Summary report, 28 February – 4 March 2011
CSD 19 Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting (IPM)
The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting (IPM) for the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 19) took place at UN Headquarters in New York from 28 February to 4 March 2011. The IPM’s role in the lead up to CSD 19 was to provide a forum to discuss policy options and possible actions to enable the implementation of measures and policies concerning the thematic issues under consideration during the CSD 18/CSD 19 (2010-2011) two year “implementation cycle.” These thematic issues are: transport, chemicals, waste management, mining, and sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Building on CSD 18, which conducted a “review” of these issues in May 2010, CSD 19 will be a “policy” session, during which delegates will negotiate decisions on measures related to the thematic areas. To assist in this process, the IPM considered each thematic area and delegates outlined possible policy options and actions for adoption at CSD 19. Delegates also considered inter-linkages, cross-cutting issues and means of implementation, as well as small island developing states (SIDS). Finally, there were two multi-stakeholder dialogues designed to elicit feedback from different groups on the thematic issues, as well as on expectations for CSD 19 within the context of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development.
The IPM’s deliberations resulted in a Chair’s draft negotiating text, which most delegates felt would provide a good starting point for negotiations. Attention now turns to CSD 19, which is scheduled to take place from 2-13 May 2011 in New York, and what it could and should deliver, with many at the IPM highlighting agreement on the 10-year framework of programmes (10YFP) on SCP as a “crucial” deliverable.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CSD
The Commission on Sustainable Development emerged from Agenda 21, the programme of action for sustainable development adopted in June 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the “Rio Earth Summit.” Agenda 21 called for the creation of the CSD to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, enhance international cooperation, and examine progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the local, national, regional and international levels. In 1992, the 47th session of the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 47/191, which established the CSD’s terms of reference and composition, organization of work, relationship with other UN bodies, Secretariat arrangements, and guidelines for the participation of Major Groups. The CSD is a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and its decisions are forwarded to ECOSOC. The CSD has 53 member states, although all UN member states are invited to participate in its sessions. The Division for Sustainable Development (DSD), within the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), serves as the CSD’s Secretariat.
The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has convened annually since then at UN Headquarters in New York. During its first five years, the CSD systematically reviewed the implementation of all chapters of Agenda 21. In June 1997, five years after UNCED, the 19th Special Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGASS 19), also known as “Rio+5,” was held to review the implementation of Agenda 21. Negotiations produced a Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and a five-year CSD work programme organized around sectoral, cross-sectoral and economic thematic issues. The economic, sectoral and cross-sectoral themes, as determined at UNGASS 19, were as follows: industry, strategic approaches to freshwater management, and technology transfer, capacity building, education, science and awareness raising (CSD 6); tourism, oceans and seas, and consumption and production patterns (CSD 7); sustainable agriculture and land management, integrated planning and management of land resources, and financial resources, trade and investment and economic growth (CSD 8); and energy and transport, atmosphere and energy, and information for decision-making and participation and international cooperation for an enabling environment (CSD 9).
CSD 10 acted as the preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which convened from 26 August-4 September 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The WSSD adopted two main documents: the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. The JPOI is designed as a framework for action to implement the commitments originally agreed at UNCED and includes chapters on: poverty eradication; consumption and production; the natural resource base; health; SIDS; Africa; other regional initiatives; means of implementation; and institutional framework. The Johannesburg Declaration outlines the path taken from UNCED to the WSSD, highlights present challenges, expresses a commitment to sustainable development, underscores the importance of multilateralism and emphasizes the need for implementation.
The WSSD called for the CSD to meet in seven two-year “implementation cycles,” and a multi-year programme of work for the 2004-2017 period was adopted at CSD 11 in 2003. CSD 12 and 13 adopted recommendations to address water, sanitation and human settlements. CSD 14 and 15 considered energy, industrial development, air pollution/atmosphere and climate change, but did not reach agreement on recommendations for action. CSD 16 and 17 adopted recommendations related to drought, desertification, agriculture, land, rural development and Africa.
CSD 18 convened in May 2010. Delegates embarked on a two-year cycle focused on the thematic cluster of transport, chemicals, waste management, mining, and sustainable consumption and production (SCP) patterns. They also conducted a one-day preparatory committee meeting for the five-year high-level review of the Mauritius Strategy for the Implementation of the Barbados Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS, which was held in September 2010.
At the conclusion of CSD 18, delegates expressed satisfaction with discussions on all the thematic clusters, especially for mining, transport and sustainable consumption and production, which do not fall under other any other international bodies for policy coordination. A suggestion to evaluate ways to improve implementation of CSD decisions was also received with interest, as many participants privately questioned the utility of a long CSD “review” year. The preparatory process for the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio 2012), which commenced the week following CSD 18, also occupied delegates’ minds, as they began considering links between the Rio 2012 and CSD agendas, and possible decisions by Rio 2012 on the CSD’s future.
The opening session of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting for CSD 19 took place on Monday morning, 28 February 2011. CSD 19 Chair László Borbély, Minister of Environment and Forests, Romania, opened the meeting and drew attention to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development taking place in 2012, which he said offers an historic opportunity to make progress. He said the IPM should help identify outputs for CSD 19, and announced that he would introduce a “comprehensive draft negotiating text” on the final day of the IPM that would aim to help build consensus at CSD 19.
Sha Zukang, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs and Secretary-General of the UNCSD, said 2011 promises to be a “defining year” in the CSD’s work. Reminding delegates that CSD 19 will be the last session before Rio 2012, he urged a “renewed awareness of what makes this forum valid” and called for insights and input on how the CSD might be reshaped to be a “vibrant body” with a focus on implementation. He also stressed the key role of Major Groups.
Delegates then adopted the agenda (E/CN.17/IPM/2011/1) and proposed organization of work. Regarding the CSD Bureau, Chair Borbély indicated that Abdelghani Merabet (Algeria) would serve as Vice Chair from the African Group, and Eduardo R. Meñez (Philippines) would be Vice Chair from the Asian Group. Silvano Vergara (Panama) would act as Vice Chair from the Latin American and Caribbean States, and Andrew Goledzinowski (Australia) as Vice Chair from the Western European and Others Group.
Representatives of governments and Major Groups then delivered opening statements. Argentina, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), stressed greater international coordination on chemicals assessment and management, more financing for waste-related technical cooperation projects, and increased efforts to address electronic waste (e-waste). He also suggested the development of global ethics for good conduct of mining and a stronger commitment for implementing the Mauritius Strategy and Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA).
The European Union (EU) supported a strong outcome at CSD 19 on the 10 Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on sustainable consumption and production (SCP). He called for: urgent implementation of the Mauritius Strategy and BPOA; combating illegal waste shipments; and support for the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).
The Marshall Islands, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), urged the international community to fulfill its sustainable development commitments to prevent them from becoming a “tragic paper title.”
Nepal, for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), urged an increase in financial assistance and improved technology transfer and capacity building in LDCs in the context of the CSD’s thematic areas.
Nauru, on behalf of the Pacific SIDS, called for the establishment of a formal UN SIDS category, real commitments related to fish stocks management, and substantive progress in 2011 in the climate change negotiations.
The US said a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not work for achieving the policy goals of CSD 19. Switzerland said the 10YFP is the area in which participants could make the greatest contribution to sustainable development.
Venezuela said that although developing countries have advanced in terms of sustainable development, the “commodification of nature” is the primary reason for the continuing economic gap between the developing and developed world. On mining, Bolivia said it did not want simply to provide the raw materials for lithium battery production, but should also be involved in the production process.
Indonesia, speaking for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), supported, inter alia: international financial mechanisms for sustainable transport systems; synergies among the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions dealing with chemicals and hazardous wastes; public-private partnerships for sustainable mining; and a “very gifted Secretariat” to support work on the 10YFP.
The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on behalf of the five UN Regional Commissions, highlighted a number of the common policy recommendations from the CSD Regional Implementation Meetings, including the need for improvements in fuel efficiency and fuel alternatives and the adoption of measures to address the vulnerability of SIDS to waste trafficking.
MAJOR GROUPS: Women urged gender balance in decision-making roles, including management boards, expert panels and advisory groups. She supported financing, credit facilities and technology development focused on women.
Children and Youth urged eradicating child labor, especially in the mining industry, as well as further steps to protect human and environmental health.
Indigenous Peoples supported a holistic development model with a small ecological footprint and framed by a commitment to solidarity, accountability and human rights. She called for full and effective participation of all stakeholders in the UN system, and the necessary political will to address the negative impacts of mining and extractive industries, toxic wastes and chemicals.
NGOs said humanity is facing an ecological and social crisis, arguing that business-as-usual is not an option and poses a global security threat. He said NGOs would continue to remind governments of their pledges, welcome more collaboration, and would like the CSD to be strengthened and linked better with other relevant bodies.
Workers and Trade Unions said none of the thematic issues for CSD 19 were being adequately addressed in the real world. She called for further clarity on why and how green economy and governance, which are the themes for Rio 2012, will deliver sustainable development.
Business and Industry said this meeting comes at a critical juncture in the lead-up to Rio 2012. She observed that CSD 19’s thematic issues are broad and linked across both value and supply chains, with connections to SCP and green economy. The Scientific and Technological Community said governments should increase investment in scientific and technological capacity, research and development, and said progress on SCP was essential.
Farmers highlighted various issues that should be included in a CSD outcome, including: harnessing science and technology for the sustainable use of resources (including water); proper management of waste from farming operations; risk management for farmers; and support for women farmers and their land rights.
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING REPORTS: Delegates were also briefed on meetings held since CSD 18. Thailand reported on the Fifth Regional Environmentally Sustainable Transport Forum in Asia, which was held in Bangkok from 23-25 August 2010. He noted agreement on a “Bangkok Declaration” setting out sustainable transport goals for 2010-2020. ECLAC reported on the Senior Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Development of Lithium Resources in Latin America, which was held in Santiago, Chile, from 10-11 November 2010. Panama briefed delegates on the 13-14 January 2011 Intersessional Meeting on a 10YFP on SCP, held in Panama City. Morocco reported on the Intersessional Meeting on Solid Waste Management in Africa, held in Rabat, Morocco, from 25-26 November 2010, which examined key problems such as e-waste and produced the Rabat Declaration. Japan reflected on an Intersessional Conference on Building Partnerships for Moving Towards Zero Waste, held in Tokyo from 16-18 February 2011. He explained that participants had endorsed the establishment of an International Partnership for Expanding Waste Management Services of Local Authorities to be launched during CSD 19.
SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES
On Monday afternoon, Chair Borbély introduced the session on SIDS and welcomed three panelists who focused on SIDS in the context of SCP, waste management and chemicals, and transport.
PRESENTATIONS: Toolseeram Ramjeawon, University of Mauritius, discussed the status of SCP efforts in SIDS and their key challenges and constraints. Among lessons learned, he emphasized the need for active public policy intervention and a unifying framework of programmes, the involvement of many government ministries, and fast-tracking high-visibility projects. On the role of the 10YFP, he recommended that it emphasize: support for national initiatives; bottom-up rather than top-down implementation; development of a knowledge bank that widely shares lessons learned and best practices; and concrete programmes.
Frank Griffin, University of Papua New Guinea, reviewed cooperation on pollution prevention and waste management in the Pacific Islands region, including efforts regarding ship-related marine pollution, hazardous materials management, improving solid waste management policies and infrastructure, and helping Pacific SIDS with their commitments under the Basel and Stockholm Conventions. He highlighted several constraints faced by Pacific Islands, including lack of proper and predictable financing and limited land areas, availability of appropriate infrastructure, and limited capacity to manage a range of pollutants.
Trevor Townsend, Director, Trinidad and Tobago Manufacturers’ Association, highlighted his country’s challenges and successes in implementing sustainable transportation. He said major constraints to progress include a lack of political will, the priority of affordability over sustainability, and the government’s short-term, rather than long-term priorities.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Delegates responded to the panel presentations with statements and questions. Argentina, on behalf of the G-77/China, said the challenges SIDS face in pursuing the sustainable development agenda must be viewed against the backdrop of the economic crisis, compounded by the impacts of climate change. She underscored her sense that the High-level Review Meeting of the Mauritius Strategy in September 2010 had provided a longstanding commitment to SIDS.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, stressed the urgent need for the implementation of the BPOA and the Mauritius Strategy, and said national and regional efforts must be complemented by the international community through, inter alia, the mobilization of financial resources.
Papua New Guinea, on behalf of AOSIS, noted that the High-level Review Meeting of the Mauritius Strategy not only highlighted successes towards implementation, but also where efforts have fallen short. He said these challenges can only be tackled by greater collaboration between SIDS and international partners.
Japan highlighted waste management challenges for SIDS and supported strengthened international partnerships. Micronesia highlighted the value of traditional knowledge in the context of SCP, waste management and transport.
The US said the CSD’s annual focus on SIDS presents a unique lens for further discussion, as well as an opportunity to discuss good practice and partnerships, and gaps that need to be filled.
Marshall Islands highlighted measurement as a common thread throughout the discussions, and supported goals, milestones and benchmarks that would address the aspirations of SIDS in relation to fisheries. Panelist Toolseeram Ramjeawon agreed that goals and milestones would be useful under the Mauritius Strategy.
Farmers highlighted early warning systems, integrated crop and pest management, soil conservation and smallholder farmers.
On Tuesday morning, delegates considered policy options to address barriers and constraints with respect to transport, taking into account lessons learned and best practices. CSD 19 Vice Chair Eduardo R. Meñez (Philippines) chaired the session, noting the sector’s many challenges, including lack of access in rural areas, and pollution, congestion and safety concerns in urban areas. He also underscored the need for low-emission transport options around the globe.
Kathleen Abdalla, DSD, summarized the Secretary-General’s report on “Policy Options and Actions for Expediting Progress in Implementation: Transport” (E/CN.17/2011/4). She said the report highlights various policy options for sustainable transport and focuses on: expanding access to sustainable transport; promoting urban public transport for sustainable development; enhancing modal shifts; improving transport technologies and systems; and transport safety. The report also describes ways to strengthen the enabling environment for implementation by, inter alia, enhancing investment in transport infrastructure and services.
PANELISTS: Roberto Aguerrebere-Salido, Mexican Transport Institute, discussed the urban and rural mobility and poverty divide. In rural areas, Aguerrebere explained that limited access to transport exacerbates development problems related to healthcare, agriculture and education. On urban transportation, Aguerrebere said reducing transport emissions is crucial, as it contributes to 23% of energy-related emissions. He highlighted “equality” of access to transportation.
Henning Schwarz, International Union of Railways, explained that while the rail sector is already a low-carbon, safe, resource-efficient transport mode, it is striving to achieve carbon-free train operation by 2050. He suggested that it would be helpful if CSD promoted the development of key indicators for integrated transport systems to guide policymaking and investment decisions.
Paul Steele, International Air Transport Association, discussed how his sector is working to cut its net carbon dioxide emissions 50% by 2050. He said meeting this goal will require developing sustainable biofuels. He called for agreement in the International Civil Aviation Organization on a global framework, since industry fears a fragmented approach with diverse and conflicting national or regional measures.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, many delegates made interventions. They highlighted a wide array of transport issues, including rural and urban policies, infrastructure needs, public and multi-modal transport, regulatory policies, and specific domestic actions.
Argentina, for the G-77/China, said CSD policy recommendations should respect national ownership and priorities. He suggested that priorities for action include: establishing and improving multi-modal systems, including alternative modes such as cycling and walking; broadening coverage and improving affordability of public mass transit; increasing financial resources and providing technology transfer and capacity building; massively improving infrastructure in both rural and urban areas; and adopting policies to promote and stimulate fleet modernization while reducing waste streams.
Hungary, for the EU, said the CSD should support, inter alia: an international target to decouple transport growth from its energy consumption and its negative environmental and social impacts; and the creation of a global reporting mechanism, with a harmonized and publicly-available database and tools, for monitoring and evaluating sustainable transport. The EU also supported the Bureau’s proposal for the production of cleaner vehicles through harmonization of ambitious pollutant emission standards and comparable measuring cycles worldwide.
Tuvalu, for the Pacific SIDS, underscored the region’s geographic isolation, which results in high transport costs. He noted the need for international support to adapt island transport infrastructure to cope with sea-level rise and other climate change impacts.
Maldives, speaking for AOSIS, noted that SIDS are at a disadvantage in terms of transportation costs, and called for immediate support, including market access preferences, grants, technology and other support to facilitate transport infrastructure.
The US emphasized three global transportation challenges: achieving health, climate and energy security goals through transportation emissions reductions; innovating goods movement systems for co-benefits in terms of energy efficiency, energy security, cost effectiveness and reduced pollution; and place-based policies that leverage investment to build smart communities. She also highlighted bus rapid transit policies.
China highlighted the need for an environmentally-friendly and efficient transport system, and its potential impact on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). He noted different infrastructure challenges in rural and urban areas and highlighted countries’ unique circumstances and challenges.
Brazil emphasized biofuel production for developing countries, which can help contribute to the MDGs. Venezuela expressed concerns over use of the term “green economy.” Norway underscored the need to develop policies that incentivize the phase-out of fossil fuels for transport, and said that while there is no “one-size-fits-all solution,” it is important to compile best practices for a suite of policy options.
Cambodia supported, inter alia, changing consumer behavior by encouraging mass transport and stakeholder investment in environmentally-friendly private and public transport. Chile noted the importance of mitigation and compensation measures associated with road building in remote areas to protect biodiversity.
Japan underscored the need to enhance international cooperation to share best practices. India highlighted the need for greater attention to rural connectivity, especially as it relates to poverty alleviation and development. Australia stressed the importance of consumer information, such as vehicle emissions and fuel consumption labels.
Saudi Arabia asserted the need for different transport policy recommendations for developing and developed countries, and proposed a policy recommendation on greater fossil fuel investment and clean fossil fuels. Thailand highlighted the need for a shift to energy efficiency to enhance energy security and mitigate climate change impacts.
Bolivia said transportation is a right, cautioned against advocating privatization, and asked the CSD to address the sustainability of biofuels. The Dominican Republic stressed the need to transfer environmentally-friendly and affordable transport technologies.
Mexico emphasized public transport, bus rapid transit, railway infrastructure for suburban trains, an integral plan for rural access, and regulation of trade in secondhand vehicles.
South Africa urged curbs on “dumping” used vehicles, aircraft and ships, and more lending from financial institutions for infrastructure for non-motorized transport. Kenya emphasized low-cost and non-motorized transport and Global Environment Facility (GEF) funding for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.
UNEP urged a global approach centered on avoiding emissions by reducing demand through better urban design and transport planning, shifting to less energy-intensive transport modes, and “cleaning” transport systems through low-carbon modes and technologies.
UN-HABITAT urged three policy priorities: integrating mobility planning into overall urban planning and coordination; decreasing demand for motorized mobility through changes in urban plans and investments; and ensuring investment in environmentally-friendly high-capacity urban mobility systems.
The Scientific and Technological Community supported developing policies that reflect changing transportation needs, noting that two-thirds of the global population will live in urban areas by 2050. Local Authorities requested help in implementing sustainable transport policies through, inter alia, better access to financing options.
Trade Unions emphasized that “mobility is not for vehicles, but for people,” and said transport workers require decent working conditions, wages and safety standards as they drive these services.
The session on chemicals took place on Tuesday afternoon. It was chaired by CSD Vice Chair Silvano Vergara (Panama). He noted that chemicals have significant impacts, both positive and negative, and supported inclusive chemicals management. He asked participants to consider how to strengthen governance at the national level, the life-cycle approach, support for developing countries, and partnerships with business, industry and other stakeholders.
Aslam Chaudhry, DSD, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on “Policy Options and Actions for Expediting Progress in Implementation: Chemicals” (E/CN.17/2011/5). He highlighted four key messages: progress in sound chemicals management has been significant but insufficient overall; changes are needed to cope with growth in chemicals production, especially for developing countries; there are links between chemicals management and achieving the MDGs; and a life-cycle perspective is critical.
PANELISTS: Klaus Tyrkko, Montreal Protocol and Chemicals Unit, UNDP, spoke about strengthening national governance, the life-cycle approach, and securing financial resources. On governance, he highlighted a sound regulatory framework, greater coordination and capacity for implementation and enforcement. On life cycle, he supported including chemicals and contaminants criteria in strategic environmental assessments, intensified cooperation between global chemicals-related treaties, and implementation at the national level. On funding, he supported a new trust fund, a possible new GEF focal area, and mainstreaming chemicals management into national development plans.
Donald Cooper, Executive Secretary of the Stockholm Convention and Co-Executive Secretary of the Rotterdam Convention, spoke about sustainable solutions for the sound management of chemicals. He noted CSD 18’s finding that significant progress has been made, but that much needs to be done to achieve the WSSD’s 2020 goal of sound chemicals management. He identified four main strategies: strengthening the governance framework; mainstreaming sound chemicals management into development agendas, which requires political buy-in; promoting SCP; and public-private partnerships.
Paul Sykes, International Council of Chemical Associations and Shell Chemical LP, noted significant remaining barriers and challenges to sustainable chemicals management, including the fact that globalized product flows mean problems with product safety are no longer restricted to the country of origin. On policy options, Sykes highlighted: further strengthening SAICM; public-private partnerships to supplement intergovernmental activities and act as a catalyst for improved implementation; and enhancing capacity building and technical cooperation to support developing countries.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, delegates’ statements stressed a range of issues, including the role of SAICM, synergies between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, financial and technological support, and national policies.
The G-77/China said CSD 19 should identify policy options to address: the private sector’s role; better regulatory systems that include recycling of chemicals’ by-products in the investment cycle; and transfer and dissemination of green technology.
The EU highlighted three priorities: recognizing that SCP lies at the heart of sound chemicals management; submitting sustainable chemicals management programmes to the 10YFP to be established at CSD 19; and accelerating the full implementation of SAICM globally.
Barbados, on behalf of AOSIS, supported the continued work on synergies between the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions, hoped that this framework would incorporate the upcoming mercury instrument, and highlighted the need for enhanced financial and technical support to SIDS from developed countries.
Noting that sound international chemicals management must begin with responsibility at the national level, the US highlighted a number of its domestic efforts, and encouraged integrating chemicals and waste management development assistance cooperation.
Thailand supported strengthening SAICM implementation and the wider links to SCP, education and poverty goals.
Mexico supported the recommendations in the Secretary-General’s report, and underscored the importance of incorporating a life-cycle approach in all chemical governance actions.
South Africa supported full implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, and called for regional actions and information systems on chemicals.
Switzerland asked for enhanced cooperation and coordination in the chemicals/waste cluster at all levels, including within CSD discussions, and responsiveness to new and emerging issues, such as nanotechnology.
Venezuela cautioned that increasing synergies between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) should not affect the working programmes of these instruments.
Norway supported further strengthening and deepening synergies between chemicals and waste MEAs, the Global Chemicals Outlook, and UNEP’s exploration of financial options for managing chemicals and waste. Cambodia stressed mainstreaming chemicals management into development planning, development of a global scale database on best practices, and equitable North-South trade in chemicals.
China asked for more details about the feasibility and possible mechanisms for a proposed new trust fund for chemicals management. In response, Klaus Tyrkko said governments should assess “success points and stumbling blocks” of existing funds and consider ways to overcome problems.
Australia supported an expanded structure for chemicals funding under the GEF. Canada expressed concerns with the recommendation in the Secretary-General’s report for new global or centralized systems and networks, suggesting that there are existing networks for much of this work. While supporting new approaches for funding, he agreed with the statement in the Secretary-General’s report that “sustainable funding of chemicals management in the long-term has to come from national funding.”
Japan supported SAICM as the right framework for reviewing progress and said a mercury treaty should be agreed by 2013. Brazil supported regional networks for capacity building and technical assistance, and was disappointed by the lack of financial support from donors, including for the SAICM Quick Start Programme.
FAO suggested more action on industrial chemicals, perhaps based on the model of FAO’s Code of Conduct on Pesticides.
Women called for: strong regulation of chemicals that cross the blood-brain barrier; better safety information on chemicals in consumer products; a global cost recovery scheme for chemicals management; and a global ban on lead in paint.
Workers and Trade Unions called for exploring negotiation of a broad international instrument on chemicals, and asked about possible work with industry to improve the tracking of chemicals in transit.
Farmers supported integrated crop, pest and nutrient management, more training, and information on best practices.
UNEP supported placing chemicals in the broader context of sustainable development, and said CSD 19 provides an opportunity to consider issues beyond 2012.
The session on waste management took place on Wednesday morning. It was chaired by CSD Vice Chair Abdelghani Merabet (Algeria), who reflected on the importance of waste management for sustainable development and some key challenges. He raised questions on incentives for waste minimization, strengthening developing country capacity to treat hazardous and other complex wastes, and improving waste-related data quality and reliability.
Nikhil Chandavarkar, DSD, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on “Policy Options and Actions for Expediting Progress in Implementation: Waste Management” (E/CN.17/2011/6). He highlighted the report’s focus on, inter alia: capacity building; improving waste-related data; developing innovative financial instruments; building partnerships; addressing social aspects of waste management, such as the role and conditions of wastepickers; adopting and enforcing relevant laws; and shifting the paradigm from cradle-to-grave to cradle-to-cradle.
Delegates then viewed a video promoting waste as a resource, showing an example of converting waste to energy generation utilizing pyrolysis technology.
PANELISTS: Katharina Kummer Peiry, Executive Secretary, Basel Convention, suggested ideas for shifting the paradigm from waste management to resource management, including: amending the Basel Convention to differentiate end-of-life goods from secondary raw materials; providing the Convention with the tools to address hazardous waste prevention and minimization; promoting intelligent product design and the life-cycle approach to materials; developing a certification scheme for standards on environmentally-sound management of wastes; securing funds through fees for certification and using innovative financial instruments; and promoting public-private partnerships as a complement to negotiating processes.
Magnus Bengtsson, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan, focused on organic wastes, which constitute over 50% of urban wastes in developing countries. He outlined ways local and national governments can remove obstacles and stimulate markets for the collection, sorting and processing of organic waste to produce compost or biogas through anaerobic digestion.
Luis Diaz, President, CalRecovery Inc., US, discussed solid waste management in developing countries, identifying challenges such as: substantial population growth in urban centers; lack of legislation and policies for realistic, long-term planning; inadequate storage, collection and disposal; and scavenging. Diaz underscored the need for “solid waste management to change from being a vocation to a profession,” beginning with training and educating public officials and the general public. He said success would depend on the political will to put cost recovery mechanisms in place.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, delegates stressed a range of issues, including the critical importance of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) and waste management as an opportunity as well as a problem (for instance, in terms of its potential for job creation and poverty eradication). They also outlined a wide range of domestic actions.
Argentina, for the G-77/China, said governments should considercomprehensive national and local polices that are rigorously enforced. She also supported enhanced international cooperation to enable developing countries to implement national plans and strategies through, inter alia, capacity building, research, education and training for efficient waste management.
The EU proposed promoting a “recycling society” by decoupling environmental degradation from economic growth, and increasing sound and safe management of hazardous waste.
Micronesia, for Pacific SIDS, called on its development partners to assist in implementing its strategy on solid waste management and highlighted cooperation throughout the Pacific as a method for “confronting the increasing complexity of waste.”
Cape Verde, for AOSIS, called on the international community to assist SIDS in building capacity and supported partnerships for moving towards zero waste.
The US highlighted upstream opportunities to reduce and transform materials use. She supported multi-stakeholder partnerships, trade in remanufactured goods, and the use of existing international instruments to address environmental challenges. She cited several positive initiatives, including the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool and the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement.
Canada said the Secretary-General’s report is not always clear whether the CSD, UNEP, governments or others were responsible for particular tasks. He said crop residues and biomass should not be considered waste, as this approach makes them more likely to be burned or sent to landfills.
Chile supported efforts to reduce unnecessary packaging, improve economic instruments, and target plastics in oceans. Iran drew attention to new technologies such as biotechnologies, site selection for waste management plants, and viewing waste management as an opportunity for income generation, job creation and poverty eradication. Algeria highlighted the need for new and additional financial resources. South Africa said public-private partnerships were welcome but should complement rather than replace needed aid and support.
Barbados highlighted e-waste and support for regional efforts, while Mexico underscored radioactive waste management as an important but sensitive topic. Bolivia said waste management should not be considered as just another opportunity to make profits, but as part of protecting Mother Earth.
Switzerland said waste must be valued as a resource. Thailand linked successful waste management to the MDGs and poverty reduction. Japan highlighted the International Partnership for Expanding Waste Management Services of Local Authorities, to be launched during CSD 19. Brazil called for more capacity building in processing hazardous wastes, and for progress in the Basel Convention’s work on liability and compensation.
Norway underlined the need to control landfill methane emissions and trade in obsolete electrical and electronic equipment, promote energy recovery from wastes, and focus on individual waste streams and producer responsibility. Israel stressed promoting product extended responsibility rather than producer extended responsibility.
Women called for more community-based waste management, deposit-return systems, controls on e-waste and plastic wastes, bans on recyclables in landfills, and use of green procurement to drive the market for recycled materials.
UNEP proposed a greater emphasis on integrated waste management, improving waste data, mainstreaming wastepickers, and specific actions on e-waste, plastics and biomass. She also discussed UNEP’s new Global Partnership on Waste Management.
UN-HABITAT endorsed integrated solid waste management, including: collection and removal of waste to prevent water-borne diseases; multi-stakeholder involvement; financial sustainability; and a sound institutional framework.
In response to a question from Bolivia about establishing a special international criminal court to tackle illegal traffic in wastes, Katharina Kummer Peiry said the idea of an enforcement mechanism has been discussed several times, but never been agreed due to concerns about national sovereignty.
The session on mining took place on Wednesday afternoon. It was chaired by CSD Vice Chair Andrew Goledzinowski (Australia), who noted the importance of the mining industry for many countries, especially developing countries. While observing that mining produces benefits when managed well, he noted the need and potential for further progress with respect to governance, transparency, land rights, human rights, environmental and social impacts, and fair distribution of benefits to citizens. He asked delegates to address: the international community’s role in transparency and information disclosure; financial and regulatory options to prevent mining’s harmful impacts; support for artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM); and capacity building.
PANELISTS: Gavin Hilson, University of Reading, UK, spoke about formalizing ASM. He noted the low-technology, labor-intensive nature of such mineral extraction and processing. Explaining that most workers are rural families who are unable to earn sufficient income through farming alone, he said a legalized ASM sector would help address problems such as child labor and environmental and health impacts. He supported microcredit and promotion of small-scale cash crops to help families earn a living without child labor.
Roy Maconachie, University of Bath, UK, spoke about ASM and rural livelihoods in Africa. He described ASM as a “vibrant, poverty-driven activity that employs 15-20 million people globally” and is particularly important in Africa. He noted challenges for governance in diamond mining, including local politics, power structures and lack of transparency. He proposed integrating ASM policies into broader development and poverty reduction strategies.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, many delegates made interventions. Issues raised included the need for effective governance and sustainable mining practices, potential benefits such as job creation and poverty alleviation, and risks relating to health, biodiversity, and local communities. Many speakers also discussed the “Mining Policy Framework” offered by the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF).
Argentina, for the G-77/China, noted the growing environmental impact of mining as resources become harder to extract. She asserted states’ sovereign rights over their resources. She said CSD 19 should agree on an outcome covering, inter alia, corporate social, economic and environmental responsibility, environmental assessments, training, technology transfer, investment flows, and health and safety.
Hungary, for the EU, suggested that the CSD prioritize: development of good governance in the mining sector; environment and natural resources management; the post-mining transition period; formalizing ASM; and transparency in international trade in minerals.
Antigua and Barbuda, for AOSIS, supported sharing good mining practices, sustainable modes of construction, transparency, and policies to promote economic and environmental sustainability.
Malawi, on behalf of the 43-country IGF, presented its “Mining Policy Framework,” which he said should be endorsed by CSD 19 as a global baseline or reference on mining good governance. Supported by South Africa, he said the IGF believes the UN should take a more prominent role on mining, and has concluded that UNCTAD would be the appropriate UN body to lead this process. Ethiopia also highlighted UNCTAD’s role.
Canada encouraged the CSD to seriously consider the IGF Mining Policy Framework. He also voiced support for various voluntary codes and guidelines affecting the mining sector. Cuba said developing countries should receive support to minimize mining’s environmental impacts.
The US expressed support for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, and stressed its support for reducing methane emissions from coal mines in the context of the Global Methane Initiative. Japan supported enhancing EITI.
Iran said health, safety, environmental protection, and poverty eradication should be prioritized, along with transparency that benefits consumers and local communities. France stressed ASM.
Cambodia emphasized decoupling economic growth from mining to ensure the industry is sustainable and environmentally sound. Australia underscored the value of legal and policy arrangements. On the closing of mines, Mexico said these processes must occur in a planned manner to avoid environmental impacts and liabilities.
Norway discussed the need for: strengthened corporate social responsibility; revenue from production to benefit the country of origin; and transparency and accountability of mining revenue.
Noting that the environmental impact of mining operations depends on type, scale and location of mines, China said many countries have developed best practices and lessons, and urged a strengthening of cooperation with other countries in this area.
Chile supported clean production processes that require certification. Bolivia said mining had plundered her country and left poverty and devastation in its wake. She reported that her country had renationalized or renegotiated mining contracts involving foreign companies to ensure corporate responsibility, transparency and accountability.
UNEP supported development of a global coordination mechanism to find synergies among existing initiatives on responsible mining, and highlighted UNEP’s consultative process started after CSD 18.
Workers and Trade Unions said workers’ health and safety are not adequately addressed, with 12,000 workers losing their lives each year in mining accidents. She urged strengthening human rights, labor rights and distributing benefits to local communities.
The Scientific and Technological Community supported environmental and social impact assessments in consultation with local communities as part of the planning process, and technologies that reduce energy and water use.
Indigenous Peoples expressed skepticism about voluntary guidelines, and called instead for stricter legal frameworks that include compliance and redress mechanisms, protection of indigenous people’s rights, and a ban on open pit mining, mining in environmentally sensitive areas, river waste disposal, and uranium mining.
Women supported a global liability framework to hold companies and governments accountable. Children and Youth called for eradication of child labor and a legally-binding instrument on responsible mining.
10-YEAR FRAMEWORK OF PROGRAMMES ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION
The session on the 10-year framework of programmes (10YFP) on SCP took place on Thursday morning. It was chaired by CSD Chair László Borbély, who noted broad support at CSD 18 for a 10YFP, and progress during a High-level Intersessional Meeting held in Panama City in January 2011. Observing that many SCP initiatives are already in place at the national and local levels, Chair Borbély said the CSD is the only intergovernmental forum that offers governments the opportunity to take an integrated perspective based on economic, social and environmental objectives. He said the 10YFP could provide a global framework to bring coherence to existing SCP initiatives, while recognizing national sovereignty and differences.
Tariq Banuri, Director, DSD, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on the 10YFP on SCP (E/CN.17/2011/8). He explained that the basic idea behind SCP is to do “more and better with less.” He charted the history of the SCP agenda, from the 1971 Founex Report to Agenda 21 in 1992, the JPOI in 2002, the Marrakech Process starting in 2003, and the activities of the CSD. He said the 10YFP could provide intergovernmental and stakeholder review and oversight, as well as global and regional coordination, technical support and monitoring. Observing an emerging consensus on the 10YFP, he expressed optimism that any remaining differences on the details could soon be resolved. He identified several outstanding issues, including vertical versus horizontal structures, the role of stakeholders and the UN system, value chain versus national approaches, and resource availability.
PANELISTS: Kevin Brady, Five Winds International, reported on a study of existing initiatives undertaken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), European Commission, European Union and G8. He identified substantial overlap in the scope and objectives of these initiatives, and the potential for efficiency gains in terms of the resources applied to these initiatives. He argued that the Green Growth Strategy and SCP framework both provide comprehensive approaches to guide government actions, and could potentially be integrated.
Joachim H. Spangenberg, Sustainable Europe Research Institute, stressed that SCP is not a standalone initiative and should be judged on whether or not it helps achieve existing sustainable development goals, such as the MDGs. He reported some progress on sustainable production, but less on sustainable consumption, which he said should be a focus for the 10YFP. Finally, he said the 10YFP should use all information, economic and legal/regulatory tools, be flexible and open to experimentation, and provide a clearinghouse of best practices.
Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network, emphasized the need to: consider the role of advertising in promoting unsustainable lifestyles; go beyond public awareness and voluntary initiatives to mandatory policies and regulation; address how trade and intellectual property rules can become obstacles to SCP; and ensure true transparency and full participation of all stakeholders.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, many delegates made interventions. Most endorsed adopting a 10YFP at CSD 19 and made particular recommendations or suggestions about what the 10YFP should and should not do, as well as possible institutional arrangements.
Argentina, for the G-77/China, said the 10YFP should: emphasize information sharing, cooperation and networking; recognize programmes and priority areas indicated by the regions; stimulate innovation and new ideas; and raise awareness, education and accountability. She called for a voluntary trust fund for the 10YFP established with financing and distributed in a similar manner to the SAICM Quick Start Programme.
The EU called for the IPM to have “all the elements on the table” that would enable CSD 19 to take a two-part approach on the 10YFP. The first part would be a CSD decision describing core elements, including functions and institutional structure. The second would be a non-negotiated document that would remain open to modification during the 2011-2021 period covered by the 10YFP, which would describe programmes based on a common template. On structure, he supported a single Secretariat within an existing UN institution to serve as coordinator. On funding, he stressed the use of existing multilateral and bilateral sources.
The US said the 10YFP should support regional and national initiatives, and the CSD Secretariat should develop a draft 10YFP based squarely on ideas presented at CSD IPM, rather than other sources such as UNEP, DESA or the Chair.
Guatemala said an ambitious 10YFP should open and promote new market opportunities and increase the competitiveness of developing countries. Ethiopia supported the Secretary-General’s 10YFP recommendations. Mexico said the 10YFP requires a higher level of formal, political and institutional coordination, and the establishment of a financing mechanism that will allow for the full implementation. Algeria said the 10YFP depends on new and additional financial resources, and supported establishing a new trust fund.
China said the 10YFP should reflect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and set up a stable funding source. France said the 10YFP should include a labeling system and support sectoral programmes, such as sustainable tourism.
India said the 10YFP should not hamper the development aspirations of developing countries and should take into account food security. Japan said existing funding sources should be considered as the main mechanisms of support for the 10YFP and the institutional mechanism should be simple, effective and supported by existing UN structures.
Canada expressed concerns about making the 10YFP reporting processes too burdensome, and urged avoiding duplication of efforts and resources with any existing processes. Germany said CSD 19 should adopt an “ambitious” 10YFP that builds on the Marrakech Process. He supported a programme on environmental labeling and a single secretariat, board and focal points.
South Africa said the 10YFP should support jobs as well as social and economic wellbeing, include regional coordination mechanisms and focal points, unlock additional resources, and have a clear monitoring process. Venezuela said the 10YFP should avoid creating new institutions and be supported by adequate financial resources. Panama said success at CSD 19 on the 10YFP would depend on acceptable financial support and institutional arrangements. He supported a voluntary trust fund and a lead role for UNEP.
On an institutional framework, Pakistan said “form should follow function” and the institution should be selected after substantive issues are addressed. Bolivia said the 10YFP should include a compliance mechanism.
Norway said the CSD 19 decision on the 10YFP should have three parts: common vision and criteria; institutional structure; and priority programme areas. Cambodia said the 10YFP should include green industrial production and support, an SCP trust fund, and financial and technical assistance.
Switzerland supported an ambitious and strong 10YFP with a policy structure similar to SAICM’s. The UK said the 10YFP should establish clear responsibilities within the UN family and a realignment of existing funding to reflect the importance of SCP in delivering future UN ambitions for a global “green economy.”
FAO discussed the launch and implementation of the Sustainable Food Systems Programme. UNEP said the JPOI should help inspire the 10YFP.
Children and Youth said the 10YFP should emphasize formal and informal education for sustainable development, green jobs, and easy-to-understand labeling. NGOs said that the 10YFP should seek to reverse ecological and social trends. Business and Industry said SCP should make the market work for sustainable development, producing goods and services efficiently and using them differently. He said government intervention should not risk trade confrontations and SCP should be a flexible rather than a “one-size-fits-all” concept.
INTERLINKAGES AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
The session on interlinkages and cross-cutting issues took place on Thursday afternoon. It was chaired by CSD Vice Chair Andrew Goledzinowski, who noted many linkages among the five thematic areas under consideration. He highlighted the green economy, which is under consideration under the process leading to Rio 2012. He raised several questions, including what actions are needed to make policies beneficial across interlinked areas, what policies could create an enabling environment to achieve progress, and how to ensure adequate and predictable financing.
Tariq Banuri, Director, DSD, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on interlinkages and cross-cutting issues (E/CN.17/2011/3). He stressed the value of identifying co-benefits and an integrated approach, drew attention to risk assessment and reduction in the context of chemicals and hazardous waste management, and underscored links with SCP.
PANELISTS: Jeremy Gregory, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed that the thematic issues under the current CSD cycle span the product life cycle. He stressed the value of “multistakeholder policy development” as a means of spurring innovation and cooperation.
Adil Najam, Pardee Center, Boston University, highlighted linkages between CSD 19’s themes and energy, water, poverty and development. He urged a rethinking of how to address interlinkages. He said that since UNCED issues such as climate change and biodiversity have been addressed in a somewhat “compartmentalized” manner, but are now sufficiently “mature” that they could be considered collectively rather than in a “balkanized” series of discrete processes. He proposed greater coherence and a move to “consolidated governance,” proposing that a goal for the UNCSD in 2012 should be to emerge with fewer institutions and treaties than we have now. He welcomed progress to date in finding synergies in the processes addressing chemicals and hazardous wastes.
Pat Mooney, ETC Group, spoke on technology issues, highlighting the need to assess technology’s suitability, address intellectual property, and deal with emerging issues such as nanotechnology and large-scale corporate patenting that will affect future ownership of biomass and nanotechnology.
STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Following the panel presentations, several delegates highlighted SCP as an issue that connected the other themes, and some spoke about progress in finding synergies across the chemicals and waste management treaties. Delegates also discussed poverty eradication, green jobs, technology, predictable funding, climate change, good governance, accountability, capacity building and education.
With regard to implementation, Argentina, for the G-77/China, underscored technology transfer, capacity building, and additional and predictable resources. She urged accountability frameworks for mining, waste and chemicals management that take into account local concerns.
Hungary, for the EU, said CSD 19 policy options should: contribute to poverty eradication and creating green and decent jobs; carefully consider gender equality, health and education aspects; make progress on applying life-cycle analysis; and enhance policy coherence between and within processes and institutions at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels. Nauru, for Pacific SIDS, stressed climate change as a critical cross-cutting issue. South Africa said each theme needs to prioritize data collection, and technology transfer customized to local needs and combined with appropriate training.
Japan emphasized SCP, the green economy, green innovation, civil society involvement and education for sustainable development. The US called for policies based on sound science, transparent policymaking with public participation, an array of both voluntary and regulatory tools, gender equality, and considering SCP concepts across all CSD 19’s thematic areas. Norway emphasized the cross-cutting nature of gender and governance. The Philippines said all the CSD’s thematic issues over the years are tied to SCP. Thailand said SCP and the MDGs are linked to all the thematic clusters.
Switzerland emphasized links between CSD 19’s themes and the food sector, and said the agro-food chain must be included in the 10YFP and discussed at the UNCSD. Chile highlighted indigenous peoples as repositories of traditional knowledge.
Children and Youth suggested the current state of democracy, poverty eradication, universal access to education, elimination of child labor and protection of human and environmental health as cross-cutting issues. NGOs underscored access to decision-making by women, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups, and promoting corporate social responsibility.
Farmers identified the link between life-cycle management and all CSD 19’s themes. Workers and Trade Unions highlighted the cross-cutting aspect of decent work as a tool to address poverty and social equity.
UNCTAD described work on, inter alia, renewable energy technology for rural development; water for food and poverty alleviation; and applying a gender lens to science, technology and innovation. UNIDO discussed a green industry initiative in the Philippines addressing SCP, waste and chemicals management, and said the initiative is expanding to other regions. UNEP linked discussions in the CSD IPM to Basel COP 10. FAO described efforts to defeat hunger to promote sustainable intensification of crop production to contribute to agriculture development, which is imperative for achieving food security.
Responding to a question from the Philippines about governance, Adil Najam said many people hope the CSD will still exist after the UNCSD, but that it will operate in the way that was originally envisaged 20 years ago.
On Friday morning, the CSD IPM held two multistakeholder dialogues. The first focused on “advancing the implementation of sustainable development” with regards to the thematic issues under consideration at CSD 18/19. The second addressed contributions from CSD 19 to Rio 2012.
ADVANCING IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CSD 19 Chair Borbély chaired this session, stating that the next decade is critical for implementation of sustainable development.
Sharyle Patton, Commonweal Health and Environment Program, US, discussed the way social media is altering the balance of power between governments and civil society and said the UN needs to respond by opening its doors more effectively to civil society. She highlighted “resilient” civil society communities that are helping implement sustainable development around the world, such as Health Care Without Harm.
Elizabeth Thompson, Secretariat for the Rio 2012 Conference, emphasized the need for sustainable development implementation to be mainstreamed into national planning and broadened beyond ministries of environment to include those of finance and planning. She supported: embracing social media; replicating best practices; scaling up successful projects and initiatives; promoting a higher degree of South-South cooperation; and forging North-South and South-South partnerships between the government and private sector.
Hungary, for the EU, stressed Major Groups’ role in the CSD and welcomed their input for CSD 19.
Farmers called for CSD 19 to consider social dimensions and social protections in all thematic areas, and urged governments to commit to real engagement with Major Groups rather than just call them into annual meetings to make three-minute statements.
The Scientific and Technological Community said policy recommendations in all thematic areas should support targeted and funded research and development aimed at developing solutions to priority problems.
Business and Industry stressed good governance, sound science and sound enforcement as critical elements of any implementation framework.
Workers and Trade Unions said the success of the CSD and implementing its outcomes depends on three factors: ambition; “ownership” by civil society; and the capacity of civil society to contribute to implementation on the ground.
Local Authorities said that as the layer of government closest to people, they have a crucial role to play on transport, waste and SCP, and that Rio 2012’s enabling framework should encourage all member states and UN bodies to work with local authorities.
NGOs called for increased corporate social responsibility, appropriate technology, educational policies that promote behavior adaptation and foster critical thinking, a UN framework for sustainable mining that includes a compliance mechanism, and adoption by Rio 2012 of an action plan based on outcomes involving all the existing environmental treaties and agreements.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CSD 19 TO RIO 2012: Opening this session, CSD Vice Chair Silvano Vergara said the thematic areas of CSD 19 are directly linked to the objectives of Rio 2012, as well as to poverty eradication, water and urbanization. He suggested that SCP was a cross-cutting issue of direct relevance to the Rio 2012 discussions on the green economy. He urged delegates to focus on what message CSD 19 should send to Rio 2012 about the CSD and implementation of its decisions.
Helio Mattar, Akatu Institute for Conscientious Consumption, Brazil, said the current model of excessive consumption in developed countries is setting the wrong trend for the rest of the world. Noting that no single actor or category of actors alone can bring about the needed change, he said a bottom-up dialogue and consensus-building among all stakeholders was needed. He also observed that changes in government policies and the normal pace of change in production technology tend to be too slow. He suggested that CSD 19 should definitely endorse the 10YFP and recommend this topic as a key part of Rio 2012’s focus on the green economy.
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker, International Resource Panel, said CSD 19 must show the way on decoupling economic growth and resource use from environmental degradation, and on how to prosper while being resource efficient. He recommended that steps to establish a green economy should be accompanied by appropriate incentives, good governance and laws that protect the vulnerable, and stated that Rio 2012’s outcome on the green economy should respect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Farmers said the focus on Rio 2012 means the CSD seems to be getting less attention. She said CSD’s outcomes—both at this and previous sessions—should become the basis for outcomes at Rio 2012 in spurring implementation.
The Scientific and Technological Community said the 10YFP and CSD 18/19’s themes should feature prominently at Rio 2012. He highlighted the relevance of the MDGs and the urgent need to shift towards a green economy, warning that failure would risk “transgressing global boundaries” and entrenching huge levels of poverty. He suggested turning regional dialogues into multistakeholder dialogues involving governments and all Major Groups.
Business and Industry said the CSD’s contribution to Rio 2012 should not be limited to CSD 19, but draw from the CSD’s outputs throughout its history. She said the CSD’s model for partnerships should feed into the Rio 2012 process.
Workers and Trade Unions said the CSD can contribute to better governance. She said a green economy should generate decent employment, contribute to equity (both between and within countries), and be inclusive, assisting disadvantaged groups.
Local Authorities said Rio 2012 provides a rare opportunity to pull the many strands of sustainable development together and build them into a coherent whole.
NGOs said the current global economic system, which fosters unrelenting materialism and consumerism, is not compatible with sustainable development. She urged support to countries to phase out subsidies and instead fund SCP activities that could help the transition to a green economy.
Cambodia and Nigeria noted the links between the CSD’s work on SCP and Rio 2012’s focus on a green economy.
The EU said a successful CSD 19 would provide major input into Rio 2012’s two key themes. He said the CSD should establish the 10YFP, which will require substantial follow up to ensure implementation.
The US linked CSD 19’s themes with Rio 2012’s focus on the green economy. He said any concise political document that comes out of Rio 2012 will fall flat unless all Major Groups are involved in the process and outcome. He added that the Rio 2012 process should provide an enabling environment to help implementation by all stakeholders.
UNEP urged adopting the 10YFP at CSD 19 as a major “building block” for Rio 2012.
CSD Vice Chair Vergara reflected on the discussions, identifying agreement on Major Groups’ participation, closing the gap between rich and poor, and the importance of CSD 19 in paving the way towards Rio 2012.
CHAIRS DRAFT NEGOTIATING TEXT FOR CSD 19
At 2:00 pm on Friday afternoon, a Chair’s draft negotiating text was distributed to delegates. The text was based on inputs and discussions during the CSD IPM and was designed to form the basis for negotiations at CSD 19. Delegates spent almost three hours reviewing the text before reconvening for the CSD IPM’s closing plenary.
CHAIR’S DRAFT NEGOTIATING TEXT: The Chair’s draft negotiating text is a 24-page document, containing an introduction/preamble, and sections on transport, chemicals, waste management, mining, the 10YFP on SCP, interlinkages and cross-cutting issues. Each of these sections includes a brief overview of the issue, followed by a series of “policy options/actions.” Under each policy option is a list of specific actions.
Preamble: The preamble reaffirms Agenda 21, the JPOI, MDGs, Mauritius Strategy and a range of other internationally-agreed documents. It expresses deep concern at the financial crisis, food and energy prices, climate change, biodiversity loss and other “interrelated crises.” In addition, it recognizes the need for new and additional financial resources and outlines the thematic issues under consideration at CSD 18/19.
Transport: This section identifies the urgent need to address growing challenges, draws attention to several recent intersessional meetings on transport issues, and highlights links between transport policy and development goals and poverty eradication. It also highlights both urban and rural transportation challenges, as well as issues with infrastructure and public and private investments. The six priority options in this section are:
- enhance access to sustainable transport, in particular in rural areas of developing countries;
- significantly improve public transport systems for more sustainable urban development “with a sense of urgency”;
- enhance modal shifts, where possible, towards less energy intensive and low carbon modes of transport;
- further develop and improve transport technologies;
- create an enabling environment for sustainable transport; and
- enhance international cooperation in transport.
Chemicals: This section states that while chemicals can contribute to job creation, improved living standards, health, agricultural productivity and energy efficiency, their improper management can pose significant and long-lasting adverse consequences, particularly in developing countries and economies in transition. The section notes that while significant progress toward the 2020 goal on sound chemicals management has been made, it is insufficient and uneven across countries and regions.
The six policy options listed in the section include:
- addressing chemicals management throughout their life cycle by developing comprehensive national regulatory and institutional frameworks;
- strengthening information accessibility and sharing on risk assessment, risk management and safe use of chemicals throughout the life cycle;
- enhancing chemical safety, risk prevention and reduction;
- strengthening partnerships between governments, the private sector, research institutions and civil society for sound management of chemicals;
- strengthening the international policy and legal framework and enabling environment for sound management of chemicals; and
- further strengthening the means of implementation for the sound management of chemicals.
Waste Management: This section notes that while all nations face waste management and minimization challenges, developing countries face special challenges. It also notes the need to decouple waste generation from economic growth and declares that sustainable waste management is “crucial” for eradicating poverty and achieving the MDGs. The eight policy options in this section include:
- defining a long-term waste management strategy within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication at all levels;
- improving waste management systems, infrastructure and technology;
- sustaining the implementation of environmentally sound waste reduction, reuse and recycling;
- strengthening the implementation of effective e-waste and hazardous waste policies and strategies;
- managing specific wastes such as e-waste, plastics, healthcare waste and radioactive waste;
- improving agricultural waste management;
- improving capacity building and technology transfer for effective waste management; and
- financing and investing in and building partnerships for sustainable waste management.
Mining: This section highlights the importance of mining to many countries, particularly developing countries, and the benefits that mining offers in terms of development and poverty reduction when it is properly managed. It notes the need to minimize negative environmental and social impacts, the value of governance and stakeholder participation (including women and local and indigenous communities), the need for financial and technical assistance from the international community, and states’ sovereign right to exploit their own resources. The text sets out 11 policy options, as follows:
- develop partnerships and effective collaboration among governments, companies and communities at all levels;
- better integrate the mining sector in national economies;
- strengthen legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks at the national level to address the environmental impacts of mining;
- strengthen legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks at the national level to address the social impacts of mining;
- enhance participation by major groups and local and indigenous communities;
- strengthen technical capacities at the national level, with support from the international community;
- support the transfer of sound technologies and know-how to help developing countries reduce the negative environmental impacts of mining;
- foster the improvement of mining companies’ performance;
- fully integrate ASM in national economies, maximizing income generation and livelihoods opportunities while minimizing negative environmental and social impacts;
- continue to improve the international governance of the mining sector; and
- improve energy and resource efficiency in the mining sector, efficient use and management of mineral resources and the reuse and recycling of metals and minerals.
10YFP on SCP: This section indicates that changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, along with poverty eradication and protecting the natural resource base, is one of the three overarching objectives of sustainable development, and that the SCP has a “unique opportunity” to move the SCP initiative into “a new level of ambition” through adoption of the 10YFP.
This section sets out a series of visions, goals, objectives, principles and functions of the 10YFP. On the organizational structure, it sets out 11 “mechanisms” that would form the basis of a “simple, efficient and well-functioning organizational structure” for the 10YFP that incorporates all key cooperation partners, including governments and Major Groups, and builds on existing UN entities and inter-agency collaboration. The text also establishes the need for predictable financing, access to environmentally preferable technologies and more open market access for environmentally and socially preferable goods and services, and suggests various means of implementation by which the 10YFP can achieve this. It underscores that the 10YFP must be voluntary and lists various criteria that SCP programmes should meet in the 10YFP.
The text indicates that the 10YFP should include an initial list of programmes building on experiences under the Marrakech Process, while allowing for more programmes to be added later. It then suggests 20 key programme areas that could be included, and suggests that the 10YFP could contain an open and flexible “non-negotiated annex” for describing programmes based on a common template.
Interlinkages and cross-cutting issues, including means of implementation: This section supports continuing work on coherence between and within relevant international processes. It indicates that poverty eradication remains the overarching objective of sustainable development, and that national sustainable development strategies should address in an integrated manner the social, economic and environmental pillars. The section contains five policy options:
- accelerate convergence among the three pillars of sustainable development in an inclusive and participatory manner;
- manage natural resources in a sustainable manner that supports ecosystem functions for the benefit of present and future generations, facilitates the achievement of the MDGs and promotes greater resource efficiency;
- strengthen capacity, technology, the scientific base and the exchange of information and knowledge with developing countries;
- enhance availability and effective use of finance for sustainable development; and
- support the world trading system, recognizing the major role trade plays in achieving sustainable development.
Follow up: The text concludes by calling for a process to review implementation of decisions taken at CSD 19.
COMMENTS ON THE TEXT: At 4:43 pm on Friday afternoon, Chair Borbély explained that the Chair’s draft negotiating text was based on discussions at the IPM, and expressed hope that the text would provide the basis for negotiations during CSD 19. He clarified that negotiations on this document would not begin at the IPM but at CSD 19 in May. He welcomed “factual comments” and said these would be “incorporated in the draft negotiating document and will be available on the CSD 19 website three weeks from now” (late March 2011). He encouraged delegates to use the time between the IPM and CSD 19 to “exchange views and share ideas to bridge the gap in understanding.” He then invited factual input on the text.
Hungary, for the EU, said the document laid the foundation for a successful CSD 19. He welcomed progress at the IPM in building greater mutual understanding and a convergence of positions. He said CSD 19 was taking place at a crucial moment in the lead up to Rio 2012. On transport, he noted broad consensus on clean, affordable, highly-energy efficient transport in urban areas and access in rural areas. On chemicals, he supported further progress on convergence and synergies, while noting that it is too early to “prejudge” discussions on financing. On waste management, he supported a “recycling society” and strong emphasis on waste prevention. On mining, he detected broad agreement on a more sustainable, holistic approach, and a clear need to support good governance, benefit sharing and implementation of existing treaties. Regarding text on market access in the mining section, he said the World Trade Organization was the appropriate forum. He also highlighted the need to address child labor. He expressed satisfaction with the text on 10YFP and hoped for a strong outcome at CSD 19. Finally, in the text on interlinkages, he noted an “unusual” formulation in the language on financial support.
Argentina, for the G-77/China, anticipated that the text would be further streamlined and clarified, especially on actors and implementation. She said clear text on common but differentiated responsibilities was needed so that the roles of developed and developing countries were better delineated. She also highlighted capacity building, technology transfer and national sovereignty. On the 10YFP, she requested more clarity on the institutional structure and implementation, and suggested a focus on predictable and adequate financial sources, as well as regional initiatives. On waste, she highlighted inventories, e-waste, radioactive waste and financing. Regarding transport, she emphasized cleaner fossil fuels and fuel technologies. On mining, she said the text should not be overly prescriptive or infringe on national sovereignty. Finally, on chemicals, she highlighted implementing the Basel Convention and avoiding duplication of discussions in other bodies.
Micronesia, for Pacific SIDS, emphasized SIDS’ special needs for infrastructure planning and financing in the transport section. On waste management, she highlighted the Waigani Convention. She said the text should also include a short section on SIDS, noting the CSD’s key role vis-à-vis the Mauritius Strategy and Barbados Programme of Action.
Switzerland suggested text referencing SAICM and removing reference to the CSD from text on future chemicals-related work. She also said the proposal to transform the SAICM Quick Start Programme into a permanent funding arrangement was premature. On SCP, she supported language clarifying that the 10YFP should be immediately operational at the end of CSD 19.
Maldives, for AOSIS, expressed concern that various proposals on implementation, financing, capacity building and technology transfer were not included in the text, along with text on support for transport infrastructure, and clear benchmarks, goals and targets.
Canada said negotiations should not begin until CSD 19 itself and should take place on the basis of this document. Japan also accepted the Chair’s draft as the basis for negotiations at CSD 19.
Mexico said the Chair’s draft provided an “excellent” foundation for CSD 19 negotiations that incorporated its main concerns. He proposed adding references to short-distance and water transport, more effective implementation of SAICM, and a stronger emphasis on predictable financing across all themes.
Chile said the Chair’s draft text should be used as the basis for CSD 19 negotiations. He suggested that the section on transport focused too heavily on supply and not enough on managing demand to reduce needless trips whenever possible. Cambodia proposed reflecting the needs of least developed countries, and proposed calling for a fund for mining-associated disasters.
The Russian Federation said the draft appeared to be a fair basis for negotiations. He expressed skepticism about the approval of transparency initiatives mentioned in the mining sector, and questioned inclusion in the draft of the statement that greenhouse gases are causing sea-level rise.
The US said there were many elements in the text that he could not recall being discussed by the IPM. He suggested a variety of alterations, including more emphasis on the co-benefits of sustainable transport, as well as text on energy security, the Global Methane Initiative, the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, UNEP-UNIDO’s support for Cleaner Production Centers, and incorporating reuse and recycling into product design. He also questioned some of the language in the SCP section, and references to lessons from one specific region and the principle of “no data no market” in the chemicals section.
Bolivia objected to the draft’s reference to the outcome of the Cancun Climate Change Conference. She insisted that the text be strengthened in respect to common but differentiated responsibilities, governments’ responsibility to provide basic human rights such as clean drinking water and transport, and participation by all stakeholders in formulating sustainable development policies.
NGOs proposed inserting a reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the section on mining, and sustainable rural development to the section on SCP.
Farmers made suggested references to hunger and the MDGs in the interlinkages section, and language on “wastage” of agricultural produce.
Women asked for social equity and gender equality to be included in the 10YFP’s vision statement, and for deletion of a reference to women as “vulnerable.”
CSD 19 Chair Borbély thanked delegates for their initial comments on the text. The CSD IPM then took note of the text for transmittal to CSD 19.
Following the discussion of the Chair’s draft negotiating text, delegates adopted the report of the IPM (E/CN.17/IPM/2011/L.2).
CSD 19 Chair Borbély reflected on an intensive week of “excellent inputs” resulting in the draft negotiating document. He thanked the Secretariat and other support staff, the Bureau and all participants for their hard work, and looked forward to seeing everyone again at CSD 19 in May. He declared the IPM closed at 6:10 pm.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE CSD IPM
“Constant repetition carries conviction,” said Robert Collier, one of the early self-help authors. The notion is equally valid in the world of policy making, particularly at the international level, since implementing fundamental changes, such as those required to achieve sustainable development, can be a painstaking, protracted process.
For better or worse, the Commission of Sustainable Development (CSD) has embraced the idea of repetition and is currently relying on it to promote the sustainable development agenda. Since 2004, themes have been discussed in two-year cycles, with ongoing “cross-cutting issues” to provide continuity and connections across each cycle. The first year of each cycle involves a review of the key themes and issues, while the second is expected to generate agreed policy outcomes and options. Within this context, the IPM plays an important role. Taking place in the middle of the cycle, the IPM is supposed to smooth the way for a successful session where policy outcomes are negotiated and adopted, in this case at CSD 19 in May 2011. In this regard, the IPM should pick up on key ideas that emerged during the review session (CSD 18), providing the Chair and Secretariat with input for a Chair’s draft negotiating document that will serve as the basis for negotiations at the policy session. In essence, the IPM is supposed to help negotiators shift gears from reviewing issues to negotiating outcomes.
This year, however, work at the IPM was complicated due to the fact that it took place before the second meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2012 UN Conference of Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio 2012). Along these lines, this analysis looks at the key events and trends that emerged from the IPM, identifies areas of emerging consensus and potential obstacles for CSD 19, and looks at what CSD 19 will need to achieve to be considered a success. In addition, since Rio 2012 is likely to have repercussions for the future of the CSD itself, this analysis reviews the meeting in the light (some would say in the shadow) of ongoing preparations for Rio 2012.
HOW TO WIN THEMES AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE
The 2010-2011 cycle is focused on the thematic “cluster” of transport, chemicals, waste management, mining, and sustainable consumption and production (SCP). In the ever-looming presence of Rio 2012, the IPM’s discussions proved “focused, frank and forward-looking.” The topics receiving the most attention were the proposed 10-year framework of programmes (10YFP) under SCP, waste management and chemicals, with each of these discussions extending beyond their allotted time as country after country presented their comments and proposals. On Friday afternoon, most delegates seemed satisfied that the Chair’s draft negotiating text reflected these discussions and provided a good basis for negotiations at CSD 19. The main criticism of the text seemed to be over its length, which at 24 pages was longer than some had expected.
Across all the themes, many delegates detected an emerging consensus around the need to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” approach for implementing policy recommendations due to each country’s varying needs and capabilities. The idea that governments could select from a suite of policy options garnered a lot of support.
Another area of emerging consensus was the value of public-private partnerships, although developing countries added the caveat that these partnerships need to complement rather than replace ODA, which they fear is being undermined. The Group of 77 and China was also keen to remind the developed states about a raft of “broken promises” on previously-agreed treaties and meeting outcomes. “If the West had kept even half their promises since the Earth Summit, we wouldn’t have the problems we do today,” insisted one developing country negotiator.
One topic that seemed to generate less interest or influence at the IPM was the needs of small island developing states (SIDS). Several participants identified a trend, observing that discussions on this topic had been losing momentum for several years. In contrast to some other IPM sessions, the discussion on SIDS was described by some as “brief” and “lackluster.” “Some of our friends in the room were a bit quiet today,” said one SIDS delegate at the end of the session. SIDS also expressed concerns at the end of the meeting about the absence of a section on SIDS in the Chair’s draft negotiating text. “The CSD plays a key role in implementing the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy. We need this reflected better at CSD 19,” said another participant.
Other areas delegates identified as needing more work at CSD 19 include e-waste, extended producer responsibility, and calls by developing countries for several new funds, although developed countries for the most part were adamant about tapping existing ones. Still, out of all discussions at the IPM one issue “reigned supreme” and is likely to grab the limelight at CSD 19. Indeed, it likely to be the yardstick by which CSD 19 will be judged. That issue is the 10YFP.
SECRETS TO SUCCESS: HOW SHOULD WE JUDGE CSD 19?
With the IPM delivering a Chair’s text that most delegates felt was an acceptable starting point for negotiations, attention now turns to CSD 19 and what it could and should deliver. Some, including the Europeans, indicated that they will judge CSD 19 on what it achieves on SCP. In fact, many delegates seemed to view SCP as providing a link between all the CSD 19 themes as well as Rio 2012’s “green economy” focus. SCP also has links with poverty eradication, energy, agriculture, tourism, and corporate environmental and social responsibility. For these reasons and more, SCP received a strong boost at the IPM, and many agreed that the 10YFP should be a crucial deliverable at CSD 19.
That said, achieving a consensus on the 10YFP may not be easy. Some delegates felt that the Chair’s draft negotiating text demonstrates that the 10YFP is still a “work in progress,” with many clarifications needed on the Framework’s functions, organizational structure and funding. As a result, the negotiations at CSD 19 are likely to be lengthy and even contentious.
The risks of not reaching agreement on the 10YFP at CSD 19 are considerable and could have a significant impact on Rio 2012’s discussions on its two themes (governance and green economy) and a negative impact on the future of the Commission. The CSD represents the closest thing the UN system has to an “institutional home” for SCP, and failure on this could raise further questions about the Commission’s role and value. Agreement on the 10YFP would deliver a strong message to Rio 2012 on both of its themes and give the CSD a boost along the way.
While the other themes in the CSD 18/19 cycle are also important, some participants noted that chemicals and hazardous wastes are already housed under other institutions. This makes the CSD’s role less pivotal. As for transport and mining, while these also lack clear “homes” in the UN system, there is growing momentum around the need to adopt sustainable mining and transport practices to eradicate poverty and achieve the MDGs. SCP therefore stands out as a the key opportunity for CSD to galvanize the international community around one topic that is inextricably linked to the larger umbrella of sustainable development.
WHAT’S NEXT (AND BEST) FOR THE CSD?
On the IPM’s final morning, participants convened for a multistakeholder dialogue on CSD 19’s contribution to Rio 2012. Many noted that CSD 19 will be the last Commission meeting before Rio 2012. One of Rio’s focuses will be an examination of the “institutional architecture for sustainable development.” There has been much discussion over the last decade concerning the effectiveness of global governance for sustainable development, including the CSD and its role. Concerns over the CSD’s impact and effectiveness and a desire to adapt with the times have already resulted in changes in how it does business, with a revised working programme in 1997 and the decision to shift to two-year cycles in 2003.
Although repetition may lead to conviction in self-help circles, some question if it has worked for the CSD. While it would be grossly unfair to lay the responsibility for failure at the CSD’s door, the inability to reverse global environmental destruction or prevent massive social or economic upheaval seems to demonstrate the weaknesses of the wider global governance system and underscores the need for reform. In this respect, Rio 2012 presents an opportunity to improve the global system for delivering sustainable development objectives. This has the potential to either boost the importance of CSD 19, or overshadow it.
If the CSD is to be reformed at Rio 2012, it is not yet clear what such reforms will produce, especially since reform of CSD has been attempted before. Those with long memories point out that the earlier reform was modest and that the shift to a two-year cycle in 2004 did not address the heart of the problem, which was that CSD has never had the necessary authority to take decisive action, given its status as a “mere” functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council. Adding yet another level of complexity to this debate is the fact that Rio 2012 is likely to address not only the international architecture for sustainable development governance, but also the thorny issue of international environmental governance, which has been forwarded to it by the UNEP Governing Council. Despite the complexities, some have suggested that the time is ripe for both global environmental and sustainable development governance to be strengthened to deliver major change. Whether Rio 2012 delivers on this remains to be seen. But, as Albert Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In other words, it may be time for change.
UNCSD PrepCom II: This meeting will convene in preparation for the UNCSD. dates: 7-8 March 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: UNCSD Secretariat phone: +1-212-963-1267 email: [email protected] www: http://www.uncsd2012.org
UN General Assembly Interactive Dialogue with the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability: The informal interactive dialogue with the Co-Chairs of the Panel (President Jacob Zuma of South Africa and President Tarja Halonen of Finland) will take place on 16 March 2011. It is being organized by the President of the UN General Assembly, Joseph Deiss (Switzerland). date: 16 March 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: Hyun Sung, Office of the President of the General Assembly email:[email protected] www: http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/initiatives/gsp.shtml
Eighth Session of the Implementation and Compliance Committee of the Basel Convention: This meeting will address implementation and compliance issues under the Basel Convention. dates: 21-23 March 2011 location: Geneva, Switzerland contact: Secretariat of the Basel Convention phone: +41-22-917-8218 fax: +41-22-797-3454 email: [email protected] www: http://www.basel.int/meetings/meetings.html
Seventh Meeting of the Rotterdam Convention Chemical Review Committee: This meeting will review chemicals for inclusion under the Rotterdam Convention. dates: 28 March – 1 April 2011 location: Rome, Italy contact: Rotterdam Convention Secretariat phone: +41-22-917-8296 fax: +41-22-917-8082 email: [email protected] www: http://www.pic.int/
International Workshop on Hazardous Substances within the Life Cycle of Electronic and Electrical Products: This international workshop, jointly organized by the Basel Convention, UNIDO, and the Stockholm Convention Secretariat, will address the issue of the fate and sound management of chemicals during the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment and products along the supply chain. dates: 29-31 March 2011 location: Vienna, Austria contact: Secretariat of the Basel Convention phone: +41-22-917-8218 fax: +41-22-797-3454 email: [email protected] www: http://www.basel.int/meetings/wrks-eew-unido/index.html
UN Climate Change Conference – Bangkok: These meetings are the first formal round of climate change negotiations in 2011 and include: the 16th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 16); the 14th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 14); and workshops pursuant to the Cancun Agreements and other decisions, as appropriate. dates: 3-8 April 2011 location: Bangkok, Thailand contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: +49-228-815-1000 fax: +49-228-815-1999 email:[email protected] www: http://unfccc.int/meetings/intersessional/bangkok_11/items/5887.php
First Assembly of IRENA: During the first assembly of the International Renewable Energy Agency, the statutory organs will replace the preparatory committee, and member states will work to define their renewable energy strategies. The meeting will be preceded by a one-day meeting of the Preparatory Commission on 3 April. dates: 4-5 April 2011 location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates contact: IRENA Interim Headquarters phone: +971-241-79062 email: http://www.irena.org/contact/index.aspx?mnu=cont www: http://www.irena.org/
LDC-IV Preparatory Committee: This meeting is the second session of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee for the Fourth UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV). dates: 4-8 April 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: Margherita Musollino-Berg, OHRLLS phone: +1-212-963-4844 email:[email protected] www: http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc/home
4th African Regional Meeting on the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and UNITAR/OECD workshop on Nanotechnology and Manufactured Nanomaterials: The SAICM Secretariat, in collaboration with the UNITAR and the OECD, is organizing an African regional meeting on SAICM and a UNITAR/OECD workshop on nanotechnology and nanomaterials. dates: 5-8 April 2011 location: Nairobi, Kenya contact: Mohammed Omotola, SAICM Secretariat phone: +41-22-917-8334 fax: +41-22-797-3460 email:[email protected] www: http://www.saicm.org
5th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention: COP5 to the Stockholm Convention will consider the addition of endosulfan to Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, among other issues. This will be a paperless meeting. dates: 25-29 April 2011 location: Geneva, Switzerland contact: Stockholm Convention Secretariat phone: +41-22-917-8729 fax: +41-22-917-8098 email:[email protected] www: http://www.pops.int
CSD 19: This policy-year session will negotiate policy options related to the thematic cluster for the CSD 18-19 cycle: transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and the Ten-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production. dates: 2-13 May 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development phone: +1-212-963-8102 fax: +1-212-963-4260 email:[email protected] www: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/csd/csd_csd19.shtml
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <[email protected]> is written and edited by Robynne Boyd, Keith Ripley and Chris Spence. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <[email protected]>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[email protected]>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. General Support for the Bulletin during 2011 is provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute – GISPRI) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, the Province of Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[email protected]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022, United States of America.