doctor at a state university hospital in the same city, are you being treated at the national level, by the government, by the scientific community, or by the Major Group Scientific Community?
  Throughout the texts, the concepts Major Groups, Civil Society and stakeholders, or "other stakeholders" are being used without a common understanding about their contents – except for the Major Groups as defined in Agenda 21, of course. Adding to the confusion now are "experts", "scientific experts" and the "scientific community". What sets the "scientific community", as mentioned in para 2. (c)(iv), 17, apart from the Major Group "Scientific community", as an example? Are representatives of Major Groups not experts? 
  A process was put in place for the accreditation of NGOs and other major groups to the WSSD. But who gives accreditation to the scientific experts? We certainly all need scientific knowledge, but in addition to specialists, don’t we also desperately need generalists, because one of the challenges of sustainable development is integration? Can "science" replace the precautionary principle?
  It was good to learn that the "Cardoso Panel" of eminent persons, nominated by the Secretary General, will soon resume  work on the future role of Civil Society in the UN system. As part of its task, we hope that the Panel will help clarify the concept of Civil Society.
  Let me continue on the difficulty to match concepts and images. What is the local level? Is it small communities and picturesque villages? Or megacities? Many of which are many times bigger than the country where I come from. 
  The undeniable consequence of globalisation is that the role of cities, of the local level in general, continues to gain weight. The contemporary "biodiversity of governance" means that we'll have to learn how to deal with controversies between different systems of governance at different levels. Against this background it is difficult to understand why every single reference to the local level was deleted from the final text. – This does not mean that the cities won't intensify their work to implement the JPoI, but in many parts of the world it means that they'll be left alone and without support.
  Enhancing the role of Local Authorities is also about taking the principle of participatory governance from the local to the global level. The CSD11 documents won't make it happen now or tomorrow, but it will happen one day soon, sooner than we think. Kaarin Taipale, ICLEI Chair 

Optimism as new work plan Emerges   
CSD 11 has kicked off what promises to be a fruitful decade of meetings, in contrast with the past series. Around this time last year, frustration with the CSD was at its peak - it was touted as a poorly managed talking shop, blamed in part for the lack of progress against Agenda 21 and in disarray over the preparations for the Johannesburg Summit. Yet, against the odds, the Summit dealt admirably with the complexity of the Sustainable Development agenda. The pragmatic stakeholder dialogues that had been fostered by the CSD over its past 10 sessions rose to the challenge, providing a constructive backdrop to the tedious governmental negotiations.
  CSD 11 started with a three-day ministerial segment that set the tone for focus and process improvements. The non-governmental Major Groups were given ample chance to air their views, and the Chair, Valli Moosa, did a good job of stimulating energy and candor in the debates. The session adopted a new work plan to enable better preparation, participation and progress. But it will only work out, as always, if governments and other major sectors give it their best.
  At the end of CSD 11 many key participants expressed a sense of optimism and commitment moderated by a feeling of déjà vu. In 1993, CSD participants had started with a similar sense of resolve and a plan of yearly themes, and it did not work very well. Grand intentions must be matched by deeds if the talk is to lead to lasting change. However, there are reasons to be optimistic. In the last months of the World Summit preparations a number of the CSD 11 stakeholder also brought their momentum to the table. Another driving force was the leadership of a significant number of individuals who spoke out beyond their predictable scripts. This pulled others forward.
  The WBCSD played a key role in providing this leadership momentum for the World Summit. In return the Johannesburg process also energized and focused our work programs toward a number of our 2002 milestones. The 2004 and 2006 CSD Implementation Reviews will be essential opportunities to communicate again our leadership message, through side events, dialogues and publications - first on the issue of Water and the related Cross-Cutting Themes, and on Energy the next time around. 
  We can be assured of the interest and active support of our major partners who all seem to agree, at his stage, that a number of governments and non-government actors can and should pull this process onto a positive implementation course. The momentum is building, and the process must not be neglected.  
Claude Fussler, Director, WBCSD and Special Advisor to the UN Global Compact

CSD 11 in the real world
  Agenda 21 and the JPOI were to put the world on track to become sustainable. In order to be effective, the CSD had to reconnect with that world to correctly monitor and guide implementation. CSD had lost that connection since 1997, where a cramped agenda was followed in such a manner that the rest of the world had no use for it. Those who take the work of the CSD to heart had to notice that more and more governmental departments and representatives of major groups, decided to ignore the work of the CSD.
  The renewal of the method of work started by CSD 11 makes us hopeful. The decision to take adequate time to understand, in a participatory manner, obstacles, barriers and problems in implementation on all levels and then to take adequate time to, again in a participatory manner, find solutions to overcome those problems proves that wisdom has returned to the agenda setters. Enough flexibility remains to deal with emerging issues. 
  The lack of policy coherence has turned out to be one of the major barriers to implementation of Agenda 11. CSD’s decision to monitor and improve coherence in the multilateral system is a vital one. It is vitally important that the CSD considers the roles of all multilateral institutions in this process. 
  Yet it was not all good. It is regretful that the level of participation of stakeholders was not improved. It is also regretful that peer review has not become part of the work of the CSD. We still worry about the so-called partnerships, and hope that their impact on communities will be positive and well received by those communities, as no serious guarantees are in place that they will. Lastly, we sincerely regret that the link made just the week prior to CSD 11 by the UN Human Rights Commission between Human Rights and Sustainable Development, was not taken up by the CSD as part of the cross-cutting approach to handling the themes selected. 
  ANPED, as a NGO network, will continue to do what we have been doing for the past 13 years: working hard to implement the changes needed for our societies to become sustainable, and making sure that our experiences are taken on board when policy makers make their decisions. 
Pieter van der Gaag, ANPED

CSD 11, a mixed aGENDER
  Riding on the momentum of last year’s Summit women as a major group came to CSD-11 with clear objectives that included participating in the agenda setting and planning, bringing a strong gender focus to the meeting and ensuring civil society involvement. For women, the outcomes of CSD-11 represented a  critical juncture for future work on sustainable development. At stake was the effectiveness of the CSD in facilitating and monitoring the implementation of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI).  
  During the first week, women were encouraged by the level of  Major Group participation and the strong support from the Chair, governments and other major groups for gender as a cross-cutting issue in the future work of the Commission. In particular, women were pleased with the multilateral and multi-sectoral process that enabled ministers, delegates of major groups to share their views and opinions. These views appeared to add up to collective commitment to contribute towards the full and successful implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI.  
  However, when the ministers left and negotiations began, women were surprised to find that there was less common ground and understanding than  perceived. The air seemed to be infected with CNS—‘continuous negotiation syndrome’—and in the process of action and reaction, of drafting and redrafting, arguing and rearguing, there was a tendency to lose focus on what was at stake. In particular, women had to lobby hard at the last minute to keep gender equality as an explicit crosscutting issue for the future work of CSD. 
  But as agreements were reached women, for the most part, were  satisfied with decisions on key issues: poverty eradication, environmental sustainability and social development. Important decisions were also made regarding the process and organization of work, and the different theme areas. The debate over Major Groups participation, however, was a sign that sustainable development is too often seen as the arena of governments, when in actuality it is people on the ground who will determine whether sustainable development happens or not. With this  in mind, women are urging ECOSOC to give NGOs accredited to the WSSD full consultative status.
  CSD-11 adjourned with women as a major group reaffirming their willingness to work with member states, the CSD Bureau and Secretariat, UN agencies, and other Major Groups to ensure that women’s experiences and systematic barriers to women’s equality are addressed as a central component in Agenda 21 and JPOI implementation, putting it on the agenda of CSD12 and beyond. Anna Grossman, WEDO

CSD 11 Summary
Multi-Year Programme of Work of the CSD

Thematic Cluster of Issues
2004/2005	
Water, Sanitation, Human Settlements
2006/2007	
Energy for sustainable development, Industrial Development, Air Pollution/Atmosphere, Climate Change
2008/2009	
Agriculture,Rural Development, Land, Drought, Desertification, Africa
2010/2011*	
Transport, Chemicals, Waste Management, Mining, A Ten Year Framework for programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns
2012/2013*
Forest, Biodiversity, Biotechnology, Tourism, Mountains
2014/2015*	
Oceans and Seas, Marine Resources, SIDS, Disaster Management and Vulnerability 
2016/2017	
Overall appraisal of implementation of Agenda 21, The Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda and the JPOI.
Cross-Cutting Issues
  Poverty Eradication, Changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, protection and managing the nature resource base of economic and social development. Sustainable Development in a globalising world, Health and sustainable development, Sustainable Development of SIDS, Sustainable Development for Africa, Other regional initiatives. Means of Implementation, Institutions Frameworks for Sustainable Development, Gender Equality, and Education
* Thematic cluster can be revised if agreed by the Commission.
Considerations to guide the implementation of the Multi-Year Programme of Work
·	Review will be dealt in accordance with relevant provisions of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, and the JPOI
·	Thematic clusters should be addressed in a way that considers all dimensions of sustainable development
·	The selection of clusters of issues does not undermine the importance of all issues identified in Agenda 21 and the JPOI. The implementation process should cover all issues equally.
·	Means of Implementation identified in JOPI should be considered in every cycle, as well as additional cross-cutting issues, and other regional activities, including SIDS, Africa and LDC. Refer to Table.1
·	CSD should focus on issues where it could add value to inter-governmental deliberations on cross-cutting issues
·	The CSD should take into account the outcomes of the work of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group of the General Assembly on the integrated and coordinated implementation of, and follow-up to, the outcomes of the major UN Conference and Summits in the Economic and Social Fields
·	The Commission may decide to incorporate new challenges and opportunities related to implementation into its Multi-Year Programme of Work
Reporting	
·	Further work on and effective use of indicators at the national level is encouraged
·	Effective system of reporting detailed as essential for reviewing, evaluating and monitoring progress on implementation, sharing lessons learned and best practice, identifying actions taken, opportunities, obstacles and constraints.
·	Voluntary submission of national reports on progress, achievements, constraints, challenges and opportunities – including information on status of national strategies for sustainable development 
·	Secretariat in cooperation with other organisations in the UN system to:
o	Streamline reporting
o	Highlight trends, constraints, challenges, emerging issues
o	Provide technical assistance in national reporting
o	Provide, in consultation with others, national reporting guidelines and questionnaires
Considerations to guide reporting:
·	Report on three dimensions of sustainable development
·	Include input from all levels as appropriate, and from UN Agencies, programmes and funds, the GEF, international and trade institutes, major groups including educators and scientific experts
·	Use existing reporting systems to their fullest extent
·	Focus on concrete progress and implementation
·	Include: 
o	Information sharing, lessons learned & best practice
·	Identify: 
o	Action taken, constraints, challenges & opportunities
Adoption of a collaborative approach
Enhance collaboration in all areas:
·	UN Agencies, programmes and funds, GEF, international and regional financial and trade institutions to participate actively with and inform the CSD of their activities
·	Promotion of stronger links between implementation at national to international levels
·	Strengthen coherence and collaboration between organisations
·	Identify gaps in implementation 
·	Mobilise/increase efficient use of resources for implementation 
·	Promotion of system wide inter-agency cooperation and coordination taking into account UN reform and utilising the United Nations System Chief Executive Board for Coordination
·	Secretary General to include in his report proposals outlining an integrated and comprehensive response of the UN system to sustainable development
Involvement of Major Groups
Involvement of the Major Groups should:
·	Include the scientific community and educators
·	Be strengthened, through involvement in dialogue during the High-level Segments
·	Be more action and implementation orientated during multi-stakeholder dialogues
·	Be enhanced in implementation, including civil society and relevant stakeholders
·	Promote transparency
·	Promote broad public participation 
·	Ensure balanced regional representation and for gender balance
·	Ensure active involvement in partnership-related and capacity building activities
Partnerships (Type II’s)
Partnerships should:
·	Be voluntary and multi-stakeholder initiatives 
·	Contribute to the implementation of *Agenda 21, Programme of Work for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the JPOI
·	Be complementary to not a substitute for commitments to the implementation of the above *international commitments 
·	Have concrete value addition to implementation
·	Be new
·	Balance the three dimensions of sustainable development in design/implementation 
·	Be based on predictable and sustained resources
·	In developing countries there is a need to, where relevant: 
o	Mobilise new resources; 
o	Result in transfer of technology; 
o	Result in capacity building
·	Have sectoral geographic balance
·	Be transparent and accountable, exchanging relevant information with governments  and stakeholders
Partnerships should:
·	Be publicly announced – detailing their contribution to implementation 
·	Be consistent with national laws and national strategies for implementation 
·	Lead partners should inform national focal points for sustainable development in all involved countries, and bear in mind guidance by governments
·	UN funds, programmes and agencies should conform to their inter-governmentally agreed mandates and should not divert funds from mandated programmes to partnerships.
Information and reporting by partnerships registered to the CSD should be:
·	Transparent
·	Participatory
·	Credible
Registered partnerships to the CSD should take into account:
·	Registration should be voluntary and be based on reporting
·	Reporting should focus on the contribution to implementation
·	Partnerships should preferably report on at least a biennial basis
·	The CSD Secretariat should make information on partnerships available to all interested parties
·	The CSD Secretariat is requested to produce a summary report on partnerships
·	The CSD should consider the contributions of partnerships during the review year. These considerations should inform and provide guidance during the policy year

Projects Update
Population, Poverty & Sustainable Development

  The Stakeholder Forum project, Population and Sustainability, held a seminar in London in May 2003. The seminar attempted to create a neutral space for representatives of the three NGO sectors – development, environment and reproductive health – and others – to come together to discuss issues of common concern, in particular, issues related to poverty eradication and sustainable development, with particular reference to over consumption by populations in some parts of the world and population growth in other parts of the world.
  Persuading the main NGOs to look at population issues remains a major challenge – there remains a great resistance to talking about population issues and their relationship to sustainable development, sustainability and poverty eradication.  These issues might almost be said to be taboo. A recent article in the BMJ (March 2003) by Imre Loefler, editor of the Nairobi Hospital proceedings commented:
  “In Johannesburg they talked about the scarcity of water, land, food, medicines, and education, the disappearance of forests, and the depletion in fish stocks, they talked about trade and sustainable development, and they identified, yet again, poverty, ignorance, disease, and the cussedness of the rich as the factors that keep the poor world poor, make it gradually poorer, destroy the environment and by diminishing hope, increase hate. What they did not talk about was population growth, the demographic entrapment of many countries, and the consequences…there is an international taboo: it is not desirable to talk about population problems.”
  The population of the world is set to rise to 9 billion by the middle of this century. As Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Health, John Guillebaud, University College, London said:
  “Population is not the cause of all ills and problems of the modern world – but it is undeniably the great multiplier of most of them. The Pill is as much an emblem of sustainability as the windmill and the bicycle.”
  There are also issues about population growth in the UK country: an article in the UK Guardian on February 27th 2003 indicated that the UK population could grow to 66 million by 2050 (in contrast to that of some European countries where it is predicted to fall).  The consequent increase in consumption would put even greater pressure on our environment.
  There is growing awareness that the issues of sustainability, population and consumption are inextricably linked: 15% of the world’s population now account for 56% of the world’s consumption, while the poorest 40% account for only 11% (UN, January 2002).  It is therefore essential that discussions about ‘population’ should take account of over-consumption and pollution by the minority world as well as population growth.  The ecological footprint of a child born in the minority world is about 200 times as damaging as that of a child born in the majority world.  
  In line with other work of UNED-UK, the UK arm of Stakeholder Forum, we provided an environment in which to engage a number of stakeholders and to move the debate forward, both nationally and internationally.
  Summary of Key Issues discussed:
How might we to share thinking effectively between the three NGO sectors: development, sexual and reproductive health, and environment?
How to address two of the population issues in a coherent way
over consumption per capita
population growth 
Are the two population issues relevant or irrelevant to poverty, pollution and environmental pressure – both in the minority and majority worlds? 
What are the reasons for the reluctance by policy makers, and the development and environment NGOs, of talking about population issues and how do we address this reluctance?
What is the relation of population issues to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to poverty eradication?
In terms of the consumption debate, how useful are the concepts of carrying capacity and ecological footprint – on what development indices are these based?  What process might be adopted to push forward the consumption debate?
What would be the most effective way of engaging with the development of the new sustainable development strategy (led by DEFRA), to ensure that the issues of population growth and over consumption were reflected in the final text?
  The seminar provoked some lively discussion and a real opening up of the issues.  It is quite clear that it is not easy for representatives from different sectors to work together to develop common ground, but this is essential if we are to develop the ‘joined-up thinking’ that is essential for sustainable development. We will be taking this work forward and will be drawing up a plan which will include the major stakeholders.  
Catherine Budgett-Meakin, Stakeholder Forum & Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust

SD Partnerships
Alleviating poverty: Exploring tomorrow’s markets

  Since December 2002, the WBCSD’s Sustainable Livelihoods project has been probing member companies to find out how they are harnessing their strengths to help the poor and grow their business.
  One of the project’s main thrusts, the creation of business models for poverty alleviation, is rooted in examples from the real world. The WBCSD has been seeking projects that already bring benefits to society, while providing a healthy return.
  “The best way to do this, we have found, is through a link to core business,” said Cameron Rennie, Sustainable Livelihoods Program Manager. “Business ventures to help the poor should not be banished exclusively to the peripheral zone of CSR and philanthropic gestures, as fringe projects tend to remain on the fringe. They only make a small difference to people’s lives, and do next to nothing to improve a company’s profitability.” 
  The project asks companies to concentrate instead on their core competencies. The types of business models it looks for are those that do well while doing good, by providing an innovative product or a service that raises the standard of living for customers and local communities while allowing a company to grow its customer base or its market share.
  Crucially, the Sustainable Livelihoods project has tried in dialogues to identify projects with profit returns. Not in vague PR terms, but in clear commercial benefits. In short, if a project is not financially sustainable, more often than not, it is not sustainable at all. 
  “The types of business models that we want to share are those that do well while doing good, by providing an innovative product or a service that raises the standard of living for customers and local communities while allowing a company to grow its customer base or its market share,” said Rennie.
  The project finds that micro-credit projects, when carefully targeted and well administered, can alleviate poverty significantly. Importantly, success depends not only on infusion of credit but also on investment opportunities. While such projects provide critically needed sustainable income, contributing to better living standards and prosperity for the worker, they also provide companies with access into hitherto unexplored rural hinterland. 
  A company that can succeed in spreading its customer base dilutes business risk. When you don’t depend on a handful of big buyers, losing a customer here and there does not harm your operations. Also, with a direct line to the customer, a strong grassroots brand loyalty can be built up.
  Another key point is the importance of partnerships with other organizations – development NGOs, local authorities etc. - that can help business to identify needs, and ease entry into a new, unexplored market.
  The Sustainable Livelihoods project identifies what is already being done. How do pro-poor projects work? What are the motivations for companies to channel their creative energies in this direction, and what obstacles do they face? Where in your chain of operations does innovation need to take place, if you are to reach the win-win outcome of delivering sustainable livelihoods to people while doing good business?
  Learning from each company, the project is extracting the essential elements in this process in order to create a business model. This will be a generic model, but once the business case for sustainable livelihoods is made, it will then be the job of each individual company to adapt the philosophy to suit its own operations. Always keeping in mind: “What do we do best?”
  A ‘how-to guide’, highlighting the key aspects of tomorrow’s unexplored markets, will be released by the end of the year.
Contact Cameron Rennie: rennie@wbcsd.org

Diary Dates
1 Jun. - 3 Jun.	G8 Summit. Evian-les-Bains, France.Contact: www.g8.fr/evian/english/home.html	
2 Jun. - 6 Jun.	UN Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans & Seas and the Law of the Seas. New York, USA. Contact: www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative_process.htm	
9 Jun. - 13 Jun.	12th Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Florida, US. Contact: doalos@un.org	
4 Jun. - 13 Jun.	UNFCCC SB-18. Bonn, Germany. Contact: www.unfccc.int	
11 Jun. - 13 Jun.	Africa Economic Summit 2003. Durban, South Africa. 
Contact: africasummit@weforum.org	
16 Jun. - 18 Jun. 	WTO Public Symposium: Challenges Ahead on the Road to Canun. Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/symp_devagenda_03_e.htm	
16 Jun. - 19 Jun.	International Expert Meeting on Consumption & Production Patterns. Marrakech, Morocco. Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev	
30 Jun. - 25 Jul.	2003 Substantive Session of ECOSOC. Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecosoc/	
14 Jul. - 18 Jul.	7th Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the Stockholm Convention. Geneva, Switzerland. Contact: ssc@chemicals.unep.ch	
4 Aug. - 8 Aug. 	Pacific SIDS Regional Preparatory Meeting. Apia, Samoa. Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sids/sids.htm	
18 Aug. - 22 Aug.	Caribbean SIDS Regional Preparatory Meeting. Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago. Contact: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sids/sids.htm