The possibilities for the CSD to successfully carry out its mandate are in many ways shaped and defined by its institutional surroundings. Its power and limitations derive in large part from its place within the UN system.
During UNCED, many governments called for the CSD to be a committee or commission of the General Assembly, a proposal opposed by those governments who sought a weak follow-up mechanism, or no mechanism, and by those countries, like Sweden, who argued that the follow-up to UNCED should be done in High-Level Segments of ECOSOC. Thus, coming into the five year review, one question INTGLIM asked was whether the CSD should be "upgraded" to a General Assembly body or remain a functional commission of ECOSOC.
In this, the role of other UN bodies is crucial and it is likely that future successes of the CSD will be closely inter-linked with the cooperation of those bodies. In Chapter 6 we discuss briefly how the CSD came to be located as a new functional commission of ECOSOC and the recommendation that this status not be modified by the Special Session. The next section discusses the relationship between the CSD and ECOSOC, and how the success of the CSD is contributing directly and indirectly to long-term efforts to fundamentally reform and strengthen ECOSOC - with the caveat that forces producing an opposite effect are also at work.
This chapter also addresses the relationship of the CSD and other commissions, our recommendation to reform or abolish the High-Level Advisory Board of the CSD, and the proposal to integrate, under the CSD, existing committees dealing with natural resource and energy issues.
Chapter 7 addresses the question of the CSD relationship to still other institutions, UNEP, UNDP, and GEF. Chapter 8 addresses the CSD and international financial and trade institutions, Chapter 9 financial resources, Chapter 10, our recommendations on modification of the procedures for electing the CSD chair and bureau. The final paragraphs in this section deal with efforts to attract the participation of finance and development ministers, and a favorable review of the "Task Manager" system of interagency cooperation and coordination.
First, however, we briefly address key legal issues.
The Special Session should reaffirm support for and strengthen the legal standing of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. As with other Declarations, the CSD should consider ways to elaborate legal principles for sustainable development, in particular those in the Rio Declaration, including:
Principle 15: Polluter Pays Principle
Principle 24: Environmental Impact
Principle 22: Rights of Indigenous people and their communities
Principle 24: Protection of the environment in times of armed conflict
New principles on subsidiarity, decentralization and self-sufficiency should be elaborated. In the con text of developing a "hearings" mechanism in the CSD, consideration of the rights of petition should be made. Further consideration by the CSD should be given to proposals for a global environmental framework treaty, such as the one prepared by IUCN. And the Earth Charter process, still being advanced by the Earth Council warrants further consideration in the CSD.
In renewing its commitment to the principles of the Rio Declaration and the central role of the United Nations in promoting international peace and security, the Special Session should consider ways of elaborating upon Principle 25: "Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible."
If we accept the fact that sustainable development is an overarching principle, the question becomes why the CSD was placed within the ECOSOC framework, as a sub-commission. This seems very contradictory: if sustainable development is an overarching principle, then why is the CSD not given a 'higher' place in the hierarchy of the UN system? Logically speaking, the CSD should be in a position to give political guidance to and integrate the sustainable development policy and work not only of ECOSOC and it commissions, but of all the agencies, programs and bodies of the UN system.
In fact, in 1992 the Secretary-General of UNCED called upon governments to agree to convert the Trusteeship Council, a principle organ of the UN whose work is seen as largely completed, to a council on environment and development. Other governments supported a proposal to create a new body in the UN responsible for overall coordination of environmental, development and economic policy, limited to approximately the same number of countries as the Security Council. This idea was picked up and revised by the independent Commission on Global Governance, which called for the closure of ECOSOC and UNIDO and creation of an Economic Security Council.
However, the United States, United Kingdom and other governments were stridently opposed to these ideas. Their firm position during UNCED was "no new institutions." The US government and Congress had already adopted the policy of financial blackmail, strangling the UN financially by withholding USA dues and assessments, eventually forcing the UN to near bankruptcy in 1996. As recent as six weeks before Rio the governments opposed to the proposed CSD, led by the United Kingdom, included Austria, Sweden, India, Brazil (UNCED Host), Kenya, Indonesia, USA, Australia, Saudi Arabia and others. In this context, the victory of those governments in securing agreement for establishing a new global Commission on Sustainable Development was no small achievement. The successful effort was led by Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia, chair of the legal and institutional issue working group of UNCED. The essence of the victory came when a powerful coalition of governments and NGOs refused to compromise and were willing to force an embarrassing showdown in Rio. France, The Netherlands, and a coalition of progressive Northern and Southern countries, supported by a unified coalition of NGOs comprised this compact. INTGLIM was honored to serve as convenor of the NGO caucus for this process.
Maintain CSD's location within the UN System
Perhaps surprisingly, after having worked with the CSD within ECOSOC for a number of years, most experts were satisfied with the CSD's position in the UN system. Most felt that the advantages of being an ECOSOC functional commission outweighed the disadvantages. Ironically, CSD's limited membership and humble location within the International Organization actually allows it to move faster on controversial issues than it would be able to as a General Assembly committee. This distance from the GA, it is argued, gives the CSD the ability to tackle issues that are not ready to be discussed in other fora. And now that the Special Session could provide an opportunity to change institutional arrangements, most people interviewed did not see that as a viable option. Many feared that going through an institutional change would not be worth the questionable minimal gains, and more importantly, there was considerable fear that the negotiations necessary for such a major institutional reform could be taken as an opportunity by some adverse governments to reopen Agenda 21, weaken it, and reduce the CSD's effectiveness.
"We have always advocated having the CSD as a committee of the GA, but if we have a politically important commission, with a high level of attendance of all kinds of ministers even though it is just a sub-commission of ECOSOC, you have to balance the benefits of having a clearer place within the UN system against the problems you will run into in order to get that place." Herman Verheij
But, Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for DPCSD, argued eloquently that the CSD location within ECOSOC was very appropriate:
"I think it is logical to have [the CSD] within ECOSOC. And there is a plus point here. The integration that we are seeking between the outcome of Rio and the other conferences will be much easier to secure if all of the bodies that are dealing with follow-up are part of the same structure, which is the case at the moment. ... By remaining where it is, and by being serviced by my department as the rest of the commissions are, the CSD has a much more stable place in the system." Nitin Desai
As stated above, another advantage of the location of the CSD within ECOSOC is the limited membership of ECOSOC, 54 countries versus of 185 in the General Assembly, which arguably reduces the lowest common denominator forces which often govern consensus decision-making.
CSD relationship to ECOSOC
The relationship between the CSD and ECOSOC needs diligent attention. Because for many the CSD has a higher political profile, the role of ECOSOC in the follow-up to Rio tends to be ignored. The "never-ending" revitalization of ECOSOC, which continues in different "High-Level" fora, could have major impacts on the CSD, for better or worse, as it could on all the functional commissions.
One "for better or worse" possibility concerns coordination and integration. ECOSOC has the mandate, as the parent organ of the functional commissions and as a principle organ if the UN, to coordinate the work programs of the different commissions. There is the danger of a political struggle between the CSD and ECOSOC over coordination roles and responsibilities.
"The CSD is a Commission of the ECOSOC, which implies that the lack of effectiveness of ECOSOC policy-making has direct consequences for the effectiveness of the CSD and its recommendations...Despite the lack of progress in the debate, there is definitely scope for improving the structure and functioning of ECOSOC. Concrete proposals of various countries include a shorter, more action oriented agenda, a greater 'executive' role for an extended bureau, a more action-oriented high level segment, and a restructuring of commissions. Moreover, there is a need for stronger participation of NGOs and other major groups in the ECOSOC sessions." Simone Lovera- Bilderbeek page 4
Some were concerned about this trend to revitalize ECOSOC, because they have their reservations about the chances of this process finally succeeding in reforming ECOSOC in such a way that it can live up to its original mandate. The terms of the relationship between the UN and the agencies vary according to the agency concerned.
"ECOSOC is empowered to enter into agreements with them [UN agencies] which define those terms; it can also coordinate their activities through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to UN bodies." Patricia Birnie page 323/333
The fact that ECOSOC and the CSD could come into conflict over their overlapping coordinating mandates could mean much for the future of the CSD. The Special Session may want to clarify this issue. Many governments and NGOs have already commented on this issue, stating that by virtue of their confidence in the new body, the CSD's high political profile, and its overarching mandate, make it on matters of sustainable development, a "first among equals" in ECOSOC. To the extent that the political will in the CSD is transferred to ECOSOC, the issue should not be too threatening. But, already examples of the CSD political will being cancelled and weakened in ECOSOC have emerged, for example, in calls for replacing or linking sustainable development with sustainable economic growth, and in the debate over the role of NGOs in the Special Session, in which the CSD essentially called for "special arrangements for special sessions" a proposal which ECOSOC and the GA have so far rejected.
CSD and other commissions
Some experts expressed the hope that the revitalization of ECOSOC and the Special Session of the CSD could be great opportunities to streamline the work programs of all the commissions of ECOSOC.
"The reforms provide an opportunity for making these bodies more fitted to the tasks they will need to undertake in the execution of UNCED's action programme, known as Agenda 21." Patricia Birnie page 33
One of the main tasks of ECOSOC could be the coordination of follow-up to the world conferences and trying to avoid duplication of the work that the commissions do, a job that some people believe the CSD should do.
"Other commissions are following the CSD's example, so in that way it can be very confusing [to define who needs to do what]. 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 that it needs to be relieved." Barbara Adams
If in this process the work programs are to be coordinated, this could be a very good opportunity to get the CSD on a integrated multi-year schedule as the other commissions, which could make inter-commission coordination easier, and by the same token this process could pull up the other commissions to the level of participation the CSD has been working on.
In this process, then, ECOSOC would function as an overarching coordinator of the follow up to Rio and the implementation of Agenda 21, making sure that information and responsibilities are distributed in an orderly and effective fashion, but not taking operational tasks upon itself. Although a certain amount of duplication is unavoidable when adopting sustainable development as the overarching principle, it would be the goal of ECOSOC to reduce these to a minimum.
"Avoiding duplication would be a good thing. But then again, if you accept sustainable development as the overarching principle, you will have to accept a certain amount of duplication. A Social Summit [or commission], for instance, would be addressing only the social aspect of sustainable development." Herman Verheij
CSD and High-Level Advisory Board
None of the experts interviewed expressed strong support for the work of the High-Level Advisory Board for the CSD, established to provide independent advice to the Secretary-General. The INTGLIM report recommends that the Special Session and CSD review the value of the High-Level Advisory Board and consider abolishing or substantially changing the role of this body.
Others commented that there needs to be greater transparency in the establishment and conduct of similar expert bodies.
CSD and Integrating Existing Committees on Energy and Natural Resources
Numerous government representatives, UN officials and NGO experts have expressed that the Special Session and CSD look into the advantages of consolidating, streamlining and integrating the work of the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and Energy for Development into the work of the CSD.
ECOSOC and Combined Bureaus Sessions
A further suggestion from the experts was that ECOSOC should consider convening meetings of the bureaus of its subsidiary and other relevant bodies for the purpose of enhancing implementation, coordination, and reducing unnecessary duplication of efforts. A joint session between the bureaus and the ACC on the implementation of Agenda 21 might be held during the next 5 years period.
CSD Should Establish Sub-commissions
The authors of this report believe the CSD should consider, during its next five year program of work, the advantages of establishing sub-commissions on specific long term areas of its work. The sub-commission modality offers distinct advantages over ad hoc and more restricted modalities utilized by the CSD. These advantages include enhanced focus, ability to attract high-level government representation and high-level non-governmental expertise, involvement of other non-state actors, attraction of media, ability to designate funding for the work of the sub-commission.
The following are four possibilities for Sub-Commissions:
Promoting linkages between the CSD and the IFI's on global financial policies and financing for sustainable development is, we believe, the most important subject area for the establishment of a sub-commission. The development of innovative or independent financial resources for sustainable development and alternative UN funding should be included in work of this subcommission.
Creation of a "major groups" subcommission as a cross-sectoral, inter-regional forum for NGOs and representatives major groups should also be considered. A "civil society forum" sub-commission of the CSD, could be mandated, for example, to focus initially on the goals of the above-proposed financial subcommission. In other words, the CSD should consider letting NGOs and civil society attempt to seek proposals and solutions to the calls for enhanced ODA and "new and additional resources" in which governments have been largely unsuccessful. It would also be a forum where the relatively new and still controversial concepts of "major groups," "civil society" and "stake-holder" and others, could evolve within a positive political environment.
Selected proposals from interviews
INTGLIM Recommendations
As the CSD is a coordinating body, watching over the implementation of Agenda 21, it is very important that its work relation with other UN bodies be clearly outlined. Because competition and ambiguities existed around UNEP's and UNDP's role in this, we included the following questions IIIh: 'What should be the relationship between the CSD and UNEP, UNDP and GEF?' and added to that question IIIi: 'Should UNEP be upgraded to an agency or global environmental authority?'.
Our question had come out of the fact that, by definition, key institutions requiring close coordination with the CSD included UNDP, UNEP, and the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank. Confusion over the political, programmatic and cooperative roles of these bodies developed during the first years of the CSD. The forces resisting the integration of environment and development are overwhelming, and continuing battles between bureaucracies and governing boards over "turf" can only undermine confidence and progress in implementing Agenda 21. Promoting Agenda 21 and sustainable development requires capacity building, technical advice, and financial incentives, the first being a key task of UNDP, the second of UNEP, the later of the GEF. During the last year confusion about the relationship between these institutions has been largely resolved.
"The CSD is a body that monitors and that gives policy impulses, and that tries to translate these impulses into responsibilities. But that's where it stops. UNDP, for example, is an organization that should be working on a national level, the World Bank should be taking care of connecting capital to action of others, by co-financing and investment follow-up, and UNEP should be the one who comes up with the programs, implements them and maybe even runs them in the beginning, until the point where people can do it themselves." Frits Schlingemann
Most people referred to the mandates of the different bodies and noted that there was a very clear distinction between the goals and means of each.
"UNEP is an important agency and it has very important programs. In assessing the strategies that have contributed to the sustainable development effort, UNEP and UNDP cannot be overlooked. In seeing the bigger picture, the CSD can also make recommendations on how these programs can be modified. Between UNEP and UNDP you can have a coordinated effort to implement Agenda 21 locally." Evans King
"The relationship with UNEP has been rather well spelled out by the decision of the governing council last year. They deal with the environment side of environment and development and they should continue to do so. They are part of the task manager system and in that function will contribute anyway. UNDP works on implementation." Joke Waller-Hunter
If there is confusion, it arises not so much out of an overlap between the mandates of the different bodies, but more out of a de facto mix-up between environment and development when working with the term sustainable development.
The CSD and GEF
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) at the World Bank was established as a joint international effort to help provide consessional funding to address environmental costs for development. The GEF provides new and additional grants and consessional funding to meet the incremental costs of measures to achieve global environmental benefits in four focal areas, namely:
Currently, more than 150 countries are participating in the Facility. It is in this institution that UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank are involved and in which their working relationship is very clearly defined. UNEP catalyzes the development of scientific and technical analysis and advances environmental management in GEF-financed activities. UNEP provides guidance on relating the GEF-financed activities to global, regional and national environmental assessments, policy frameworks and plans, and to international environmental agreements.
UNDP is also responsible for technical assistance activities and capacity building. Through its worldwide network of offices, UNDP helps to identify projects and activities consistent with the purpose of the GEF and national sustainable development strategies.
The World Bank is the repository of the Trust Fund, and is responsible for investment projects. It also seeks to mobilize resources from the private sector in a manner that is consistent with GEF objectives and national sustainable development efforts. Some experts expressed the belief that while the UNDP, UNEP, GEF relationship looked good on paper, in fact, the "golden rule" - "he who has the gold, rules" - more accurately described the true situation.
The GEF is one of the only financial bodies that generates money specifically for environmental purposes, its budget being only a small fraction of that of the World Bank. Amongst the experts interviewed, general agreement existed that GEF's influence is very small. The funds at GEF's disposal are not considered substantial, and to many of the people we interviewed, it was not entirely clear what GEF actually does. So many CSD experts did not mention GEF at all. CSD's role within the GEF could be to make sure that the GEF's policies are shaped in accordance with the global sustainable development efforts. Cooperating with the GEF could provide an opportunity for the CSD to tighten its relationship with the World Bank, and the CSD could also try to generate more funds towards the GEF. Some experts suggested a relationship between the CSD and GEF in developing innovative funding mechanisms and proposals.
"...it's not just the relationship between the CSD and the IFIs, its the relationship of the UN and the WTO, the World Bank etc...That was one of the failures of the EarthSummit: not to be able to force integration of the financial side of the international community with the environment, development and social part." Cliff Curtis
Many people commented on the internal struggles that are going on within UNEP and saw the outcomes of this process as crucial for its working relationship with the CSD, and therefore for the way in which the environmental aspect of sustainable development would be dealt with in the CSD's negotiations. Should UNEP continue restructuring and try to upgrade itself to a global environmental authority? Reactions varied from caution to enthusiasm.
Many NGOs were cautious about assigning UNEP the task of a global environmental authority before internal struggles are solved.
"I do not think [it should be upgraded to a global environmental authority]. I think [UNEP] should be better at the technical functions that it already provides. It does not need to be upgraded. Particularly not at this time. We need to get through the current financial crisis and deal with the current institutions in the form that they are. This may be something that is appropriate in three years." Michael McCoy
UN officials and some government delegates, on the other hand, were more ready for the idea of upgrading UNEP:
"Our thought has always been that UNEP should become more powerful, and should at least retain what it has now." Jukka Uosukainen
"This world continues to need a custodian of the environment, an organization with the power and credibility to assert the needs of the environment where they are threatened.... Thus, it is my hope and expectation that the Governing Council will find itself in a suitable position to make a significant contribution to both the substantive and the institutional aspects of next year's debate on the overall review and implementation of Agenda 21. Be assured that the environmental voice will be heard." Elizabeth Dowdeswell
A quote from Global Environmental Governance From Global Environmental Politics, by Gareth Porter and Janet Welsh Brown,
"The most ambitious proposal for institutional restructuring is the call for a global environmental legislative body with the power to impose environmental regulations on nation-states. The ideas surfaced at an international conference at The Hague in March 1989 sponsored by the French, Dutch, and Norwegian prime ministers. The delegates discussed a proposal for a new United Nations authority that would both legislate environmental regulations and impose sanctions on states that failed to carry them out.....This pathbreaking document anticipates a truly supranational institution capable of overriding national sovereignty on matters of global environmental concern." Gareth Porter and Janet Welsh Brown
The final declaration, adopted by twenty-four heads of states, including five of the G-7, called The Hague Declaration on the Environment, has been endorsed by nearly one third of the world's leaders since. Opposition came from the USA, UK, China, and Japan, all reluctant to yield national sovereignty, and UNEP and the EC, fearing their functions would be supplanted by the new body.
Our Global Neighborhood, the 1995 report of the independent Commission on Global Governance, equally endorses principles of global environmental governance, such as the calling for the UN Trusteeship Council to be given a new mandate over the global commons.
The INTGLIM report is not naively expecting the Special Session to take the necessary steps as called for in The Hague and by the Commission on Global Governance. But, governments and NGOs should applaud the examples of exemplary leadership and visionary trends manifested in recent years, while condemning efforts to reverse these trends, destroy the UN, replace governance with a social-Darwinian corporate anarchy, and re-start another cold war. The latter forces have received energy from the USA's financial strangulation of the UN. The persistent effort by US isolationist-unilateralist political forces, now joined in Europe by similar reactionary political leaders, threaten not only global security, but economic ruin and national security of individual states.
Unless progressive government and NGO leaders begin to mount a strategic confrontation to counter these forces, everything achieved since the end of the Cold War could be lost. However, progressive forces at the UN are still much stronger than generally recognized.
Selected proposals from interviews
INTGLIM Recommendations
The CSD has attempted to incorporate the concept of sustainable development into the daily work of the UN, its committees and its specialized agencies. Through the mechanism of both formal and informal panels, workshops and informal sessions on specific subjects, the CSD has been able to reach institutions that before would have been very skeptical towards sustainable development. The question becomes whether the CSD will succeed in influencing policies of the different UN bodies in general, and the financial and trade institutions in particular, or whether it is unrealistic to assume that the CSD will extend its influence beyond the the ECOSOC and General Assembly bodies.
The general answer to this question was positive, but most experts could not conceal a quixotic reaction to the question, in the context of a UN under attack and facing bankruptcy during the last two years. Thus, many accept the current voluntary working relationship the CSD has developed with the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) and seeks with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The mandate of the CSD is to coordinate system-wide, which should include the BWIs and the WTO. The Interagency Task Force process has done a decent job during the first four years in bringing different bodies into the discussion as partners.
There is, however, the reality that the governing boards of the financial and trade institutions, commanding greater financial and political resources, often are not accountable to the CSD (or the UN). The Special Session may wish to address this issue. Paragraph 23 of the General Assembly Resolution which calls for the establishment of the CSD: "Invites the World Bank and other international, regional and subregional financial and development institutions, including the Global Environment Facility, to submit regularly to the Commission on Sustainable Development reports containing information on their experience, activities and plans to implement Agenda 21." (A/47/719)
But, at present, linking the BWIs, the WTO and other international, regional and subregional financial and development institutions more closely to the CSD can only take place on a voluntary basis. There was a general feeling among the people we interviewed, that it is indeed desirable that these insitutions come to the CSD, bring their expertise and share their experiences.
"The way to convince the WTO, the BWIs etcetera to show up at the CSD is by increasing the political importance of the CSD. A couple of years ago the IMF said it wanted nothing to do with the CSD and now they realize they can't stay out. ..There needs to be some improvement in the relationship between the financial institutions and the UN. Some people will argue that strengthening it implies that the financial institutions will get more control over the UN. There is no doubt that this is a risk and therefore the whole UN must be involved in this process. I tend to be of the view that we will make more progress if we come up with some specific initiatives that have something at stake." Barbara Adams
As is discussed later, this issue is related to the goal of increasing the involvement of economic and financial ministers and other national ministerial policy makers in the CSE. A key recommendation
to achieve this goal from those surveyed was by reducing the number of issues on the CSD agenda, providing enough focus and specificity so that ministers can expect tangible outcomes. The NGOs were especially skeptical about the ability of the CSD to push for more accountability from the financial and trade institutions towards the CSD. They feared that this would mean the financial institutions would gain control over the CSD instead of the other way around. UN staff were generally optimistic about their ability to work together in a more substantial way than before. They agreed this was going to be a slow process, but as financial and trade institutions become increasingly accustomed to the CSD and other agencies and programs working on this subject, they will accept the need to integrate the concept of sustainable development in their work.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
The GEF is the most prominent financial facility with the mandate to specifically deal with the environment. It might be useful to review the work of the GEF in relation to the CSD. Has it lived up to its mandate and what kind of additional services would the CSD desire from the GEF to facilitate future cooperation?
In an article in the Earth Times, Joke Waller-Hunter commented that during the Special Session there may also be a decision on requests to broaden the scope of the Global Environment Facility. "They can't cover other issues without more money," she said, adding that the GEF's replenishment comes up in March. "This will be a very important signal. It will show the willingness of the donor countries to live up to their commitments."
Moreover, cooperation with the GEF can be a first step to further improving the working relationship with the World Bank. Involving the GEF in the development of new and innovative financial mechanisms will be discussed in the next chapter.
Selected proposals from interviews
The CSD shoul
INTGLIM Recommendations
The rough-estimate price-tag for Agenda 21 was $625 billion per year, including $125 billion to be provided by the developed countries in ODA (Overseas Development Assistance), the great majority coming from national budgets as nations address the mandates in their own countries. However, instead of ODA increasing two-fold, as would have been necessary to meet the $125 billion goal of Agenda 21, these funds have actually diminished in the last four years; some estimates are that as much as 20% less ODA is available in 1997 as in 1992!
There is no greater challenge before the Special Session than of increasing financial commitments for sustainable development. Without tangible progress, it is hard to see how the "spirit of Rio" can be recaptured and renewed.
The survey did not focus too specifically on questions about financing sustainable development. During the last three years, the INTGLIM caucuses have steadfastly promoted the need to develop new, independent and innovative financial resources for sustainable development and other multi-lateral activity, and some of our recommendations, including a special sub-commission on the subject described above, are included in this report.
A key institutional goal for the CSD raised by many in the survey is to increase the involvement of finance and development ministers. Through some mechanism, a sub-commission or an intergovernmental panel on finance, the CSD should establish this issue as a central goal in the second five-year work program.
Before the UNGA Second Committee on October 23, 1996, US Ambassador Victor Marrero stated:
"A fresh look by the CSD at financial and technology issues should be a critical part of the new CSD."
Innovative financial mechanisms
Increasing ODA, replenishment of the GEF, and a fascinating array of "market-based" tools (to review and redeploy existing subsidies, shifting economic incentives, market-based instruments (MBIs) to encourage or discourage different kinds of production and consumption patterns) all need CSD attention. Imposing global levies, user fees, currency-exchange taxes, levies on airline fuel, trading emission or pollution rights, charging replacement costs on unsustainable uses of natural resources, and many other proposals need the global commission's committment, regardless of what Jesse Helms, Bob Dole and the US Congress threaten.
Sustainable development must not be seen only as something to be achieved by means of expensive additional technology and compensatory cost mechanisms. Sustainable development can also be achieved through a combination and mobilization of positive financial and monetary policies, which have beneficial economic, social and environmental effects.
"Much time has been spent on the questions of resources at the CSD. Governments do not have enough resources to implement the action plan contained in Agenda 21. The problem is not a shortage of money. There is lots of money in the world - the real task for the UN is to engage civil society in the planning process so when the plan is finished civil society wants to invest in and implement the plan because it is their agenda." Peter Padbury
NGOs have been very active in fueling the discussion on financial mechanisms, and governments do express their interest in the subject also. The INTGLIM authors believe that it is vital that NGOs and civil society take the lead in developing plans for these innovative financial mechanisms. For if the plan emerges from the G-7 finance ministers or World Bank, it probably will not be one most governments or NGOs will find acceptable. However, there may be a role for the GEF, governed jointly by UNDP, UNEP, and the Bank, to evaluate various proposals and to administer revenues that might come forward out of a global tax, since the GEF has important responsibilities in financing key elements of Agenda 21. Perhaps the GEF is an acceptable institutional wedge for promoting this idea in the Bretton Woods Institution.
As stated above, if the CSD creates an NGO or Civil Society Sub-commission, development of broadly acceptable innovative global financial mechanisms should be a top priority.
Before the UNGA Second Committee on October 22, 1996 Mark Gray, Representative of Australia stated:
"New international organisations such as the Commission on Sustainable Development have worked to achieve coordination of global activity on sustainable development and financial mechanisms such as GEF have been reviewed and restructured to enhance programming of activities which achieve sustainable development." Mark Gray
As we have seen with the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, the CSD can be an effective vehicle to take an issue that requires specialized attention and pull together the technical and political experts to discuss the subject in a more singular way. Establishing a Sub-commission or Intergovernmental Panel on Finance is one of the few ways in which the issue of finance will receive the kind of political attention it deserves.
"In recent years, the idea of developing new financial sources - particulalry by imposing global taxes - has become a favorite subject among NGOs and the academic community. Instruments such as an international airplane fuel tax or the Tobin tax could play a key role in financing sustainable development because they combine the mobilization of resources with the achievement of positive monetary, social and environmental effects. However, the world's governments have yet to conduct an intensive fundamental discussion on this point. The current debate is generally limited to declarations and to professions of belief - even on the part of NGOs. The 1997 Special Session could set the stage for deepening this discussion by establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Finance for this purpose. This panel should - in close collaboration with independent experts - examine the technical feasibility of particular financing instruments and their anticipated impact on allocation and distribution, and subsequently submit specific proposals for implementing such instruments to governments by the year 2000 at the latest." Jens Martens and Peter Mucke
INTGLIM Report Recommendations
The CSD should establish a Sub-commission on Finance and Financial Mechanisms for Sustainable Development. Promoting linkages between the CSD and the IFI's (i.e.global financial policies and financing for sustainable development) is, we believe, the most important subject area for the establishment of a sub-commission. Sustainable development, trade, and technology transfer, including the development of market-based instruments (MBIs) and innovative or independent financial resources for sustainable development should be included in work of this subcommission.
There is general praise for the work of the CSD Secretariat and for other CSD mechanisms, such as the task manager system. However, from the beginning it was realized that improvements in procedures for the Chair and Bureau of the CSD should be made. In the past years, a new chair has been elected the first day of a new CSD, when the Chair and Bureau who had overseen all the preparations of that session are replaced. Often, the new chair and officers have very little background and expertise on the issues they are then asked to immediately shepard through the political process.
As former Chair Henrique Cavalcanti commented:
"The mandate is too short, each chair needs more than one year. I think the new chair should take over at the end of the meeting and not at the beginning. The other thing is that the vice-chairmen should formally be given specific tasks. One of them we tried last year and it worked very well, where the vice-chairs are responsible towards their own constituencies and have previous meetings before the bureau meeting and they can then relate back. I think the chair has to be represented in most of the parallel events." Henrique Cavalcanti
INTGLIM Recommendations