"If we had to rate it in percentages, I would say that we are about thirty percent along the way." Henrique Calvacanti
"The world needs visionary and courageous leaders who have the courage to reform and revitalize our international institutions and to mobilize their domestic support for this cause. We do not have such leaders today." Tommy Koh - at CSD 5
The Commission on Sustainable Development has worked hard to maintain the momentum of Rio. It has done so by being participatory, inventive and fostering of greater cooperation. These qualities have infused both the intergovernmental and administrative processes. By coming up with new ideas and processes, such as the task manager system, increased NGO participation, and high-level segments, hearings and panels, the CSD has remained interesting and has maintained a relatively high political profile. These inventions have made the CSD a marketplace for the exchange of information and ideas. As Maurice Strong, the former Secretary-General for UNCED said last year, "a great deal more has happened than people recognize, but not enough has happened, and it has to be said that we have not made the fundamental change of course that was called for in Rio."
"Despite its shortcomings, I would say it [CSD] has been a success, because it has kept Agenda 21 alive. Largely not by what happens during the meetings, but just through its existence, it has also fostered the development of national committees for sustainable development. Also it has kept open the dialogue between the different agencies and major groups and governments." Pamela Chasek
"One of the successes was that it was the beginning of something and was therefore able to create something new. I think that has benefited the whole UN, but it might have been disappointing to people who focus on specific issues. I would attribute to CSD and its constitutency the energy and the commitment that came in [to the UN in recent years], in helping the UN inter-agency cooperation and institutional arrangements to improve. "Barbara Adams
"In my opinion it is a success....it can be seen in how often the concept of sustainable development is quoted and in how often Agenda 21 is taken into account and in how often it has penetrated the daily works of governments, NGOs and ordinary citizens. If this process continues, I would be rather optimistic." Bedrich Molan
"The UNCED process as it has been undertaken through the conferences has a fragmented approach. We are trapped again in the same old UN approach. But the good thing about the CSD is that it has the flexibility to look at cross sectoral issues." Ibrahim Magdi
"For the first time such a summit had had such a high level of participation, both by ministers and NGOs. There had been NGOs around before, but that was different, because numbers were small, it was very Northern and environmentally centered.... I think that NGOs see the CSD as one of a couple of bodies where we can revisit substantive issues... it's a place where what is happening in other treaties can be coordinated. We shouldn't overlook the role of the sessions in bringing together NGOs, who can then network, carry on the analysis... Failures: it hasn't linked environment and development in the way it was designed to do." Chee Yoke Lin
[speaking personally]
"I think the CSD has been a good galvanizing, focusing mechanism for looking and following up on the kinds of initiatives that were agreed in Rio especially in relation to Agenda 21. Less so, with respect to the other treaty type agreements... But one of the successes of the CSD is that it has provided an organized way to, somewhat methodically, take a look at the sectoral issues in Agenda 21 and cross-sectoral issues in an organized fashion, segregated into chapters, so no one tries to do too much at once... Another success is that it is one of the more progressive bodies in terms of its involvement and openness to NGOs, so it has the potential for setting precendents. And I think that shouldn't be understated." Cliff Curtis
Successes
The CSD has kept Agenda 21 alive
Just through its existence, the CSD has fostered the development of a great amount of national and local initiatives. Agenda 21 is now one the best known UN documents in the world, because it speaks to the imagination of many. The fact that so many different organizations and local authorities are working together on such a diversity of projects is something that the CSD can consider a tremendous accomplishment. By putting the two issues of environment and development on the international agenda together, the CSD has started a global thinking process on sustainable development that is needed to successfully implement Agenda 21.
It is a precedent setting commission within the UN
In its short existence, the CSD has set many precedents. NGO participation was one of its major successes and its example has been followed by many other bodies. Sometimes the success in these other conferences and bodies has even gone beyond the CSD's arrangements, for example in the procedures of the Habitat II PrepComs in which NGOs were allowed to make comments and even participate in drafting groups. The CSD has fostered innovative inter-agency processes, such as the Task-manager interagency system, and its mandate to look at issues in a cross-sectoral format.
Failures
The CSD cannot move fast
Even though in UN terms the CSD is a very fast moving body, many people were still frustrated with the CSD's perceived slowness and bureaucratism. There were complaints about the lack of action and the low level of effective follow-up to Agenda 21. Some people feared that the CSD is in danger of becoming another UN talk-shop, isolated within the walls of intergovermental decision-making and bureaucracy.
"I think the CSD needs to be better plugged into the real world. Like most UN bodies, the members of the CSD seem to live in a world of their own. It needs to think of an outreach program, a communication strategy. Finally, I think the CSD needs to think about how it can play a catalytic role in each of our societies: government, business, NGOs, civil society." Tommy Koh - Address to CSD 5
Also, many felt that the overall output is still weak, because the texts are too broad and do not lead to direct actions.
"Far[ther]-reaching measures which would, for example, effect a fundamental change in unsustainable consumption and production patterns as targeted by participating governments in Agenda 21 have not been tackled at either national or international level. This situation reveals a structural dilemma in international conference-based diplomacy. When negotiating, most governments make every effort to avoid verifiable obligations. This stance has in turn generated verbose action programs in recent years in which even those sections containing progressive language are qualified by "coulds and shoulds." Jens Martens and Peter Mucke page 1
The difficulty of merging environment and development
The cross-sectoral approach to implementing Agenda 21 was introduced to the UN system in the search for a way to incorporate environment and development in the negotiations. However, even after five years, merging environment and development is still problematic. Furthermore, many people continue to see the CSD and Agenda 21 as environmental instruments.
"While most agencies have already introduced or strengthened environmental objectives, in the light of UNCED's Agenda 21 these agencies will have to achieve a better balance between environmental and developmental perspectives, to adopt a more cross-sectoral approach, and to persuade their developed country members to do more to assist developing countries, by provision of financial incentives, technology transfers, etc." Patricia Birnie page 356
The CSD is overburdened
Because of the many difficulties that still exist around the definition of sustainable development and the problems that have arisen around merging environment and development, the CSD has become overburdened. Too many issues are being directed towards the agenda of the CSD which causes problems in distinguishing priority areas.
The lack of sufficient financial resources
Industrialized countries made a serious committment in Chapter 33 to provide more overseas development assistance (ODA), but in recent years there has been an actual decrease. The CSD itself, of course, suffers as much as any other UN body from the current UN financial crisis and should join efforts to convince debtors to pay their installments. The CSD deserves the attention of national ministers of finance.
The absence of ministers other than environmental ministers has been a crucial factor in some of the shortcomings of the CSD process up to now.
The High-Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development
The High-Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development was convened by the UN Secretary-General to study different aspects of sustainable development in relation to the United Nations System. This group of eminent persons are broadly representative of all regions of the world and have recognized expertise on the broad spectrum of issues related to the CSD. The Advisory Board was intended to report to the UN Secretary-General and, through him, to the CSD, ECOSOC and the General Assembly. Ever since its establishment, however, there has been uncertainty about its function in and impact on the CSD and post-UNCED processes. Even though the High-Level Advisory Board has met regularly, in closed sessions, there is debate over its value and whether it should be continued. This issue also reflects the need for much greater transparency by the Secretariat regarding expert bodies.
Transnational corporate activities remain mostly outside CSD
As many experts pointed out in their interviews, transnational corporations (TNCs), often more powerful than national governments in the global economy, are not being properly monitored. They remain outside of almost all intergovernmental policy-making processes, often avoiding even minimal mechanisms of accountability. Many regret the fact that the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations has been essentially dissolved, and look to the CSD, perhaps in the context of major group integration, to enhance the involvement and accountability of TNC's in the implementation of Agenda 21.
Lack of accountability of financial institutions
Even though the international financial institutions are part of the UN system, they do not feel an obligation to be open about their policies. For the CSD to effectively implement Agenda 21 it must have the ability to monitor and expect cooperation from the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Their will to cooperate is only slowly increasing. These institutions must play a very important role in the implementation of Agenda 21 and they should participate in every level of involvement possible. This also means that the CSD has to provide them with a platform to present their ideas, problems and policies.
The first commonly accepted definition of sustainable development came out of the Brundtland Commission's report Our Common Future, stating "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
"Sustainable Development should be an overarching principle, definitely. It should be more inclusive than just environment and development. In practice it has become to be that. In texts it has been very 'people-centered' sustainable development with respect for human rights." Chris Tompkins
"Yes, sustainable development should be an overarching principle. A fear I have is the CSD being seen by too many people as an environmental talk shop. The CSD needs to bring together issues of social development, environment, financing questions, women issues." Micahel McCoy
"I think that the main problem here is that politically the definition is not accepted to include both environment and development, and many people see only the environmental side and are therefore afraid to commit themselves to development goals. And also the environment groups, the NGOs, are for a big part concerned only about their own subjects." Barbara Adams
"The way it has been addressed is that sustainable development has four components: environment, social, economic and institutional component. There is some tension in one way or the other between the UN discussing sustainable development or discussing development. In my view, it should be sustainable development, ... There is some resistaince against the general acceptance of the term, but if you look at the documents that have been produced since Rio, especially the Agenda for Development, I think we are on the right track." Joke Waller-Hunter
"It is an overarching principle. It started out as a form of environmental awareness and concern, but once you start thinking about and looking for the causes of environmental degradation, the risks that mankind goes through because of its impact on the environment, you realize that it has to branch out to the social, economic and institutional aspects. Therefore it is not a very easy expression to convey. In Brazil we say: 'It's like a suitcase without a handle'... Change, I think, is the keyword. We want to change for the better, we feel that many things could be better if done through a holistic approach. Sustainable development is the passport to reach this new stage of development." Henrique Cavalcanti
"It definitely is a framework principle, which encompasses many other concepts....we have [the dimension that] freedom, civil and human rights and the overall level of freedom is absolutely crucial to sustainable development. I don't believe that in the totalitarian society, or in the society without free election and free access to the courts of justice, sustainable development would work. I think it is a lie when countries say that it is simply in the values of their respective countries to suppress civil and human rights. Human beings are born to a certain degree of freedom and this is the only substance of their responsibility, and responsible behavior towards sustainable development has to do with being able to choose." Bedrich Moldan
"I see that sustainable development has to be a crosscutting principle in every functional commission and in other processes. It has to be an engine, and the CSD has to play that role. As a forum." Jukka Uosukainen
A dissenting opinion in favor of changing the term and definition, Peter Padbury of CCIC:
"There is a lot of Canadian NGO thinking about this. They're saying: we have to move away from sustainable development, because there is a lot of fog around this term and we need to get to a process of developing sustainability. And we need to develop indicators to measure that." Peter Padbury
Central Europe expert Erszebet Schmuck warns that:
"more politicians are also starting to talk about sustainable economic growth replacing sustainable development. This is a very dangerous trend."
Several experts expressed their concern about the fact that, due to its overarching definition, it has become very difficult to make a distinction between where the work of the CSD should stop and where the efforts of others should take over. Zehra Aydin, DPCSD Major Groups Focal Point:
"One of the pitfalls of the work that we do, because sustainable development is such a broad concept and because it is catchy, is that it attracts people and that it makes them go into areas that they would not normally go into if they were to hold on to their own mandate."
The term "sustainable development" tends to be used for other purposes than its originators had in mind. Frequently, the concept is used for something that only pertains to environmental issues, but often it is also used as a modified version of economic growth. Everyone expressed his or her concern about this development, but the responses to our question highlighted certain distinctions among the three main constituencies.
Government representatives
Government representatives many times referred to Brundtland's definition and expressed the desire to leave the concept to what is already said about it in other documents, with the occasional addition, if required by circumstances.
"I think our general approach is that sustainable development is what came up in Rio and you might add elements or stresses depending on the particular elements." Chris Tompkins
For the government representatives, sustainable development was most of all a key term in indicating the political importance of the CSD and the overall UNCED process. This often also implied that the CSD has to play a role in the procedures and outcomes of other commissions.
United Nations Staff
UN officials seemed primarily concerned about the implications of the definition for the workload of the Commission. They all indicated that since sustainable development is an overarching principle, the work programs are the places where distinction has to be made, not necessarily based on the strict definition, but mostly on practical grounds, taking into account the capacities of different institutions, agencies and bodies.
The agenda is overloaded and that doesn't allow the CSD to move fast. In order for sustainable development to be a viable management concept, it should be taken up by different partners within the UN system. The general feeling at the UN, and especially at the CSD Secretariat, was that in order to reach the goals set out by Agenda 21, the CSD has to identify a limited list of priorities, which should be put into the next five year program of work. Moreover, rather than involving the CSD in the work of other bodies, there was a tendency to want to integrate the work of others into that of the CSD in order to relieve the CSD of the burden that rests on its shoulders.
Non-Governmental Organizations
NGOs were mostly concerned by the lack of integration of environment and development. They felt that leaving space for people to fill in their own words would jeopardize the original intention and would endanger the implementation of Agenda 21. Many also feared that in this ad hoc translation process the human priorities of Southern and developing countries could be lost, by putting transnational environmental problems originating in the North higher on the agenda than local and human problems in the South.
"I believe that it is an overarching principle, but I think we have a semantic problem, because a lot of people see it, still, as an environmental term... I don't know if people who work on issues outside of the environmental focus will ever feel comfortable with the term. What a lot of people, especially from the South, feel, is that there is always this risk of surpassing human needs in a search for environmental protection." Inji Islam
NGOs were not as attached to the term "sustainable development" as government representatives seemed to be. Some were willing, in order to clear up the fog around the terminology, to change the term sustainable development into 'developing sustainability', or other similar permutations. The main concern was that they did not want the CSD to go into UN history as some kind of environmental talk shop, but instead wanted it to move forward on the issues. It was suggested, for instance, that the CSD discuss the links between consumption and production patterns and between free trade and development as central to its negotiations, including the implications for underdeveloped countries, and how the developed countries can work on this in a sustainable way.
Selected Proposals
INTGLIM Recommendations