NGLS Roundup, No. 74, June 2001

CSD-9 FOCUSES ON ENERGY AND CONVENES WSSD PREPCOM

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) held its ninth session from 16-28 April 2001 in New York. The Commission focused on the issues of energy and atmosphere, the economic theme of transport, and cross-sectoral themes of information for decision making and participation, and international cooperation for an enabling environment. This year's multi-stakeholder dialogue—a unique feature of the CSD that attempts to generate action-oriented dialogue between governments and Major Groups on a specific economic sector—focused on energy and transport for sustainable development.

Various contentious aspects of energy were discussed including nuclear power and the scope of a country to choose its own energy mix; transport of hazardous waste; increasing energy access to rural areas and the poor; the role of the private sector in developing and promoting cleaner technologies; the difference between energy for sustainable development and sustainable energy use; and the use of sustainable development indicators.

While many of the discussions during the Commission hinged on energy-related issues, other pivotal topics that created an underlying sub-text to the session and negotiations were recent setbacks to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change; the need for a new global environmental governance; and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and its role in operationalizing sustainable development. The Summit is taking place ten years after the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Summit.

DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION

The dynamics of the negotiations proved interesting, with demands of powerful oil-producing developing countries in conflict with the needs of some smaller, more fragile developing economies. In general, developed countries pursued a more prescriptive approach to sustainable development and pushed for greater action and responsibility at the national level, sometimes with no corresponding element of international cooperation. Early in the morning of 28 April governments finally agreed to five decisions, which are summarized below.

Energy

In its decision on Energy for Sustainable Development, the Commission stressed the magnitude of energy needs facing the world today, as well as the wide disparities in levels of energy consumption within and between the developed and developing countries. It also emphasized that nearly one-third of the global population, mostly living in developing countries, continues to lack access to energy and transportation services.

When discussing energy policies, governments were encouraged to combine renewable energy, efficient energy use, advanced technologies when using fossil fuel, and sustainable use of traditional energy resources. The decision encourages integration of energy considerations in various programmes as well as development of appropriate energy services, particularly in rural areas, through the most cost-effective, socially acceptable and environmentally friendly technologies.

Among the key issues identified by the decision are accessibility of energy; nuclear energy technologies; rural energy; research and development; capacity building; technology transfer; information sharing and dissemination; mobilization of financial resources; effective use of markets for sustainable development; a multilateral stakeholder approach; public participation; and regional and international cooperation.

Protection of the Atmosphere

The Commission said the Earth's atmosphere must be considered, with oceans and the land surface, as one of the three basic and interacting domains comprising the “global life-support systems.” The Commission recognized that human activities and natural disasters contribute to the build-up of atmospheric substances, which has implications for climate change and climate variability, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, and air pollution. The Commission noted that developed countries have the greatest share in historical accumulation of atmospheric pollutants. The challenges identified in addressing atmospheric issues involve unsustainable consumption patterns, rapid urbanization, and lack of financial and technological resources. The Commission asked the international community to assist in capacity building, research, education and training, as well as in development of cleaner fuels and air pollution abatement technologies, particularly for developing countries. It also encouraged support of regional agreements for improved air quality and control of trans-boundary air pollution.

Information for Decision Making and Participation

On this item, the Commission encouraged international organizations, including international convention secretariats, to rationalize their requests for information with respect to voluntary national reports to avoid duplication and unnecessary burden on countries, particularly developing countries. It also called for strengthening access by developing countries to information on sustainable development and measures to ensure that the commercialization of information does not become a barrier to developing countries. Key issues highlighted by the Commission included: technology transfer, capacity building and adequate and predictable financial resources in modernizing and establishing information systems, particularly in developing countries. In order to improve functioning, coherence and coordination, the Commission called for strengthened access to information on sustainable development and encouraged greater access to the Internet, including for persons with disabilities.

The Commission recognized that any indicators developed under the CSD work programme on indicators of sustainable development are intended only for use by countries at a national level on a voluntary basis and suited to country-specific conditions. It said these should not lead to any type of conditionalities including financial, technical or commercial.

International Cooperation for an Enabling Environment

According to the Commission, a dynamic and enabling international economic environment supportive of international cooperation particularly in the fields of finance, technology transfer, debt, trade and environmental and social issues was needed in the pursuit of sustainable development. The Commission asserted that sustainable development also required good governance within each country at the international level and on transparency in financial, monetary and trading systems. It said this required commitment to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system.

The Commission identified the process of globalization as one of the elements of the international economic environment, and indicated that it presents opportunities as well as challenges and risks for sustainable development. In order for globalization to benefit more people and more countries, the Commission suggested expanding trade, and productive investment, and accompanying technology transfer while protecting the environment, as well as strengthening partnerships between developed and developing countries and between the state and Major Groups, in particular the private sector.

Regarding financial resources, the Commission said that while official development assistance (ODA) continued to be a main source of external funding for developing countries, new and additional funding will be required for sustainable development and implementation of Agenda 21, the action programme agreed at UNCED.

Transport

The decision of the Commission on transport reiterates the relevance of all principles of the Rio Declaration, including the principle of states' common but differentiated responsibilities in view of different contributions to global environmental degradation. The Commission asserted that decisions concerning transport issues should reflect the fact that economic development, social development and environmental protection were interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development. It said that transport should, among other things, be affordable, safe, efficient, environmentally sound, and ensure mobility. It also said transport should be made more available and accessible to women in order to facilitate social and economic progress.

The Commission emphasized the importance of international cooperation and recommended that the international community facilitate the transfer of cleaner technologies, promotion of energy efficiency, and improvement of transport systems for passengers and goods, particularly mass transit; support partnerships between public and private sectors to promote investment in the transport sector and facilitate the introduction of environmentally sound technologies and infrastructure consistent with sustainable development goals; and assist in the progressive phasing-out of the use of lead in gasoline and, consider reducing the levels of sulfur and benzene in fuel as well as particle matter in vehicle exhaust.

At the national level, the Commission recommended governments develop transportation systems that are responsive to development needs, and where affordable reduce negative environmental impacts including through measures to rationalize traffic flows and road structures to manage transportation demand and facilitate the flow of and access to goods; encourage the involvement of the private sector in improvements in efficiency and emission control of each mode of vehicle including the design of cleaner vehicles; promote gender-sensitive planning and planning for the aged and disabled for transport services and systems; and increase participatory, inclusive transport planning approaches that address social needs.

HIGH-LEVEL MEETING

This year's high-level meeting involved a number of ministers from development cooperation, foreign affairs and environment ministries as well as representatives from national governments, the UN system, international organizations and representatives of Major Groups. Contributions, which focused on energy issues, also addressed atmosphere; transport; information for decision making and participation; international cooperation for an enabling environment; and preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

The high-level segment began with a panel on financing energy and transport for sustainable development. It addressed new mechanisms for direct financing; barriers encountered by governments in securing financing and financial assistance they receive; and innovative arrangements for energy and transport financing.

Ian Johnson, Vice-President of the World Bank, said that over time the Bank's policies, priorities and instruments had changed. In the area of energy, the Bank was increasingly moving away from projects toward programmes. He said a “growth area” for the Bank was sustainable rural development and infrastructure for rural development. The impact on poverty reduction was an important element of these, noted Mr. Johnson. With regard to financing for energy and transport, he said the Bank was looking at lending instruments and was pursuing equity investments through its private sector arm.

Mohammed Yunus, Managing Director of the Grameen Bank, cited one of its successful initiatives that had provided mobile telephones to women in Bangladeshi villages. “Information technology, micro-credit and renewable energy,” he said, “have great synergy when brought together.” He observed that the problem in bringing renewable energy sources to the poor was partly technical. If these barriers could be overcome it would have an impact on income generation, information technology, health and participation in globalization.

Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs and panel moderator, said there was a strong focus on decentralized rural energy with local mini-grids becoming more viable. He said energy had a developmental impact and sometimes as a result of rural electrification, roads and education, poverty was decreasing in remote villages.

Mr. Desai said the importance of both private and public financing had been recognized during the panel, and the funding of large-scale transit systems that used a mix of venture capital and loans was also discussed. While several speakers emphasized the importance of developing new sources of energy through wind and solar technologies, others stressed that because those sources were not immediately price competitive with traditional energy sources, additional financing and research were still needed.

General Debate

The main goal of energy for sustainable development should be poverty eradication, according to many governments during the high-level meeting. However, given the diversity of conditions in countries including energy resources, knowledge and experience, many also felt that CSD-9 should not be prescriptive with regard to energy policies and technologies. While it was generally agreed that countries should be free to choose from a “menu” of different options for energy policies, a number of governments spoke out against the nuclear option. Joe Jacob, Minister of State of the Department of Public Enterprise (Ireland) said that nations in pursuit of development should not see nuclear power as a viable choice. Svend Auken, Minister for Environment and Energy (Denmark), suggested developed countries were trying to sell developing countries something that they themselves would not buy. The developed countries were unreasonable, he said, in expecting developing countries to solve problems, such as nuclear waste disposal, which they themselves had not been able to solve for decades. T.R. Baalu, Minister for Environment and Forests of India, argued that there was no need for an international debate on energy as long as countries could safely control their energy sources. Several nations, especially small island developing states (SIDS), also raised concern over transporting nuclear waste across international boundaries and called for compliance with relevant international agreements.

Many governments felt that lack of access to energy was a main cause of poverty. They said improving access of the rural poor to modern energy services had the potential to improve standards of living and health and create new jobs and business opportunities. Some suggested the private sector could play a key role in this regard, but they acknowledged the conflict between social priorities and private investment requirements.

Another key area to sustainable energy use, according to the high-level meeting, was the wide scale development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. It was noted that wind, solar, geothermal and small hydropower represented only about 2% of world energy consumption. A number of governments spoke of success in increasing their use of renewables. Sweden said it had increased its use of wind power by approximately 20% annually over a number of years. Several speakers noted that the key to greater replication of renewable energy technologies included policies to facilitate technology transfer, innovative financing and credit schemes, and providing the right market signals for private sector investment.

Because pollution does not respect national boundaries, governments said transboundary air pollution had to be addressed on a regional and global scale through enhanced and appropriate mechanisms of regional and international cooperation. Almost all delegates expressed their strong belief that the Kyoto Protocol should remain the basis for global cooperation on climate change. A number of delegations used the opportunity to address the recent United States' decision to pull out of the Protocol. Ambassador Juan Gabriel Valdes (Chile) expressed great concern about what he described as certain developed countries abrogating their responsibility for mitigating the greenhouse effect. Francisco Szekely, Deputy Prime Minister for Planning and Environmental Policy in Mexico, re-affirmed his country's commitment to the Protocol and the principle of shared but differentiated responsibility on environmental problems. He said his delegation would oppose any strategy to reopen negotiations on the text of the Protocol. John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said that as a result of nine years of negotiation the Protocol was based on sound principles. He urged developed countries to take the lead regarding climate change and recognize the legitimate demand for industrialization in developing countries.

With regard to indicators for sustainable development, a number of countries expressed appreciation for what they said was the Commission's valuable work in this area. Some countries articulated a willingness and intent to continue this work, with an emphasis on links to national priorities and goals. However, it was made clear that such applications were entirely voluntary in nature and that such indicators should not be used to justify conditionality.

In his closing remarks the Chairperson of the Commission, Bedrich Moldan of the Czech Republic, highlighted key points of the discussion. These included tackling globalization, poverty eradication, energy efficiency and wide-scale development of renewable energy technologies. The main challenge facing governments continued to be access to energy for the nearly two billion people living without it, as well as meeting the transport needs of the poor, he said.

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE ON ENERGY AND TRANSPORT

From 16-18 April 2001, the Commission continued its tradition of including a multi-stakeholder dialogue as part of its official proceedings. The multi-stakeholder dialogue segment involved representatives of business and industry, workers and trade unions, local authorities, scientific and technological communities, and NGOs. They addressed four topics related to energy and transport: achieving equitable access to sustainable energy; choices for producing, distributing and consuming energy; public-private partnerships to achieve sustainable development for transport; and sustainable transport planning—choices and models for human settlement designs and vehicle alternatives.

Lead organizations for dialogue included the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and World Energy Council for business and industry; International Union for Science, and the World Conservation Society (IUCN) for science and technological communities; International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), and Union Advisory Committee to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for workers and trade unions; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives for local authorities; the NGO Caucus for Climate Change and Energy, and the NGO Caucus for Sustainable Transport representing NGOs.

Achieving Equitable Access to Sustainable Energy

This session focused on how clean energy can be increased in an equitable fashion. Business and industry emphasized equitable access to commercial energy services as a means to break the cycle of poverty and improve health and environmental conditions. They outlined concepts of access and noted the need to avoid subsidies that favoured suppliers and those who can afford to pay; the importance of availability in terms of security of service; and the need for acceptability to address social and environmental goals.

Scientists emphasized energy services and contrasted energy use in the North and South. They highlighted the need to modernize fuel technologies, decentralize energy systems, reduce costs and increase research and development and support early deployment in markets.

Workers and trade unions stressed the social dimensions of sustainable development in relation to energy use and access, and highlighted transport-related accidents, the need for reporting mechanisms, the importance of security and of participation in decision making.

NGOs defined sustainable energy as having minimum impacts on social and environmental health. They said fossil fuels are unsustainable, and nuclear energy should be phased out immediately. NGOs were critical of certain government practices that might support unsustainable energy use such as subsidies, tax exemptions, and preferential loans and tariffs.

Local authorities said more investment in clean and renewable energy is needed, and subsidies could play a key role in this.

Sustainable Choices for Producing, Distributing and Consuming Energy

Stakeholders exchanged views on an array of choices for energy sources, and they discussed social and economic costs related to production, consumption and distribution. Renewable energy sources—such as wind, solar, wave, biomass, fuel cells and hydrogen—were supported by all, and most called for increased research and development. Scientists stressed opportunities for “leapfrogging” over old technologies but noted the need for further research on fuel cells and carbon sequestration, as well as shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable sources. Proposals made by the various stakeholders included: supporting the development of renewable sources, especially in rural areas, with a goal of providing 10% of total energy from wind-power by 2020; urging ratification of the Kyoto Protocol before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002; and developing and testing new approaches to internalizing environmental and social costs.

Public-Private Partnerships to Achieve Sustainable Energy for Transport

A representative of the scientific community highlighted cultural differences among the public, private and academic sectors and suggested development of guidelines to assist in overcoming obstacles in the formation of new partnerships. One local authority representative suggested that partnerships could develop if local officials had the power to purchase at the local level where they face less bureaucracy than their national counterparts. Other suggested areas for potential public-private partnerships were development of new infrastructures; introduction of international and local standards; development of non-motorized systems; development of public transportation; transfer of technologies to the developing countries; and increased fuel efficiency. It was also suggested that governments, public agencies and private companies could make use of a range of instruments—such as parking charges, road pricing and fuel taxation—to internalize the costs of transport on the environment and people.

Sustainable Transport Planning: Choices and Models for Human Settlement Designs and Vehicle Alternatives

This segment looked at how to design walkable, liveable and healthier neighbourhoods, improve transport systems in towns and cities, and promote vehicle and transport alternatives.

Business and industry suggested three areas for improvements in planning: innovative technologies; improving driving behaviour and logistics; and eliminating congestion and bottlenecks. They said incentives were key to changing business practices, and suggested that traffic congestion could be reduced if business received an economic incentive to transport goods at night.

NGOs stressed that transport services had many negative impacts and caused numerous problems. While it was necessary to maintain adequate access to urban centers, it was also desirable to reduce the overall need for transport. Public transportation was central to this approach, but it faced barriers including high costs, perverse pricing, and the absence of appropriate jurisdiction.

Other suggestions for governments to consider included democratizing investment decisions; reducing the use of motorized vehicles for routine activities; increasing local authorities' control over planning; and integration of changing demographics and appropriate prices, regulations, practices and standards into transportation planning.

WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PREPCOM

The Commission on Sustainable Development, acting as the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held its first organizational session from 30 April to 2 May following the conclusion of CSD-9.

The session elected a Bureau composed of ten members (Indonesia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Egypt, Jamaica, Nigeria, Romania, Sweden and South Africa, with Indonesia as Chair); it considered progress in preparatory activities at the local, national, subregional, regional and international levels, as well as by Major Groups; decided on the specific arrangements of its future preparatory meetings; and considered a process for setting the agenda and determining possible main themes for the Summit.

Mr. Desai set the tone for the PrepCom when he opened it by asking a number of questions: Have we really come to grips with the implementation of sustainable development? Do we really know what it means in operational terms, and what does operational mean? To what extent can we talk of operationalization at the global level? Is the operationalization of sustainable development something that will have to be done much more at a local, national or regional level because of the varying conditions in countries?

He also highlighted a couple of issues that he said the PrepCom should keep in mind during its work. First the world did not look the same as it did during UNCED, and in the following ten years the world had undergone many changes as a result of globalization and the integration of economies. Second, there was a trend toward connecting the sustainable development agenda with the emerging agenda on poverty eradication. Mr. Desai said that in large part the poverty eradication agenda focused on individuals, whereas sustainable development can contribute by its focus on resources.

The following is a summary of the five decisions taken by the PrepCom.

In Decision One on progress in the preparatory activities at the local, national, regional and international levels as well as by Major Groups, the PrepCom invited the secretariat to prepare documentation for the next session. The documentation would focus on trends in, and constraints to, implementation of Agenda 21 at all levels; actions undertaken by the UN system and other international organizations in assisting developing countries implement Agenda 21; progress made concerning the contribution of Major Groups in the implementation of Agenda 21; and implementation of the main decisions and recommendations of CSD in the period 1993-2001. The PrepCom also decided to take into account results of the Millennium Assembly, the International Conference on Financing for Development, the Third UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries, meetings of the Conference of Parties of UNCED-related and other relevant global conventions, and the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The PrepCom encouraged further preparatory initiatives by Major Groups, particularly those that would result in new partnerships and commitments to sustainable development.

As outlined in Decision Two on specific modalities of future sessions of the Preparatory Committee, it was decided that the second PrepCom will take place in New York from 28 January to 8 February 2002. It will, among other things, undertake a comprehensive review and assessment of progress achieved in implementation of Agenda 21 and other outcomes of UNCED. On this basis, the Chairperson of the PrepCom will prepare a draft document for further consideration by the Committee, and focus on major accomplishments and lessons learned in  implementation of Agenda 21 as well as constraints hindering its implementation. A paper by the Chair will propose specific time-bound measures to be undertaken, institutional and financial requirements, and identify the sources of such support.

The third PrepCom will take place in New York from 25 March to 5 April 2002 and will continue consideration of the Chair's paper and other inputs. This PrepCom is expected to agree on the text of a document containing results of the review and assessment, as well as conclusions and recommendations for further action. In addition, there should be a proposal regarding the provisional agenda and possible main themes for the Summit.

The fourth and final preparatory session will be held at the ministerial level in Indonesia from 27 May to 7 June 2002. It will be responsible for preparing a concise and focused document that should emphasize the need for a global partnership to achieve the objectives of sustainable development. It should “invigorate,” at the highest political level, the global commitment to a North-South partnership and a higher level of international solidarity for the accelerated implementation of Agenda 21. This PrepCom will include a two-day multi-stakeholder dialogue segment to be held during the early part of the session, and a three-day high-level segment at the ministerial level to be held toward the end.

Decision Three of the PrepCom on tentative organization of work during the WSSD recommends that the Summit take place in Johannesburg from 2-11 September 2002, with participation at the level of heads of state or government from 9-11 September. Some elements of the tentative organization of work are as follows: plenary including a series of partnership events on topics to be recommended by the Bureau, involving NGOs and other Major Groups accredited to the Summit; general debate among heads of state or government; a short multi-stakeholder event involving the highest level of representation from both Major Groups and governments; and a main committee to consider all outstanding matters related to the draft final documents of the Summit. Several roundtables at the level of heads of state or government will also be organized in parallel with the general debate, and will consider topics to be recommended by the Bureau.

In Decision Four on provisional Rules of Procedure of the WSSD the PrepCom recommended that the General Assembly at its 56th session adopt the provisional rules of procedure as outlined in the document E/CN.17/2001/PC/24. These include duties of the secretariat, list of speakers, and participation of intergovernmental organizations.

Decision Five, on arrangements for accreditation and participation in the preparatory process and in the Summit of relevant NGOs and other Major Groups, states that NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC must inform the secretariat and register to participate. However they need only do this on one occasion and not for each meeting. Those NGOs and other Major Groups without ECOSOC consultative status need to apply to the secretariat for that purpose (see contact list). The deadline for submitting accreditation applications is four weeks before the start of each PrepCom meeting; applications will be processed and evaluated by the secretariat and then forwarded to the PrepCom for a final decision. Once accredited, NGOs will be accredited for the entire process.

On matters of participation during sessions of the PrepCom NGOs and other Major Groups will participate in the same way they have participated in the meetings of the CSD. This will allow for brief interventions to the PrepCom and its subsidiary bodies whether through caucuses, coalitions or organizations. As mentioned above, there will also be opportunities to participate through multi-stakeholder dialogue segments.

The PrepCom also took decisions on preliminary modalities for participation in the Summit. These state that accredited NGOs and other Major Groups will have direct access to the official Summit venue, with limits placed on certain days. A small but representative number of representatives of accredited NGOs and other groups will be invited to address the Summit during part of the plenary, through the self-organized mechanisms of the Major Groups.

The Summit secretariat has also been asked to facilitate the funding of participants from Major Groups from developing countries and countries in transition in the multi-stakeholder dialogues during the PrepComs and the Summit.

Contact: Zehra Aydin-Sipos, Major Groups Programme Coordinator, Division for Sustainable Development, DESA, 2 United Nations Plaza, DC2-22nd Floor, New York NY 10017, United States, telephone +1-212/963 8811, fax +1-212/963 4260, e-mail <aydin@un.org>, website (www.un.org/esa/sustdev).

NGO PANEL ON GLOBAL COMPACT

NGOs preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development convened a panel discussion on 24 April 2001 in New York. The panel, entitled UN-Corporate Partnerships: Dangers and Opportunities on the Road to Rio+10, was sponsored by Corporate Watch and the NGO Corporate Accountability Caucus. Speakers included Sonia Leonce, Minister Counsellor of the government of St. Lucia; Gemma Adaba, representative of the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU); and Kenny Bruno of Corporate Watch.

Ms. Leonce highlighted the importance most governments place on attracting transnational corporations (TNCs) to locate and invest in their countries. She emphasized the importance for governments to find a way to engage with corporations in a constructive manner. She noted, however, that in many cases TNCs were more powerful and had more resources than governments themselves, so they could exert extraordinary pressure on policy decisions.

“TNCs are global now,” she said, “so there needs to be a global discussion in the context of the global economy.”

Ms. Leonce felt the UN could be helpful as a counterbalance, as long as agreements with corporations did not compromise the credibility of the UN and intergovernmental processes. She said the Global Compact, launched by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July 2000 (see Go Between 76), needed to be supported by measures that would force corporations to go beyond voluntary measures and ensure that they were held accountable. She cited the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and now disbanded United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) as examples of UN bodies that had made efforts to evaluate corporations. In the context of financing for development discussions, she said, governments were proposing a strengthening of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as well as establishment of a new UNCTC to monitor and assess corporations proposing to be development partners with the UN.

Ms. Adaba underscored many of the problems that workers are facing in the context of globalization, particularly in situations of weak national governance where she said TNCs dictate social and economic policy and treatment of workers. Ms. Adaba noted that the ICFTU supported regulatory frameworks and saw the Global Compact as an opportunity for the further elaboration of codes of conduct. The UN, while somewhat effective in bringing together corporations, civil society and governments, had to accompany its policy dialogues and best practices model with stronger measures to force companies to adhere to the nine human rights, labour rights and environmental principles laid out in the Global Compact. Self-regulation and voluntary measures by TNCs, she said, were not sufficient.

Mr. Bruno of Corporate Watch, which serves as secretariat of the Alliance for a Corporate-Free United Nations, expressed direct opposition to the Global Compact and other UN-corporate partnerships. He said there was no clear definition of the word “partnership” and while goals might overlap in the short-term, the ultimate goal of all TNCs was profit.

He said that in the case of the Global Compact, dozens of corporations on the initial list were notorious violators of human rights and environmental standards. Mr. Bruno noted there was no monitoring of their adherence to the nine principles and no enforcement from the UN side. In fact, he pointed out, groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) had insisted that this was a prerequisite for their participation.

Both groups, according to Mr. Bruno, lobbied heavily at the Rio Summit to remove any mention of corporate responsibility for environmental problems from the major agreements. They had consistently maintained that voluntary measures and corporate self-regulation were the key solutions to environmental crises. By forming the Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD), he said they will continue to promote this standpoint at the WSSD.

Mr. Bruno observed that nine years after the Rio Summit there had been no major advances under Agenda 21, and environment and sustainable development had been sidelined in the international arena while free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization (WTO) had emerged as a dominant force. He said that rather than endorsing the WTO vision of corporate globalization, the UN should serve as a counterbalance and bolster its ability to hold TNCs accountable to environmental standards, labour and human rights.

Georg Kell, Senior Officer of the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, responded to Mr. Bruno by stressing that the Global Compact was a “learning model” and not a “compliance model.” He said Mr. Annan had proposed the initiative because social and human rights concerns were missing from economic discussions, and because of governance failure at the national and international levels.

Contact: CorpWatch, PO Box 29344, San Francisco CA 94129, United States, telephone +1-415/561 6568, fax +1-415/561 6493, e-mail <corpwatch@corpwatch.org>, website (www.corpwatch.org).

Georg Kell, Senior Officer, Executive Office of the Secretary-General, Room S-3855C, United Nations, New York NY 10017, United States, telephone +1-212/963 1490, fax +1-212/963 2155, e-mail <kell@un.org>, website (www.unglobalcompact.org).

UNEP MEETING ON GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Parallel to the CSD, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened its first meeting of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or their Representatives on International Environmental Governance (IEG). The meeting, held on 18 April 2001 at UN headquarters, was attended by 93 countries including 31 at the ministerial level. UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer introduced a report on International Environmental Governance (UNEP/IGM/1/2), which concludes that international institutional architecture dealing with the environment must be strengthened. The report says the proliferation of structures, agreements and conferences had resulted in burdensome requirements for countries, particularly developing countries.

Mr. Töpfer outlined the report and discussed efforts taken within recent years by the UN toward reform and revitalization, as well as the need to ensure synergies among all institutional arrangements involved in international environmental governance. He emphasized that the process envisaged by the UNEP Governing Council would ensure an input to the preparatory process for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

The report indicates that any new model of international environmental governance must be predicated on the need for sustainable development that meets social, economic and environmental requirements. Such an approach would need to take into account issues of credibility and the universal commitment of all states; authority and an institutional mandate that is not challenged; financing that is “adequate, stable and predictable,” and the participation of all actors and incorporation of their views in decision making.

The report outlines options both at the level of organizational structures and at the level of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to strengthen international environmental governance, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

At the organizational level, according to the report, the main issue has been the need to improve the positive environmental impact of interventions either by addressing conflicting goals of large multilateral and bilateral bodies that have a negative impact on the environment, or developing a stronger agency for governing the global environment. Some options or suggestions in the reported include: establish a counterpart environmental body to the World Trade Organization (WTO); upgrade UNEP from a UN programme to a fully-fledged specialized agency; transform the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) into a Council on Sustainable Development; transform the UN Trusteeship Council into the main forum for global environment matters, with the CSD reporting to an Economic Security Council rather than ECOSOC; and establish a new environmental court.

Coordination among organizations and structures dealing with environmental issues received detailed consideration in the report, as did the need for new tools and mechanisms. Ideas that were suggested included: establish a dispute settlement scheme for trade-related environmental issues, independent of the rule-making and negotiating functions of the WTO; and utilize UNEP's Global Ministerial Environment Forum for setting broad policy guidelines for international action on the environment.

According to the report the overriding issue concerning MEAs is the fragmented manner in which they operate, due in large part to lack of coordination. Therefore, countries have found it more difficult to implement commitments made under existing agreements. Currently MEA secretariats are dispersed between Montreal, Geneva and Bonn, with additional venues for Conferences of Parties (COPs) and their subsidiary bodies. “Co-locating” secretariats of agreements and developing umbrella conventions were two suggestions to deal with this.

The report addresses what it says is the lack of effective implementation of MEAs; some have pointed to the need for more financial measures and incentives, particularly for developing countries. Examples of incentives and measures that could improve compliance are: additional financing; adoption of a centralized reporting process for the different agreements; action to make some agreements enforceable for non-signatories; and drafting of a legal instrument on economic instruments to promote the implementation of all multilateral environmental agreements.

In discussing the report, governments expressed their appreciation to Mr. Töpfer for raising issues related to international environmental governance. A number said that the problem of governance would not be solved through the creation of new institutions, but through changing the roles of existing ones, and particularly raising the status of UNEP.

In summarizing the consensus that emerged, moderator Raoul Estrada (Argentina) said that governments needed a better definition of international environmental governance within the broad concept of sustainable development that would be evolutionary in nature. It was suggested that this should be a topic of discussion at CSD-10.

There was also need for government ministries, in addition to those of the environment, to participate in the debate as a result of the interconnectedness of issues related to sustainable development. Greater effort was required to facilitate the involvement and participation of developing countries through increased financing and improved scheduling of meetings. There was general support for the effective participation of stakeholders (other than governments) in the process, and the need to facilitate adequate representation of civil society from developing countries.

On the role of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers, governments suggested it needed to be linked with the CSD and particularly with preparations for World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Group of 77 and China expressed a preference to hold future meetings in New York, as all developing countries have representation there. However, the European Union preferred having future meetings coincide with already-scheduled international events. Some delegations expressed a preference to hold meetings at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi; Algeria also offered to host a meeting.

The tentative schedule for future meetings is as follows: mid-July 2001 (Bonn); late September/early October (to be held in a developing country); and late November (Montreal).

This edition of NGLS Roundup was prepared by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS). The NGLS Roundup is produced for NGOs and others interested in the institutions, policies and activities of the UN system and is not an official record.