During the past decade the roles and perceptions of NGOs, indeed of all non-state actors, including the new category of "major groups," have evolved dramatically. In sustainable development, NGOs have shifted from being critics to being accepted as co-creators and partners of sustainable development, bringing analysis, expertise and solutions to the political discussions. They can link local action to the global process. The CSD has been very progressive in involving non-governmental actors in its process and in this way has introduced the UN and other intergovernmental systems to the NGOs and vice versa.
In this section the INTGLIM report discusses the survey assessment about the positive developments relating to NGOs and major groups in the CSD and in UN fora dealing with sustainable development. However, after the survey was completed, later in 1996, a major reversal began, initiated primarily by the United States opposition to granting NGOs and major groups any formal participatory role in the Earth Summit+5, the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly to Review and Appraise the Implementation of Agenda 21. The second chapter of this section deals with this offensive and dangerous development. Lastly, in a third chapter, the INTGLIM report raises serious political, legal, even conceptual, complications arising out of the confusion over the definitions, roles, and relationships between NGOs and "major groups." The confusion now threatens to contribute to the forces seeking to halt, even reverse important advances in the UN by non-state actors.
Comments from Governments:
"The contributions in Rio were landmark, and they have inspired the idea of partnership and I think the NGOs have made true the promise of being good partners. We have always had NGOs on our delegations and we will continue to do that, because they have been very helpful. At the international level they have played a very important role." Evans King
"I think NGO involvement is being regarded as a major success. And that is something we ought to be careful not to lose. There is a feeling among NGOs that the CSD is losing its attractiveness (but).. I think Agenda 21 is one of the most famous, probably the most well known, documents of the UN. (As) the Swedish delegate pointed out today, local Agenda 21s come up everywhere, so that means people know what Agenda 21 is." Chris Tompkins
"Governments, during the whole process of the preparation to UNCED and UNCED itself and the follow up, have said that the input of the NGO community is very important. And I think that that is true, because they have been able to influence what delegations said and thought not only by speaking during sessions, but also by talking to them in informal meetings and by publishing their newsletters, etc. So on the one hand it is a refreshing innovation in the UN system, on the other hand, NGOs suffer from the same problem that a lot of countries suffer from: they have to coordinate. And since they don't have the means to coordinate in advance, they have to coordinate on the spot. And what you see is that a lot of NGOs come to New York for the CSD meeting, see each other for the first time maybe at the start of this meeting and directly have the problem of coordination. They have to speak out on issues even if they have not been able to coordinate among themselves what they are going to say. That being so, I think that most, if not all, of the CSD members feel that we should continue to have input of the major groups and at least the EU has taken the point of view that there should be institutional arrangements to secure that." Herman Verheij
From Secretariat sources:
"On the average, if you would have asked me if it would be possible for NGOs to organize themselvesin a meaningful way to contribute to CSD, I would have a lot of doubts. But we went a long way from there, because NGOs managed to recognize themselves and we haven't had a scandal that '200 NGOs want to speak NOW and if they don't get the right to speak then the chairman is a fascist', which has happened before..... What was a disappointment in last session is that there were so many NGO activities that they didn't get too much attention separately..... But what I liked was that NGOs were allowed to make comments before they went into actual drafting... And it is very helpful for both the countries and the secretariat to pick up that point, and keep it in mind in the draft. When it is done in a systematic way, countries can accept that. Four years ago, they probably wouldn't have allowed for that."
"They need to get back to the original issues. This year too many NGOs working on too many of their own stuff. The networking is better, but they tend to network more amongst themselves. They should continue to see the CSD as a policy making forum in stead of a parallel event for NGOs...They must not forget that this is also about bringing in expertise and experiences." Senior DPCSD official
"NGOs have been very heavily involved in the whole political process. One of the successes is that they very clearly have influenced policy and decision making....I don't really know what "civil society" is. It's some kind of unorganized community that hasn't been defined (or hasn't been defining itself) very well." Barbara Adams
"The way the NGOs were involved in the second session of the IPF was a real success. Participate actively, come up with statements, organize themselves around the issues, comment on the drafts. They can't come up with drafting suggestions, but the fact that they got to speak first was influential." Frits Schlingemann
"The involvement of major groups has been excellent and has gotten a lot of attention. Every year we send out guidelines for input to the major groups and I must say that we often get better input from the major groups then from the governments. They meet their deadlines. On our side, we have a very positive assessment of what they are capable of doing." Joke Waller-Hunter
NGOs:
"I'd like to believe that, overall, the NGO participation has been a good thing and that it has had a positive impact, but I think that, unfortunately, the process is not accessible to NGOs. Even if we were allowed to speak in the plenaries, governments hardly listen to each other, so what are they going to do when NGOs get the floor? ... NGOs, historically, are the ones who can make governments be more accountable. It is of no use to just attend the meetings and listen quietly to all the speeches. A lot of that has to happen at the national level. It's not easy but as NGOs we haven't been as strategic as we should be." (emphasis added by authors.) Inji Islam
"NGOs have become vested interest groups. They have started to occupy a certain space and are now politicizing that. INTGLIM interviewer 'Does that mean that these clients should have an actual place at the negotiating table and maybe even be allowed to vote?' "No, we should not mix the functions. If we are helping to be representatives, we should make use of our resources, be a partner, but we are not chosen by our constituencies. We should be able to vote, however, in a higher sort of forum where all the stakeholders are brought together on an equal basis. But that is a totally different forum. 'Like what?' Not in a political forum. It should be a sustainable development forum, where public and political interest are merged. But again, we don't have the legitimacy to vote." Juni Kalaw
"I would have expected as a result of the EarthSummit a more independent process whereby NGOs in some ways networked and set up a support structure to assist each other in a much more regularized manner than has occurred. NGOs come together in the context of the conference, and see each other at the next meeting. There is a lot of networking going on, but there should be a lot more 'getting together' in between.
"NGOs should set their own agenda. There has been the success though of incredible learning processes and relationships in the post-UNCED process (between... Southern and Northern NGOs. Despite the existence of 9 major groups, the NGOs by far have been the most active, but the industry is still the most influential. Industry doesn't feel the need to be visible.
"There are far too few NGOs on government delegations, its surprising to see how that still is not the norm. And of the few countries who do it, there are many who do it as 'window dressing'...Another failure of Earth Summit: TNCs are not held accountable, although they have very adverse effects on sustainable development. I would very much like to see this as an issue for 97." Cliff Curtis
"UNCED NGOs have not really fulfilled their promise. They cleared the path for other NGOs to get access to the UN, but they were so caught up in getting access that they haven't done a lot on the subjects since." Pamela Chasek
"One of the problems has been the lack of turn up from industrialists. They have turned up hen areas of concern for them have been discussed (obviously, forests, oceans - oil people). There are problems there. We need a code of conduct leading to a legally binding agreement for TNCs. We need to involve them in the process, because if we don't they will show up at a moment when they feel the process is going to impact them and just be destructive.
As far as involving other major groups, I think it has worked quite well. We had quite a lot trade unionists here, for example.... NGO-government plenaries should have a bigger role, and maybe industrialists would show up." Felix Dodds
"The biggest failure, and it is a grievous one, is that we haven't made sustainability and Agenda 21 a kind of constituent issue among enough people in our own countries. Until that is done, the CSD will never move on." Michael McCoy
"Of course the sources are limited for the NGOs to get constantly involved in the CSD... The feeling is that necessary participation must be increased by a heightened circulation of information, to find focal points on the regional and sub-regional level. In some countries in Eastern Europe, civil society is not very conscious of the topic, citizens don't have enough information. Again, there is a big role for the media, Also, it continues to be an 'elitist' knowledge." Erszebet Schmuck
"The problem of the participation of NGOs is that we are allowed very little space and if we are allowed space they act like it is a favor. NGO participation should somehow be equilibrated within the negotiations. Lets stop running after the delegates, but lets have the right to present our papers officially and lets have the right to a certain quota of intervention time, say by region or by whatever. It should be balanced.
"Very few NGOs from the South have achieved this. It should be encouraged and maybe there could be a recommendation from the CSD to all governments. Delegations in the South are really willing to have input from NGOs, but it seems as if they are ashamed to have us. They say that this is the partnership that we are calling for. It is not a shame for an NGO to give advice to a government." Ibrahim Magdi
"The role of NGOs is to let governments know that they are being watched and that public opinion is being shaped. To get an information flow going and to always know that influencing is not the same as making a decision. Of course you are part of the process, but we have to be very careful not too start thinking that we can take over decision-making. That's also not what we want, because we want the state to be more accountable. NGOs should not forget their original role." Chee Yoke Ling
Thus, not without self-criticism, NGOs and major groups are continuing to make progress in the CSD, though much still needs to be done.
The final comments from senior DPCSD officials.
"There is a problem with NGOs looking at themselves and at their work introspectively almost. They don't see the participatory and institutional precedents that they have set....there has been a great deal of progress....However on the national level...a lot still needs to be done. There are relatively very few national coordination mechanisms that include major groups and if they do, they don't include all of them." Zehra Aydin
"The involvement of major groups has been excellent and has gotten a lot of attention. Every year we send out guidelines for input from the major groups and I must say that we often get better input from the major groups than from the governments. They meet their deadlines. On our side, we have a very positive assessment of what they are capable of doing." Joke Waller-Hunter
INTGLIM Recommendations
NGOs' possibilities for participation and involvement at the international level increased dramatically between the Earth Summit in 1992 and the Habitat II conference in 1996. However, by early 1997 there are indications that within and among even the most progressive governments there are forces seeking to curtail the involvement of NGOs and major groups in the UN. It is a confusing and complex picture. For while expansion of NGO and major group involvement in some areas of the UN is still developing and expanding, in the most important forum, the General Assembly, it is being blocked. There are many explanations for the turnaround: Conference fatigue, reactions by some governments, UN staff and NGOs against the unprecedented involvement of NGOs in UN conferences. The near bankruptcy of UN caused primarily by the United States has placed terrible stresses on all processes in the UN. Fear of being overwhelmed by thousands of new NGOs wanting access to the UN. Pressures to downsize, privatize. False, but real reactions against so-called "Western values" such as NGO rights and individual human rights.
But, mostly, this crisis is being caused by the fact that, in the UN, the follow-up, implementation, and review of world conferences is occurring in the General Assembly. And if governments are going to honor their commitments, they must grant rights of access and participation to NGOs in the General Assembly, something they are refusing to do. This is a potential disaster for governments, NGOs, and the UN.
Ironically, the Earth Summit+5 Special Session is becoming a key test of whether governments are beginning to reduce the rights of involvement of NGOs in the UN. Governments who strongly supported the involvement of NGOs in UNCED and other world conferences, including the USA and European Union, are now leading the efforts to block formal NGO participation in the Special Session. Blocking NGO participation in the follow-up and implementation process is in absolute contradiction to literally thousands of speeches and promises made by governments during the last six years. One of the clearest formulations of these commitments was made by governments in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21, 38.42-44:
"Non-governmental organizations and major groups are important partners in the implementation of Agenda 21. Relevant NGOs ....should be given opportunities to make their contributions and establish appropriate relationships with the United Nations system..." Specific references are made to ehancing NGO rights in "the General Assembly," and throughout the "United Nations system," "including international finance and development agencies," and in "the process established to review and evaluate the implementation of Agenda 21." Agenda 21 38.42-44
Part of the problem is, we believe, ignorance which results from the fact that many government representatives - who are assigned to UN missions for only two to three years and then leave - simply do not understand the rules, practices, and precedents of NGO involvement. The governments are, for example, refusing to adopt special arrangements for NGO participation in the GA Special Session, a practice that has occurred before.
Another aspect of the problem is political. Many governments, including the USA, other permanent members of the Security Council, apparently the EU, and powerful regressive countries in the South, have political objections to extending NGO rights to the General Assembly, even to special sessions. While many accept the value of NGO involvement in the economic and social fields, even in the GA, they are less willing to agree to NGOs becoming more involved in other areas of work of the General Assembly, such as peace, security, disarmament, international law, financial matters. (Even though, while the GA rules are silent on the question, NGOs have been attending and contributing to the work of the GA in these areas for 50 years).
Thus, during the 51st General Assembly, efforts to grant NGOs any formal role in the Earth Summit+5 Special Session have been blocked, and NGOs and major groups will be restricted to panel discussions, informal dialogues and other modalities as long as they do not set precedents in the GA or require a change in GA rules.
The 51st GA has created a "Sub-Group on NGOs" in the Open-ended Working Group on Strengthening the UN System to address this issue. But, reportedly in its first meeting only 5-6 governments (Mexico, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Malaysia, Republic of Korea) agreed to the proposal to let NGOs monitor its negotiations; the rest opposed. This action and other statements by governments in the Sub-group have raised genuine concerns among NGOs that not only will arrangements in the GA be stymied, but governments are making proposals which could drastically reduce and diminish existing NGO rights and practices in the GA and UN.
NGOs must understand the seriousness of this crisis. Right now, major issues involved in the follow-up to Agenda 21 and other actions plans adopted in the world conferences are being debated in four of the five High-Level Open-ended Working Groups of the General Assembly. Yet, all are closed to NGO attendance, much less participation. It represents unacceptable hypocrisy.
Governments have decided to conduct reviews, follow-ups, and are even proposing that the next generation of UN conferences should be held as special sessions of the GA, but governments have not agreed to extend NGO rights of access and participation to the General Assembly. This is in direct contradiction of their commitments in part VII of resolution 1996/31 dealing with UN conferences which was adopted, after three years of negotiations, in July 1996.
If NGOs are prevented from any formal involvement in Earth Summit+5, the same could prevail for the next 5 review conferences on human rights, social development, population, advancement of women and Habitat. This is unacceptable. It would be tragic, indeed, if the fora where NGOs made there most important gains during the last decade is the one where the process of dimunition begins. It would be unfortunate if this issue spills over to disrupt and undermine the Earth Summit+5 Special Session.
The INTGLIM report strongly endorses proposals made recently by many other NGOs, that governments should apply, in principle, the arrangements called for in part VII of 1996/31 to special sessions. Anything less is reneging on solemn commitments made during the last decade.
INTGLIM Recommendations
Particularly in the context of the preceding section, proposing rights of participation for new, admittedly vague and controversial categories, such as "major groups," "stakeholders," "civil society organizations," is arguably making the situation worse. It is challenging enough to be fighting for enhanced rights of access and participation for NGOs, an entity governments understand. To try to secure new legal rights for eight or nine additional entities in the process is proving counterproductive.
The problem first surfaced in the NGO Review, where the Secretary-General's report, Canada and some NGOs tried to introduce new language referring to "major groups," "civil society," and "stakeholders", etc. Most believe this effort seriously backfired. Now as the issue comes before the new Sub-Group, whose representatives are the same and worse than those in the NGO Review, it is even more important that those promoting the major group concept understand its potential for confusing and cancelling out existing rights of NGOs. In other words, as a clearly defined, legal concept, the idea of "Major Groups" needs to evolve for a number of years, especially in sympathetic political environments such as the CSD, before one can reasonably expect it to be embraced by the General Assembly.
In the broad legal context of the Charter, three major types of organizations interact: the member nation-states governments, international organizations composed by nation-states (IOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Of course, there are great diversities in each category, but the incredible breadth of scope of NGOs almost defies imagination. But, in a legal sense, NGOs are those organizations who have been vetted and accredited by some UN process; by governments, UN agencies or the Secretariat. It is the need for this vetting process which is going to cause the greatest challenge for "accreditation" of "major groups."
The CSD and Special Session could explore ways to correct the misunderstandings and contradictions caused by conceptual inconsistencies in Section 3 of Agenda 21 "Strengthening the Role of Major Groups." Quite frankly, the Major Group conceptualization during UNCED was somewhat flawed. In the preamble of the Major Group section and in other chapters of Agenda 21, NGOs are treated in an overarching and general way, an umbrella for major groups. But they are also treated as a special and separate class in chapter 27, as only one of the major groups - representing non-profit, multi-purpose organizations and others needing to be addressed in the section.
The following example, for instance, exemplifies the confusion. One can imagine a young indigenous woman worker, conducting research on her small farm, who is a member of a local town council. This woman could represent 9 of the 9 major groups, and presumably attend and vote in all the caucuses. But, many major international NGOs with tens of millions of members, like the World Council of Churches or YWCA, are just an NGO, but otherwise unrepresented by any "major group."
Finally, some argue that the definitions of Major Groups should be modified and possibly expanded. For example, representatives of the education community, religious community, parliamentarians, and elderly have requested to be added to the list of major groups.
The INTGLIM report is not advocating that Major Groups be merged back into the NGO category, but that the concepts should not promoted in ways that brings the two "groupings" into conflict.
For the immediate future, in the "accrediting" bodies and processes of the UN, it should be accepted that, as a rule, Major Groups and their representatives should come in as NGOs. In this way, 23.3 of Agenda-21 can be realized.
INTGLIM Recommendations
Industry and business comprise one of the nine major groups that were defined in Chapters 24 through 32 of Agenda 21. They are therefore officially recognized as a group that could and should participate in the CSD process. However, in reality, this hasn't always led to the fruitful cooperation Agenda 21 had in mind. Not only are business and industry important in this process because they constitute a part of society that is affected by Agenda 21, but it is also the part of society that has major influence on the outcome of the overall process. Since Rio, official development assistance has declined but private investment in developing countries has increased, albeit only in a limited number of countries.
UN officials and staff:
"Industry is delivering very well on sustainable development, generally speaking. Their input into the CSD directly is rather limited, but then again, what do they get out of it? If it is not interesting for them to come to the meetings, just to make a five minute statement, there is no use... We have a good working relationship with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development." Joke Waller-Hunter
"The TNCs should be participating in the deliberations and they should be questioned in these debates on issues relevant to what they do. When you are talking about trade and environment, then there should be representatives present, who should be put on the spot right that moment." Frits Schlingemann
NGOs:
"Transnationals have quite enough influence on governments and the rest of the world as it is. What is more important is to have more contact with small and medium sized businesses. That is where I think that we as NGOs can actually do something directly. As for TNCs, I think that that needs to be done through a stronger contact with the World Bank and WTO. Maybe that is where a revival of the codes of conduct for TNCs would be worthwhile. Maybe we should start with these codes of conduct in areas where TNCs are actually asking for such a code. For example in chemicals." Michael McCoy
"I think business should be here. A lot of people say: "Oh, I don't want business here", but I think that this is the place to flush them out. If business came here and started to take it seriously and started making public statements, we would know what they were saying, and we don't know what they are saying or doing right now. That would be a real opportunity for public accountability that we don't have right now. If we could create that, it would be a great public service." Peter Padbury
"I agree on the principle that TNCs have played a negative role in destructing local economies in the South, but I also think that there are TNCs who are of better will than others. Perhaps we could not exclude them totally, but admit them as observers, so that a certain dialogue can be started. It is not by excluding people that we will be able to challenge their position." Ibrahim Magli
"Unfortunately we can't keep them out, but I don't think that they should be recognized in the same way as NGOs. They are a major group, but they are distinct from NGOs. At the CSD they should be identified as industrial groups. What so many people worry about is that they will go around posing as NGOs, while in reality they have a very different agenda." Inji Islam
NGO representatives were, more often than not, frustrated with the participation of business and industry representatives. Though each are part of the major group category, they do not have a history of cooperating very well. The degree in which people were willing to solve this dilemma, however, varied greatly. Felix Dodds, of UNED-UK, for example, envisioned that letting the business community in and involving them in the process could only have good results:
"One of our problems has been the lack of turn up from industrialists... We need a code of conduct leading to a legally binding agreement for TNCs. We need to involve them in the process, because if we don't, they will turn up at a moment when they feel the process is going to impact them and just be destructive." Felix Dodds
The fact that the business and industry sector is so influential, was a very powerful argument for others not to involve them at an early stage. Some were afraid that letting industry and business into their meetings, would give that sector an advantage over the NGOs, as NGOs are left in the dark about the motives of the industrialists.
"TNCs are influencing anyway, and I don't think that we should be worried about how to involve them. Our concern in pushing for openness is to bring out the unevenness in influencing decision-making...There is a distinction between business in general and TNCs in particular. Some groups already work with local businesses, but you can't expect local groups in areas where TNCs are very influential, to sit around the table and negotiate...Firstly, you need to understand that we are not powerful. TNCs are, on occasion, more powerful than governments. Secondly, they are not inviting us to their negotiations. We want the governments to hold them accountable." Chee Yoke Ling
Government representatives
The government delegates we talked to either did not think that there was a problem, or they chose to emphasize the fact that the business community should show some initiative to work with the CSD in achieving overall Agenda 21 goals.
"I think the business community has to look at its own responsibilities. Ethics is a big word, but they have to work more on that. If they want to keep their credibility, which sometimes is at risk, they must look at their own behavior." Henrique Cavalcanti
It was also suggested that maybe big industries could volunteer to come up with reports on their activities, which could then be presented in a special slot during the annual session. This would allow others to see at least some of what is going on at that level and in what way their decisions are impacting this sector, and it would encourage business and industry to give the issue some more thought.
Conclusion
The general feeling, however, was that, as time passes, the subjects discussed in the CSD will come closer to the day-to-day activities of the business and industry sector, which will force its decision makers to deal with the CSD and other international agencies, bodies and programs working on sustainable development.
Overall we can conclude that the involvement of business and industry was considered important because of the influence this sector has, but that there are many factors that have to be taken into account when facilitating their participation.
Some NGOs argued that one of the most important reasons for bringing business and industry into the meetings was that, if excluded, they will insist that governments represent their positions exclusively. With them there, room for negotiation may expand.
Selected proposals
INTGLIM Recommendations
"There are all kinds of pluses. It is much more effective than if NGOs are separate. Involvement of NGOs on the government level is an enrichment of both NGOs and the governments. NGOs learn what it is like to do business on the government side, and governments learn the other die of thinking." Bedrich Moldan
"Minuses: they're not as effective as they could be. We have three on our delegation, and one of them, ..., is very helpful and very good in getting NGO views over to us. Our feeling is that the reason to let them on the delegation is to find out what the NGO views are, to get them into meetings and help them network. But the problem is that it is unlikely that this person will spread out government policy." Government representative
"The pluses are that the NGO members on the delegations are able to shuttle back and forth between the NGO community and the delegation, so they can get their hands on more information than they would otherwise have. The downside is that they are being constricted by what the capitals want, and the capitals express not what the NGOs want, but more what the government permits. But within those limits I think that it can be very useful, and they are also influential in the national preparation just before the CSD." HermanVerheij
INTGLIM Recommendation
When we started working on this research, some people felt that the Special Session might as well be the end of the CSD. They took the words 'five year working program' almost literally. Of course, the CSD has a lot of work to do. As Herman Verheij noted, "Its basic document is not called the Agenda for the 21st Century for nothing." The Special Session is a good time for rethinking and assessing problems and progress achieved. The CSD is the first commission to go through such an exercise of self-reflection. Momentum has to be (re)gained, new excitement and a new drive to go after the goals that were set out in Rio in 1992 will have to be created.
Over the course of conducting the interviews, we found in general experts have high hopes for the Special Session. More often than not the Special Session was seen as an opportunity to fill out the blanks that were left open in Rio and to adapt the CSD to the changes in its own UN environment since 1992.
In an article in the Earth Times, Ambassador Razali, the President of the General Assembly, said that the meeting could "make or break" the UN in the field of development. According to him, there is a chance for the UN to claim back the right to be a central player for issues dealing with development even if it doesn't have treasury rights and money. The UN could be the focal point to raise consciousness and consensus to such a level that it could influence resources, at least at the macro-coordination level. Furthermore, Amb. Razali pointed out that this is the last chance for the UN to get enough leverage again with the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (interview with the Earth Times, January 1997).
Next to renewing the mandate, the following goals were specified during the interviews. Many of them were also confirmed in the different papers written on this subject.
A strong political message
"We have made it very clear, and we will continue to make it very clear within the EU and within my delegation that we want to see a clear political declaration to be given in 1997 on the future of the CSD and the UNCED process." Jukka Uosukainen
Definition of priority areas
In its next 5 year period, it was considered important not to go through all the chapters of Agenda 21 again, as discussion of too many issues per annual session was generally felt to be slowing down the process of implementing Agenda 21.
"One of the pieces of information which I get out of these (annual) meetings is that governments can rarely juggle with more than three topics at the time. If you get eight issues for them to deal with, they drop all of them. So it's better to try and narrow it down." Cliff Curtis
Some expressed the sentiment that when the discussion moved away from Agenda 21, the most fruitful results have emerged. In his address before the Second Committee on October 23, 1996, US Ambassador Victor Marrero stated:
"Let no one doubt that the CSD has played an important role in promoting sustainable development. However, it has been most successful when it has turned away from the chapter by chapter review of Agenda 21 and looked at how it can add value to Agenda 21, for example, by bringing together national sustainable development bodies to exchange experiences, or in identifying gaps in implementation of Agenda 21.
"In the future, the CSD should be focused more broadly looking equally at the three aspects of sustainable development: environmental, social, economic. The CSD should have to deal much more directly with the economic and social aspects of sustainable development, bringing together policy makers involved in finance, commerce, environment, and other disciplines." Amb. Victor Marrero
Defining priority areas for the CSD will not only make the work of the CSD much more comprehensible for the governments, NGOs and UN officials, it will also facilitate participation by other, very important actors. Especially financial and economic ministers, the BWIs and the WTO have to be involved in the work of the CSD to make it relevant outside of the environmental realm.
Establishment of another multi-year program of work
Universal support was expressed for a new multi-year program of work. Many argued that knowing more than two years in advance what subject and issues will be debated will greatly benefit the process. Australian representative Mark Gray stated before the Second Committee in 1996:
"The Review must not attempt to rewrite Agenda 21 or redefine the principles and objectives of sustainable development. This will be an opportunity to identify priority sectoral issues that require follow-up at the international level. It is critical that we take into account the outcomes of other UN conferences concluded since UNCED. We must be careful not to duplicate work which is underway or has been carried out in other international fora. In particular, the CSD should not reopen for discussion or renegotiation decisions already made.
"The Special Session should concentrate on future activities and gaps in the international agenda. Possible priority areas include oceans, freshwater, land degradation, new and innovative sources of funding - particularly from the private sector - environmental indicators and forests. It is essential that the issues considered remain directly relevant to the broader community, that sustainable development remains in the hands of member governments, and that UNCED follow-up remains participatory, transparant and accessible to all stakeholders." Mark Gray
There are many ideas about the next multi-year program. One proposal is that each year, for instance, one sectoral issue, one cross-sectoral issue and one 'sector of society' could be placed on the agenda. This 'sector of society' could be compared to the proposal of USG Nitin Desai to shift the sectoral approach from the 'resource' sectors the CSD has focused on in the last years, to the 'economic' sectors that influence these resource sectors. Attention would then be given to agriculture, forestry, industry, tourism and other related sectors, as opposed to biodiversity, athmosphere and oceans.
The multi-year program of work for the next phase should be open to change and innovative ideas.
Clearing up of work relation between the CSD and other bodies
A certain amount of duplication within the sustainable development efforts of the UN can never be avoided. Decisions made in one commission will always have to be reviewed carefully by others and it may be in this checking on each other that serious mistakes might be avoided.
Coordinating the programs of work of the different commissions within the framework of ECOSOC is generally favored, seeking to avoid duplication of efforts. These advocates for a strengthened ECOSOC hope it will take the responsibility of coordinating the sustainable development activities of the specialized agencies, making recommendations to the financial institutions.
However, there are also voices that apparently do not believe in the ability of ECOSOC to pull itself together, and recommend that CSD become the main commission within ECOSOC:
"We hope that the Special Session is used to expand the roles and function of the CSD to enable it to act as the 'main commission' for ECOSOC. As a main commission, the CSD should take the lead in reviewing and overseeing the integrated implementation of the results of recent UN conferences on sustainable development and related issues." Amb. Victor Marrero Oct. 1996
In a larger perspective, the Special Session will provide an opportunity to think about how the UN system will tackle certain issues such as energy, on which about a half dozen agencies have programs. In this, the task managers and the system of interagency coordination will be critical. Their part in the success of the CSD should not be underestimated. The task managers have been able to connect programs, institutions and people for the advancement of sustainable development goals. In the future, the CSD should consider giving them more responsibilities, for instance by assigning them the task of drafting decisions that can be subject of discussion during the CSD's annual sessions.
Honest assessment of problems
There seems to be a need for honestly assessing the last five years, without keeping up appearances. The 'we are all in the same boat' feeling was mentioned often as a basis on which this would be possible. It is not easy to be open about things that might have gone wrong, but if the members of the CSD are not transparent in their work, the outcomes of the CSD process will lose much of their weight.
Attention needs also be paid to those parts of the CSD structure that have not progressed in the last five years. For instance, the High-Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development needs to be adjusted to fulfill its task in the future or eliminated.
NGO participation
The CSD has been very progressive in involving non-governmental actors in its process and in this way has introduced the UN and other intergovernmental organizations to a broad new array of NGOs and vice-versa. Now that the CSD has become known as a commission in which non-governmental input is most appreciated and facilitated, the Special Session is the right place to think how to build upon the modalities of participation.
Education and media attention
A key goal during the second five year workplan should be to explore ways to fundamentally improve both education about sustainable development and media coverage of the issue. Perhaps, special sessions on these areas, coinciding with the GA agreeing to the addition of the "education community" as a new major group.
Reconfirm Commitments on Finance
In order to get a reconfirmed commitment on finance, this issue has to be placed high on the agenda of the Special Session. Only this will ensure that financial and economic ministers and representatives from the Bretton Woods Institutions will attend and pay attention.
"Just because we know that ODA has gone down, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't underline again the necessity of added resources, and the necessity of finding a way to recommit the industrialized countries to identifying and mobilizig resources." Amb. Razali Ismail
As the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility comes up in March, the Special Session will not have to deal with that immediately. However, it would be important to bring this issue up during the Intersessional in February.
Establishing an Sub-commission or Intergovernmental Panel on Finance could be a major achievement of the Special Session.
"If we can get a real honest and explicit statement about what are the root constraints for achieving sustainable development, that would be an incredible victory. My fear is that we will get an enormous amount of reports from all the different countries, explaining what all the countries have done in the last years to contribute to sustainable development. All the goodies. We need some owning up at the highest levels to the fact that the way things are going is not good and that change is needed." Inji Islam
"The Special Session should look forward more than backward... We should ask not only what the UN system should do but also what the governments should do." Pamela Chasek
"What we need right now is an intergovernmental process that will actually work. If the special session doesn't have a very high political level, it won't have the impact...As for Agenda 21, I don't think we should renegotiate, we don't want to lose ground... We need to go into means of implementation." Barbara Adams
"I don't know how we could do that. I would like to do that, but how are all these countries going to agree on some issues. Which ones?...
"In the last year or so there has been a much clearer decision by member states on how they see the different roles of the GA, the ECOSOC and the functional commissions. They certainly have identified that there is some need for coordination. And this job is to be done by ECOSOC. This also defines the role of the functional commissions. That would be a way of making clear that the CSD cannot do everything and it needs to be relieved. The nervous bit about it is the reverse trend, where the CSD is trying to get more influence in other deminenions, such as the involvement of finance and trade ministers. This is something that the CSD might be interested in, but it could be really what ECOSOC is supposed to do.
You see, the Commission on Social Development has the poverty, employment and social disintegration concerns coming out of the summit. And it was much stronger on issues like structural adjustment than Rio. One of the weaknesses of CSD is that is doesn't address that." Barbara Adams
"They haven't been defined yet. We think that the overall goals for the Special Session should be(a) to continue the existence of the CSD at least 5, maybe ten years, (b) define priority areas within the realm of sustainable development that need to be addressed by the CSD, (c) the establishment of a multi year program of work, which will identify for people when certain issues will be on the table, (d) if possible the establishment of inter linkages between what the CSD is doing and whatever else happens within the UN system (all other Summits). All these Summits should be considered to be taking place under the umbrella of sustainable development. If there are no inter linkages, all achievements will just fade away. The Special Session will provide a good occasion to weave all these trends of different summits and meetings together into the single 'court' of sustainable development." Herman Verheij
"We have made it very clear, and we will continue to make it very clear within the EU and within my delegation that we want to see a clear political declaration to be given in 97 on the future of the CSD and the UNCED process." Jukka Uosukainen
"The most important thing is focus. There will be no other ministers there if you don't focus on about two or three issues per session, clear issues, clear questions and involved people, government peopled influenced by the environment ministers." Frits Schlingemann
"Consumption and production patterns are very important, because if we analyze and evaluate a topic like this, we will come across many other important issues. It could function as a mirror...The issue of financial mechanisms is also very important. The internalization of externalities is crucial because there is more to it than just ecotaxation. It is much more wider. We should explain and see it very clearly." Erszebet Schmuck
"One of the pieces of information which I get out of these meetings is that governments can rarely juggle with more than three topics at the time. If you get 8 issues for them to deal with, they drop all if them. So it's better to try and narrow it down.... with the exception perhaps of forests ..(the CSD should) not look at sectoral issues in any depth. The quality of analysis would be very poor...On the cross-sectoral issues, I think to some extent the same is true. They'll overload the commission, but there are some there that have become more important than others, such as consumption and production patterns, finance, poverty (very important in the interplay between environment and development issues).
"The third area is the process: where do we go from here. The current structure has been a failure, because it has not attracted a high enough level of involvement... There is merit in looking at something like restructuring the Trusteeship Council to elevate the focus of the Earth Summit Agenda... The current structure is very uneven in quality. Governments often don't send delegations at a high enough level with sufficient expertise. They don't care whether or not they know anything about it. The result is not a quality product. There has to be a quantum change that involves a restructuring, such as heads-of states meetings, the redirection of the Trusteeship Council. A big role for the Special Session will be to come up with ideas, not just for the next 5 years, but for the next 25 years in terms of saying very clearly that environment and development issues are in the UN system to stay." Cliff Curtis
"They are relatively clear. Reaffirmation of principles of sustainable development, a set of roadblock areas that we need to focus on. The crucial one is new financial areas, finance for implementing not just the Rio conferences, but all other global conferences. If we are unable to set up a process to deliver these financial demands, not much will come of it. Also, as we set out the next 5 years, we know what those other issues are. Oceans, forests, poverty, trade issues, institutional requirements of insuring that not just governments. implement and think about the Rio processes, but also that UN bodies reaffirm their commitment. Major groups should also be reaffirmed, not as an addition, but as a big contributor, and be given negotiation rights. If we move to a stakeholder involvement in the next 5 years, with a seat on the table and the ability to influence the process from that seat, we have an enormous advancement. Recognition will be crucial." Felix Dodds
"I would prefer the gender and age major groups distinction, rather than what we have now, because women, children and youth are the groups that should be participating more in this process, and they are also the ones that could be the instruments of change. Secondly, food and water security should be all encompassing concerns that cover agriculture and fresh water, at least a dozen of the chapters in Agenda 21.
"Thirdly, changing patterns of production and consumption. Then you start to touch upon the economic aspects such as consumer attitudes, inevitably trade, poverty. We still haven't taken a courageous stand with respect to trying to separate what's superfluous from what is essential. I think that if there is not enough for everybody, then we should rethink the distribution.
"Furthermore, peace. Peace is the reason for the existence of the UN. Boutros Gali has said that the UN should maintain peace and construct peace. We have been on the construction side. But whatever it is that you are building, needs to be maintained also. These are some of the goals that I think are essential." Heinrique Cavalcanti
"We should look at the question that I just raised: the facilitation of implementation. I think the CSD has a specific monitoring role. It can do a lot, but if the recommendations are not taken up elsewhere, there is no use. Also, we need to look at the relations between the CSD and the rest of the UN system." Evans King
"We have as African people identified some key issues. To start of course the issue of consumption and production patterns, that are newly introduced in Africa but that exclude large parts of communities. This also excludes what we in Africa call the informal sector. The informal sector (or the urban popular economy) is a dimension of the economy that makes a living for an enormous amount of people. Senegal and Zimbabwe for example, have recognized its importance by creating ministries for it... However, we should not try to integrate it into the formal sphere, but find a way of complimentarity. Within the financial and trade issues, the informal sector in Africa should be addressed...
The other issues would include of course the fight against poverty, but this issue is overlapping with all the other ones, with the trade issue particularly. We have to look at the ways in which products are introduced in Africa that are more competitive than we can make ourselves. People speak highly of Asian countries and their free trade, but they didn't start with this 'open' economy until after they had secured its local production. It had a closed economy in the seventies. Free trade on equal basis is not something to be gotten anytime soon, certainly not with the current unequal trade relations." Ibrahim Magdi
"To pull the strings. All the different conferences since RIO are really different aspects from Agenda 21. Also the changes and the trends in the last five years in terms of BWIs, regional Banks, TNCs (whose role is growing tremendously) and the diminished role of the state, are very important." Chee Yoke Ling
"I really think that the Special Session needs to focus on two or three major questions for the next five years and I believe they should be the issues of poverty, changing consumption and production patters and financing of sustainable development. Those three seem to be the key to me. If they are not dealt with... Other subjects like the atmosphere and oceans, they have their treaties processes, there are other places where they can be handled." Michael McCoy
Selected proposals
INTGLIM Recommendations
See INTGLIM Recommendations,
The Earth Summit+5 Special Session of the UN General Assembly could be a make or break event for sustainable development, for the CSD, for key aspects of UN reform, and for reversing the decline in global financing for multi-lateralism. Earth Summit+5 may well presage the fate of all the review processes of the world conferences which are to be held in Special Sessions of the General Assembly. Will governments and international civil society at Earth Summit +5 succeed in taking the UN beyond the standard setting, program developing stage to one of implementation and towards a more operational, action-oriented international system of global governance?