Towards Earth Summit 2002 |
|
| Home | Site Map Issue Caucuses Major Groups Steering Committee |
| What's New? | Earth Summit 2002 OUTREACH Translations Links |
|
Towards Earth Summit 2002 |
|
| Home | Site Map Issue Caucuses Major Groups Steering Committee |
| What's New? | Earth Summit 2002 OUTREACH Translations Links |
Dear Colleagues,
Fulfilling the Northern caucus Guidelines I am producing the first of what will be four reports this year.
This year’s CSD was probably the worst CSD ever and I will come to this later in the report.
The Northern caucus meeting at the CSD agreed the work programme for the next year and this will be posted on the web site www.csdngo.org/csdngo shortly. It includes the continuation of producing material in Russian, Spanish and French. One of the most pleasing aspects of the past year has been the Northern caucus being able to offer translation. We will also continue our outreach into Eastern Europe, which we hope to fundraise for to ensure a greater participation from that region in next years CSD. We also hope to help caucuses broaden their membership as we start to identify which countries NGOs on the list servers are from and through a caucus membership registration process, we will start to target those that are not yet members aiming to ensure that caucuses have members from all CSD member states.
The next two and a half years will be very important to the success of preparations for 2002. To succeed we all need to work together and the Steering Committee needs to support the work of the issue based caucuses whose members are the experts in particular areas of work.
I will now cover the following areas in this report:
Best Wishes
Felix Dodds
Northern Co-Chair CSD Steering Committee
(Report reviewed by Northern Management Committee Members)
1) Northern Caucus election results;
2) Changes in the Steering Committee Guidelines;
3) Over-view of NGO work at CSD 8;
4) CSD Decisions;
5) CSD Caucus List servers
1) Northern Caucus election results
In addition to the re-election of Felix Dodds as Co-Chair there were the following election results:
Steering Committee Regional Representatives
North America:
Lindsay Cole
Sierra Youth Coalition
University of Victoria Sustainability Project
PO Box 3060, Stn. CSC
Victoria, BC
V8W 3R4, Canada
Phone: 1 250 721-0372
Fax: 1 250 721-6610
E-mail: lindzc@hotmail.com
and
Richard Jordan
Global Education Associates
P. O. Box 1562
Madison Square Station
New York, NY 10159
Phone: 1 212 382 3535 (answering service)
Fax: 1 212 870 2729
E-mail: richardjordan@mailcity.com
Western Europe
Jan Gustav Strandenaes
The Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development
Storgata 11
N-0155 Oslo
Phone: +47 23 01 03 00
Fax: +47 23 01 03 03
E-mail: strandenaes@forumfor.no
and
Patricia Collette
National Committee for International Cooperation & Sustainable
Development
P. O. Box 18184
1001 ZB Amsterdam, Netherlands
Phone: + 31 20 550 3583
Fax: + 31 20 550 3590
Central and Eastern Europe
Victoria Elias
Eco-ACCORD
Prospect Mira 36
129010 Moscow, Russian Federation
Phone: + 7 095 280 8067
Fax: + 7 095 200 4250
E-mail: victoria@aivaschenko.home.bio.msu.ru
and
Olga Ponizova
Eco-ACCORD
Prospect Mira 36
129010 Moscow, Russian Federation
Phone: + 7 095 280 8067
Fax: + 7 095 200 4250
Australasia Region:
Ian Fry
Pacific BioWeb
Phone: + 61 2 62306828
Fax: +61 2 62306740
Mobile: 0427100996
E-mail:<ifry@mpx.com.au>
and
second representative to be determined
Management Committee Representatives
North America Richard Jordan
Eastern and Central Europe Victoria Elias
Western Europe Jan Gustav Strandenaes
Australasia Ian Fry
2) Changes in the Steering Committee Guidelines;
As mentioned above there have been significant changes in the Steering Committee Guidelines these will be added to the 1999 Guidelines booklet and republished both on the web and in print form.
The amendments will cover the following
Motions of the Northern Caucus to the Steering Committee Meeting, 4th
May 2000
(with ammendments)
3) NGO process on CSD8
1) Finance and trade
2) Agriculture
3) Education
4) Earth Summit 2002
5) Land
6) Energy
7) Forests
8) Tourism
1) FINANCE AND TRADE
Initial Comments by Felix Dodds
The replacement of the two co-facilitators of the finance caucus by the CSD NGO Steering Committee Co-Chairs two weeks before the start of the CSD Intersessional. The Northern Co-Chair drafted the five NGO draft papers on Trade, FDI, Debt, ODA, and New Financial Mechanisms. At the Intersessional new Co-facilitators were chosen Wilfredo Alangui who is with the Tebtebba Foundation in the Philippines, and Jurgen Maier from the German Forum for Environment and Development.
One of the interesting developments in the finance debate was the re-emergence of the NGO idea of an Inter-governmental Panel on Finance which was the number one NGO lobbying point from the 1997 Earth Summit II process. This idea originally supported by the US and Norway and then after lobbying around Europe by the European Union was originally killed by China, India and Tanzania on the final evening of Earth Summit II. The idea re-emerged as a G77 proposal and NGOs were approached to lobby for it by G77. Sanders who was one of the key NGO lobbyists from 1997 on this idea followed the discussion. The final text points out that there was not agreement on the setting up of an ‘ad-hoc panel to undertake an analytic study of the lack of progress in the fulfilment of the commitments made in the area of finance, with a view to make recommendations to synchronise the progress on sectoral issues with cross sectoral areas’. This may re-emerge at the July ECOSOC meeting.
Additional comments by Sander van Bennekom
CSD 8 was the first occasion to evaluate the politically sensitive issue of finance and the global commitment to sustainable development since the Rio + 5 meeting in 1997. The ongoing decline in Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) from industrialised countries has taken away much of the enthusiasm for sustainability and implementing Agenda 21. Judging from CSD 8, the picture looks ominous for 2002 and we need a serious diplomatic effort to avoid a situation where the issue of finance renders the Summit in 2002 as superfluous before it even starts. The four biggest donors of ODA have all decreased their budgets and there is also doubt about the effectiveness of the current aid flows.
Needless to say, the quantitative aspects of development assistance are closely related to the qualitative side and this highly confuses the negotiations.
The introduction of the term ‘good governance’ is typical as a criterion for ‘ODA worthy’ countries in order to prevent the abuse of aid flows. This term is highly politicised since many donors are looking for an excuse to justify their dropping ODA budgets and there is no easier way than to refer to a rather general principle as `good governance.' The diplomatic solution arrived upon at CSD 8 - a definition of effective, accountable, transparent and participatory instead of `good'- deserves attention since it is more tangible. Application of these criteria should not only take place in recipient countries, but also in donor countries. A sizable portion of development assistance is directly linked to opportunities for corporations in donor countries, rather than sustainable development in recipient countries. The agreement of a definition of good governance in relation to financing for sustainable development does not hide the fact that there is widespread disagreement about the relevance of the above mentioned principles.
Of course, the issue of finance includes much more than ODA and the notion that a country's domestic resources will be more important in achieving sustainability than foreign aid is still the basis for the negotiations. There is a lot to say about domestic resources, especially in the light of globalisation and the increasing dependence on the global market. This globalisation process creates opportunities for more resources for sustainability, but it also includes the risk of marginalization and instability.
As usual the report of the latest Expert Meeting on Financial Issues of Agenda 21 (Nairobi, 2000) includes a wealth of wisdom in analysis and ideas, both on traditional ODA, on investment and other capital flows. However, this is also an old conclusion, the gap between the expert meetings - a CSD initiative! - and the sessions of the CSD is as big as it ever was and the report hardly plays a role at the CSD. The political importance of this gap is recognized by many participants of the Expert Meetings. In the words of Mr. Omotayo Olaniyan of the Organization of African Unity:
“There is a need for Africa to have tangible results by Rio + 10 in
the year 2002. But this could only materialise if new ... methods are found
to … address the diverse problems of ODA and sustainable development. The
dynamics of ODA must be effectively harnessed to ensure that Africa will
be fully part of the global sustainable development process” (Financing
for sustainable development; Testing new policy approaches; background
paper no 15, p.89).
There is little chance that the CSD alone can generate such an approach
and this makes a separate initiative on finance imperative for a successful
meeting in 2002. Strangely, the 1997 idea for an intergovernmental panel
on finance re-emerged, this time as a G-77 initiative. Most other countries
felt that the overlap between this proposal the `financing for development'
meeting in 2001 was too large to convene such a panel so there was little
support for it at CSD 8. However, the CSD can not avoid the broader questions
on finance for sustainability in 2002 and this requires a fresh look at
the proposal for an intergovernmental panel. Rio + 10 needs to have a better
strategy on finance than Rio + 5 had. So far, the intergovernmental panel
is the only proposal at the table and any delegation that intends to reject
it should realize that they have the responsibility to come up with a solid
alternative.
Sander van Bennekom Tools for Transition
2) AGRICULTURE
by NGO SAFS Caucus Co-ordinators
Outcome On-going Sustainable Agriculture Dialogue Mandated by CSD 8
The proposal to continue a working multi-stakeholder group on
sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) was agreed to
by governments at the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) early
in the morning on Saturday, May 6, 2000. The government working group on
land and agriculture of the CSD changed language of earlier proposals to
reflect concerns such as meaningful participation from developing
country major group representatives. The language of the text negotiated
by governments is included in the body of the proposed terms of reference
below. These are the terms that representatives of the five initial stakeholder
groups agreed to on Friday, April 28.
CSD Major Groups Focal Point Zehra Aydin hosted an initial conference
call on May 9 to debrief the original stakeholders. Representatives from
the SAFS Caucus (Thomas Forster), farmers (David King, IFAP), industry
(Jack Whelan, AgriFood Network), trade unions (Lucien Royer, International
Federation of Free Trade Unions) and Carol Kalafatic (Indigenous Peoples)
participated. A second call is scheduled for June 13th, and will
include a representative of Via Campesina on behalf of peasants and
small scale producers.
The first call was held to review the draft terms of reference and to discuss next steps including the engagement with FAO and other intergovernmental organizations and the other major groups (Women, Scientists, Youth and Local Governmental Authorities).
The text of the draft terms of reference is included in text below.
Please note that the final CSD8 mandate was not to establish a formal
working group (as mentioned in the previously written description below),
but to foster ongoing dialogue on SARD by the stakeholders.
Discussions of how best to do this are just beginning, and the
SAFS Caucus and other stakeholders will be in consultation with their constituencies
and each other to prepare a plan of action for the next two year
period leading up to and including Rio + 10 in 2002. In response to an
initial suggestion by FAO during stakeholder meetings at CSD, one key venue
for multi-stakeholder dialogue will be at the next Committee on Agriculture
(CoAG) meeting in February of 2001.
Stakeholder representatives will actively explore this opportunity
with FAO, building on the success of the CSD8 dialogue. Institutional relationships
with IFAD were also discussed at CSD8, and will also be explored.
Gordon Bispham and Linda Elswick
Co-coordinators, NGO SAFS Caucus
***********
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) International
Informal Ad Hoc Multi-Stakeholder Working Group Discussion Draft Proposal
Agreed to by Farmers, Trade Unions, Industry, NGOs and Indigenous Peoples
1. The Commission on Sustainable Development can provide a catalytic role by establishing an ongoing working group organized to foster new and stronger alliances between diverse stakeholders. This working group would identify and, where possible, capture the common ground for common actions. The working group would provide the essential space for debate and, if feasible, pilot initiatives to demonstrate ways and means to build new collaborations between Major Groups identified in Agenda 21, governments and the intergovernmental community. The working group will operate within existing structures and resources of the CSD and other international organizations.
2. Participation of Major Groups is recognized as essential to implementation
of SARD in Agenda 21, chapter 14. Multi-stakeholder dialogues between Major
Groups in Civil Society have become a hallmark of recent meetings of the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Just such a
dialogue was held during the eighth session of the CSD on April 24 and
April 25. Five of nine Major Groups participated in the dialogues devoted
to the subject of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: Farmers,
Non-Governmental Organizations (including Indigenous Peoples), Trade Unions
and Industry.
Four sessions of the multi-stakeholder dialogue were organized
according to the following topics:
- Choices in agricultural production techniques, consumption patterns
and safety regulations: potentials and threats to sustainable agriculture
- Best Practices in land resources management to achieve sustainable
food cycles
- Knowledge for a sustainable food system: identifying and providing
for education, training, knowledge-sharing and information needs
- Globalization, trade liberalization and investment patterns:
economic incentives and framework conditions to promote sustainable agriculture
3. Each of the Major Groups presented four discussion papers
(E/CN.17/2000/3/Add1-Add4). During the dialogues many important areas of
agreement and disagreement were presented and noted in the "Chairman’s
summary of the multi-stakeholder dialogue on sustainable agriculture".
In each of the four topics listed above, the dialogue produced specific
areas for further work essential for continued implementation of SARD at
all levels of Civil Society. These areas for further work are the
subjects of this proposal for an informal ad hoc working group of all major
groups identified in Agenda 21.
4. During the Intersessional Meeting to prepare for CSD8 a proposal was made by governments to establish this working group. Para 110 of the "Report of the Intersessional Ad Hoc Working Group on Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources; and on Agriculture" (E/CN/17/2000/11, p. 12) states as follows:
As part of the ongoing review of progress towards SARD and within existing structures and resources, the FAO and the CSD Secretariat in consultation with governments, relevant international organizations and all major groups are invited to continue the stakeholder dialogue on SARD, including facilitating the adequate and meaningful participation of stakeholders from developing countries. In preparing for CSD10 and Rio+10, this dialogue should emphasise the identification of specific examples and the development of case studies which illustrate or support the principles of sustainable agriculture and rural development.
5. The SARD working group will take as a starting point the excellent
work executed for CSD8, including the beginning framework for discussion
represented in Major Group papers and the dialogue presentations of the
initial four major groups. The other Major Groups will be added to these
four and invited to submit their own discussion papers responding to the
issues raised in the CSD8 multi-stakeholder dialogues.
6. The scope of work will be refined by the working group once
it is convened but will take as its terms of reference the consensus of
the CSD8 multi-stakeholders that priorities for action are to: - document
concrete examples of best current and existing practices and systems for
sustainable agriculture including both production and consumption;
- identify challenges to and opportunities for sustainable agriculture
and SARD indicators to be adapted at national levels to meet the diversity
of specific food systems;
- a focus on scientific research and development, and knowledge system
protection for SARD
- Identify challenges to and opportunities for macro-economic and investment
patterns necessary for SARD.
7. The working group should meet twice before CSD10 / Rio+10,
with representation of each Major Group stakeholder and assisted by relevant
intergovernmental agencies including the FAO, IFAD, UNEP, ILO, and
including other partners as identified by stakeholders. Concrete outcomes
will include:
- identification and documentation of best SARD practices and systems
including the scope of work identified in number 5 above and representing
collaboration among major groups on SARD by:
- providing an interim status report to CSD9 as part of the preparatory
process for CSD10;
- presenting of concrete examples by Major Groups for best practices,
knowledge systems and macroeconomic conditions for SARD to CSD10 / Rio+10
8. The governance structure proposed for the working group will be based
upon stakeholder agenda-setting, equitable representation and high-level
reporting as established within the CSD, with specific roles for key intergovernmental
organizations beginning with the FAO. The governance of the working group
will be guided by principles of mutual respect of the diversity of views
that exists within and across each of the major groups:
- that all are essential voices in determining sustainable development
paths;
- that each will carry significant roles and responsibilities in shaping
SARD as recognized in Agenda 21;
- that the stakeholder process enjoy the freedom of being stakeholder-driven;
and
- that a prerequisite of the working group be a clarification of roles
and responsibilities.
3) EDUCATION
By the Northern Education Caucus Co-facilitator
The Caucus had two lengthy meetings on Thursday, 27 and Friday 28 April, which were spent trying to agree a common platform for future activities. Parties to these meetings included the Education Caucus, UNESCO, Southern Caucus members, the Southern Co-Chair, and Herman Verheij of the Dutch (and EU) delegations. A number of revisions of a basic document were circulated. The latter currently resides with UNESCO, which has yet to agree some minor drafting amendments. The document is entitled "Areas of Agreement Between UNESCO and the CSD NGO Steering Committee Education Caucus”. The Caucus has undertaken to prepare a document for Education NGOs about the CSD Education Work Programme with concrete suggestions about how they can contribute to it.
Input to the EU Draft Decision
The EU had drafted a proposed text, on education. As the text was not finalised, the Caucus was asked to suggest amendments. Some amendments were suggested, and these were further considered at the Caucus meeting on Tuesday, 2 May. The suggested revisions were unanimously agreed except for the language in one of the points. In order to address this, a small working group of representatives was formed to draft some language after the formal Caucus meeting.
The proposed amendments were largely adopted by EU Co-ordination, and presented on the floor as a "Draft Decision, Agenda item 8: Other matters, 'Education, Public Awareness and Training", on Thursday during the Draft Working Group III meeting on Rio+10. Unfortunately, delegates from the group of 77 & China objected on the grounds that they had not had time to properly consider the document in their private group meetings. After an abortive informal/informal the proposed draft decision was dropped. This was particularly regrettable because the text was excellent.
Congo Meeting on Education for Sustainable Development
On Monday, 1 May, Congo sponsored an education meeting. This included an excellent contribution, from Bremley, the Caucus Southern Co-Chair. It was also good to hear from another speaker, Wendy Goldstein of IUCN. Wendy holds very similar views to the Caucus, and it was good to work with her again.
Future activities in relation to CSD-9
Another Education Caucus meeting was held at 3:00 pm on Wednesday, 3 May to discuss plans for the next series of CSD meetings. It was agreed that we should try to intervene in relation to both the sectoral and cross-sectoral themes.
It was agreed that the Caucus should liase with other appropriate caucuses. In this regard, it was agreed that members would attend the Energy Caucus meeting the following day (Thursday) to offer joint work for in preparation for CSD-9. This we did, and our offer was accepted.
Trevor Harvey
Northern Co-facilitator of the Education caucus
4) EARTH SUMMIT 2002
By Northern Co-Chair
The discussion on Earth Summit 2002 was one of the most successful of the CSD. This was because of the enormous amount of work that had gone into preparing for this debate by NGOs other stakeholders, governments and the UN.
The debate on 2002 in the Ministerial segment was very good and I am enclosing the chair’s summary from this. The negotiations in the second week were less good. Part of the problem is that the Ministers were from Environment Ministries and the negotiators in the second week were from Foreign Ministries. Saying this we did in the end, end up with a reasonable outcome to summaries:
* Three countries offered to host the Summit with two others waiting in the wings. The countries that offered to host were South Africa, Brazil and Korea those waiting to offer were Indonesia and Japan. Since New York Brazil has withdrawn.
* There was agreement that Agenda 21 should not be renegotiated.
* That the 10-year review should look at Agenda 21, the UNGASS outcome, other relevant conferences and summits and that Agenda 21 should be the framework that the new challenges and opportunities should be addressed.
* Preparation for Earth Summit 2002 should be done at the local, national and regional levels.
* There should be active involvement of Major Groups.
* CSD10 will start immediately after CSD9 in 2001 and will consist of a one week CSD. In effect there will be three weeks of CSD activities in April/May 2001.
* CSD9 will be dealing with Energy and Transport and Information
and Participation for Decision-Makers.
* The Dialogue Session will be on Transport.
5) LAND
The negotiations on Land were problematic and were finished on Saturday
morning the last issue being that of land tenure. The agreement is no further
than the Habitat II text.
6) ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT
by Energy and Climate Change NGO Caucus Coordinators
In January, as part of preparations for the Ninth Session of the CSD, the NGO Energy & Climate Change Caucus ("the Caucus") prepared and submitted a paper, as part of a packet to CSD missions, suggesting various topics for examination and consideration by the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development (IGEESD) at its first session from 6-10 March, 2000.
Prior to the IGEESD session, the Caucus sent out a number of detailed informational reports to the general CSD NGO community. At the CSD Intersessional, on February the week before the IGEESD session, the Caucus attended a briefing by the IGEESD Co-Chairs, which was followed by a Caucus strategy meeting.
During the 6-10 March session of IGEESD, the Caucus held NGO strategy sessions as well as interacted with government delegations.
The Caucus prepared and formally presented a statement at the meeting of IGEESD on the afternoon of 7 March. The statement was read by the Vice-Chair of the All-India Women's Conference, a member of the Caucus.
The Caucus had a very useful formal meeting with the European
Union at its offices on 8 March.
During the week of the IGEESD session, the Caucus sponsored three side
events with the following topics and speakers:
6 March: "Calculating the Real Economic Costs of Energy Production
and Consumption," with David M. Roodman, author of "The Natural Wealth
of Nations" and Senior Researcher at Worldwatch Institute
9 March: "Cost-Effective Energy Conservation Strategies in Building Construction and Operations" with subtopic talks as follows:
"Passive Solar and Green Construction," with Michael Niklas, Principal,
Innovative Design, and Vice-President, ASES;
"How the World Bank is Saving Half a Million Dollars a Year in Energy
Costs," with John Pivik, Manager, Facilities Building Operations &
Maintenance, World Bank;
"Government Legislation/Regulations to Promote Green Construction and
Energy Conservation in Buildings," with Dale Bryk, Natural Resources Defense
Council
10 March: "Low-Cost Solar Energy Technologies for Developing Countries" Workshop with representatives from Solar Cookers International
CSD8 CAUCUS ACTIVITIES
The Caucus focused on interactions with government delegates and preparations
for CSD9. The Caucus sponsored one side event, on 27 April:
"Briefing on the Current Status of the Climate Change Negotiations",
with Michael Zammit Cutajar, Executive Director of the UNFCCC Secretariat.
The Caucus successfully outreached to NGOs attending the NPT Session,
which took place concurrently with CSD8.
The Caucus prepared and distributed a formal statement concerning the
items on the CSD8 agenda concerning the agenda for the second session of
IGEESD in 2001 and the agenda for CSD9.
The Caucus held meetings in preparation for CSD9 on 27, 28, and 30 April, and daily from 1-5 May. During these meetings, much was accomplished, including the following:
1. The first draft of a formal overall Statement on a Global Action Plan (GAP) on Energy and Climate Change was prepared.
2. A strategy was established for outreaching to NGOs, who have not previously been part of the CSD process, for the purpose of receiving input in future drafts of the GAP Statement and other reports/papers that the Caucus will do as part of the preparatory process for CSD9.
3. A strategy was decided on for outreaching to governments prior to September, with the GAP Statement.
4. Committees on each of the topics of the GAP were tentatively established.
These committees will be preparing reports to be submitted to the Secretary-General
by November-December of this year.
5. Plans were made for the Caucus to participate at the 14-25 August
session of the ECOSOC Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Development
(CENRD)
6. Plans were made for Caucus members to participate in and keep abreast of other preparatory meetings and activities taking place this year at various locations around the world, and the Caucus would attempt to disseminate as many reports as possible on these activities.
June 2000
For more information, contact the Caucus Coordinators:
Coordinator for the South:
Rajat Chaudhuri/CUTS
3B Camac Street
Calcutta-700 016 India
Phone: 91-33-229 7391
Fax: 91-33-249 6231
Email: cutscal@vsnl.com
Coordinator for the North:
Deling Wang/MSES/SUSNET
151 West 25th St., 8th Fl. Rear
New York, NY 10001-7204, USA
Phone: 1-212-330-9015
Fax: 1-212-645-2214
Email: deling@igc.org
7) FORESTS
One of the key issues from Rio which might have become the third convention was forests. The CSD in 1995 set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests followed in 1997 by the Intergovernmental Forum of Forests (IFF). The IFF at CSD2000 made the following recommendations:
a) endorsing the conclusions and proposals for action within the
IFF Report;
(b) invited the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly,
as appropriate, to take action on the proposed terms of reference for an
international arrangement on forests, as recommended by the Forum and contained
in the appendix to chapter III of the report of the Forum on its fourth
session, and as reproduced in the annex to the present decision;
(c) invited the President of the Economic and Social Council
to initiate, before the substantive session of 2000 of the Council, informal
consultations on options for placing the United Nations Forum on Forests
within the intergovernmental machinery of the United Nations system.
One of the other key developments was support for multi-stakeholder dialogues within the new body. NGOs have also started to set up a global coalition on forests, which will monitor the implementation of the IFF and IPF agreements.
7) FRESHWATER
There was no substantive discussion on freshwater.
8) TOURISM
By Northern Co-facilitator of the Tourism Caucus
I just returned from a trip to Spain and I would want to send my greetings to the Steering Committee meeting of tonight, including a small report of what I have been doing this year as northern tourism caucus co-coordinator and sharing a concern I have.
In the CSD7 documents it is agreed that at the CSD-8 will be reported about the ad-hoc Multistakeholder working groups and its proceedings. This is a responsibility of the coordinator of this group, the WTO.
Working on a very small budget with our organisation Retour supplied by the Dutch organisation NCDO (Patricia Collette), I have been able to dedicate only a limited amount of time to the tourism caucus. As Co-coordinator I have cooperated with Nina Rao (the southern Co-coordinator) in creating the mission statement for the tourism caucus, which is attached at the end of this email (as A), together with a welcome letter to egroup members. From this letter you can see how we interpret our task as Co-coordinator, just facilitators of communications. Therefor we sent around a questionnaire which was filled out by about 15 egroup members. (The list server has sent out a Tourism Quest)
Most important activity of this year was the multistakeholder meeting I attended as Tourism Caucus representative, with the other stakeholders involved in Tourism CSD 7. A report on this was sent around to the egroup for reactions. (On csdngo web site)
The next activity was a meeting in Berlin which Nina and I had to prepare the Nairobi CBD conference with world wide NGOs. The final report was sent around to the egroup for reactions. (Attached as file Nairobi).
To be able to have a representative NGO representation at these meetings I sent around a message to the egroup to identify the NGOs on the egroup
Now I would like to share a concern with you. To be able to take positions in the Multistakeholder working group Nina and I will have to be able to make clear who we represent. We will have to be able to take decisions in a relatively fast way and we will have to represent the interests of NGOs vis-a-vis those of business and governments. Now, speaking on behalf of an anonymous egroup is very difficult and we will loose our credibility. So I think it is important to identify the NGOs in our egroup and involve only them in decision making on CSD related issues. This means making a selection. Are we (Nina and I) entitled to do this, and how should such a procedure work (efficiently!!!). Second, we have had replies on our inquiries through the egroup on who the NGOs are in our egroup. But besides the abstract discussion of what the criteria are for being an NGO, there is a more urgent and relevant problem: what interests should NGOs represent in a multistakeholder process? In my opinion we should represent the interests of those who are less powerful and/or left out in political, social and economic processes. But, looking at NGOs involved in the tourism caucus, some of them represent a mix of interests, including those of governments, industry in general and private enterprises in particular. This means that if those NGOs would be involved in decision making on an NGO position, this position would already include the interests we are supposed to negotiate with in the Multistakeholder working group, i.e. a weakening of our position before we have even started negotiating.
Frans de Man
Northern Co-Facilitator Tourism Caucus
9) Transport
by Transport NGO Transport Caucus Co-coordinator
As Co-coordinator of the UN CSD NGO Transport Caucus, I would like to
invite you to participate in the preparations for the 9th UN Commission
on Sustainable Development meeting ("CSD 9") in April 2001 on Transport.
The CSD is the UN body that reviews the implementation of Agenda 21.
In its 5-year review of the Rio Summit in 1997 the CSD identified several
new areas of work. This included transport, which presently does not have
its own chapter in Agenda 21. The CSD is one of the most interesting bodies
in the UN system because it has the greatest involvement of stakeholders
and is the only political UN Commission (i.e. it is chaired by a Minister
or former Minister of a member country.)
Beyond being one of the key issues on the CSD's agenda next year, transport
is also the topic of a 2-day multi-stakeholder Dialogue session during
CSD 9. The 2-day multi-stakeholder Dialogues will be broken down into 4
different three-hour sessions. In the enclosed questionnaire we are asking
for your input to what those four themes should be. The final decision
will then be taken by the CSD Bureau (made up of government representatives).
In the past three years, previous Dialogues held on tourism and sustainable
agriculture have been successful in:
4) CSD Decisions
Text available on the CSD web site at www.un.org/esa/dcsd
Chairman's Summaries -
Chairman's Summary of the High-Level Segment of the eighth session of
the Commission on Sustainable Development. (PDF)
Chairman's Summary of the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue Segment of the
eighth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. (PDF)
Decisions
• Agriculture (Unedited text) (PDF)
• Integrated planning and management of land resources - (Unedited
text) (PDF)
• Economic growth, trade and investment (Unedited text) (PDF)
• Financial resources and mechanisms (Unedited text) (PDF)
• Report of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Development
on its first session
• Subprogramme entitled "Sustainable development" of the draft medium-term
plan of the United Nations for the period 2002-2005
• Matters related to the Intersessional work of the Commission
• Preparations for the ten-year review of progress achieved in the
implementation of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development
• Report of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) on its fourth
session
5) NGO Caucuses
Agriculture safs-subscribe@egroups.com
Education education-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Energy energy-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Finance and Trade finance-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Forests forests-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Freshwater freshwater-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Indigenous bschulth@ecouncil.ac.cr (send message SUBSCRIBE
in the message body)
Oceans oceans-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Tourism tourism-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Transport transport-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
Women women-csd-subscribe@egroups.com
To take part in these other areas write to the following:
Consumption jbarber@econet.org
Earth Summit 2002 info@earthsummit2002.org
Voluntary Initiatives anped@antenna.nl
| Home | Site Map | Issue Caucuses | Major Groups | Steering Committee |
| What's New? | Earth Summit 2002 | OUTREACH | Translations | Links |