Background information on Type II Outcomes - Chairman's explanatory note; Deadline for submissions to be considered at WSSD

 Partnerships at PrepCom IV - High-Level Interactive Dialogue, Multi-stakeholder Dialogues, Informal Consultations

 Partnerships at PrepCom III - ENB Summary, Vice-Chairs' Summary, Further Guidance for Partnerships/Initiatives

 Resources on Partnerships - Links to papers, websites and meetings on partnerships

 Back to Linkages WSSD portal




Explanatory note by the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee

- Partnerships/Initiatives to strengthen the implementation of Agenda 21

(To be elaborated by interested parties in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development for launching at the Summit)


Partnerships and initiatives to implement Agenda 21 are expected to become one of the major outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. These “second type” of outcomes would consist of a series of commitments and action-oriented coalitions focused on deliverables and would contribute in translating political commitments into action. Specific modalities of such partnerships (including targets, timetables, monitoring arrangements, coordination and implementation mechanisms, arrangements for predictable funding and technology transfer, etc.) need to be elaborated in the lead up to the Summit by potential partners from governments, international organizations and major groups.


On the basis of the various proposals made by governments and major groups during the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the Summit (New York, 28 January-8 February), an indicative list (attached) of areas for launching partnerships has been prepared. Partnerships and initiatives in these areas or in any other related field can be finalized before the Summit, as the modalities of such partnerships and initiatives will not be negotiated within the Preparatory Committee for the Summit. It is, however, anticipated that the Committee and the Summit will lend support to these partnerships and initiatives.


The Committee should therefore be kept informed about the work in progress. This will also help in ensuring that the negotiated and non-negotiated outcomes are mutually supportive. The first opportunity to provide such information would be at the third session of the Preparatory Committee to take place in New York on March 25-April 5 2002. Further progress reports are encouraged for the fourth session of the Preparatory Committee (Jakarta, Indonesia, 27 May-7 June 2002) which would, inter alia, decide on organizational details of partnership events involving stakeholders and other activities to be held during the two weeks of the Johannesburg Summit.


Interested parties are advised that only those partnerships/initiatives that are international in scope and reach (i.e. global, regional and/or sub-regional) and those that are aimed at supporting practical implementation of Agenda 21 and sustainable development activities in developing countries, in particular LDCs and small island developing States as well as in countries with economies in transition) would be announced during the official partnership events to take place at the Summit. Only those partnerships and initiatives that are new and are developed specifically in the context of the WSSD and its goals will feature at the official partnership events during the Summit. Domestic partnerships, projects as well as initiatives within one single entity (company, organization, etc.) could be announced as part of national/individual statements or circulated as written contributions to the Summit.


Organizers/initiators of partnerships and initiatives are invited to use the Table below to provide the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee and the Secretariat of the WSSD with information on their on-going and/or planned work. Considering the short time left before the Summit, the information even if it is of preliminary nature should be provided as soon as possible. There will be further opportunities to update/elaborate this information in conjunction with the forthcoming sessions of the Preparatory Committee as well as meetings of its Bureau. The WSSD Secretariat will disseminate the information provided by partners and initiators.


Organizers/initiators of partnerships and initiatives are invited to fill in the table below and submit it to the WSSD Secretariat at:

Monika Linn, Senior Adviser on Sustainable Development

tel: +1-917-367-2089; fax: +1-212-963-4260

e-mail: linnm@un.org


Deadline for submission of initiatives to be considered at the WSSD: Consideration will be given to the means by which partnerships will be recognized at the Summit at the final preparatory committee meeting (PrepCom 4), to be held in Bali from 27 May to 7 June.


Announcing partnerships at the WSSD: For those interested in announcing fully formed partnerships for sustainable development during the WSSD, both those listed on the official WSSD website - http://ww.johannesburgsummit.org -  and other new partnerships, the Secretariat will provide a limited number of time slots of up to ˝ hour on 29 August - 1 September in Sandton Conference Centre, Johannesburg. This will allow the partnerships to brief interested participants at the WSSD. Those interested in using the press briefing room (announcements to media only) should clearly indicate this. Interest in the use of these facilities should be forwarded to Monika Linn, at the latest by 19 August 2002.




PC IV Documents related to Partnerships

  Vice-Chair's Summary on Partnerships

  Annex: Guiding Principles for Partnerships

  A Guide on Potential Partnerships on ENERGY for Sustainable Development



HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT -  Interactive Dialogue on Partnerships, Thursday, 6 June:


Chaired by Vice-Chair Richard Ballhorn (Canada), Thursday’s High-Level interactive dialogue focused on partnerships, during which many delegates stressed the need for a partnership framework. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA emphasized participation of diverse stakeholders, and SUDAN supported equitable, non-selective, and non-politicized partnerships. Stating its Pacific Region focus, NEW ZEALAND underscored partnerships founded on trust, with community involvement, mutual outcomes and ownership, and further called for NATO countries to direct military expenditures to partnerships. The EU outlined options for formalizing guiding principles, set out in its non-paper tabled at an informal consultation on partnerships.


QATAR stressed the need for political will before developing and developed countries can enter into partnerships. The WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT elaborated on how partnerships can enable the Summit to deliver its outcomes, and stressed frameworks and good governance. GREECE elaborated on, inter alia, the principles necessary for partnerships and urged their elaboration in the implementation plan and political declaration. BARBADOS said partnerships should supplement, not substitute, Type 1 outcomes, and that Type 2 outcomes should enhance South-South and SIDS-SIDS cooperation. JAPAN underlined concrete actions, and sharing information and strategies. SYRIA and SAUDI ARABIA expressed need for "partnerships for peace," stressing an end to foreign occupation. GHANA emphasized additional resources, tangible benefits, and recognition of regional dimensions to avoid distortions. Nauru, for the PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM, stressed a subregional focus and flexibility to respond to national priorities. BOTSWANA expressed its support of partnerships, believing that governments alone cannot implement Agenda 21 without actively involving Major Groups. CANADA observed, inter alia, that unless progress is achieved in Bali, the opportunity and momentum to harvest results in Johannesburg will be foregone.


NAMIBIA said partnerships should: be structured; support implementation efforts of national governments; reinforce the Type 1 outcome; and strengthen existing commitments. ITALY, LEBANON and the ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC described their partnership initiatives. INDIA said partnerships: require a framework; should be country-driven; should cover new areas; and should not substitute intergovernmental mechanisms. NORWAY outlined elements for a partnership framework and called for its preparation before Johannesburg with the assistance of international organizations. The PHILIPPINES agreed with Norway, and added subsidiarity and efficiency as elements. The US noted partnership challenges, including ensuring they attain agreed international development goals, and proposed the CSD as a focal point for partnerships discussions. TOGO called for resource mobilization and technology transfer.


Noting that commodities are the economic backbone of most developing countries, the COMMON FUND FOR COMMODITIES stressed partnerships in the agriculture and minerals sectors. Tajikistan, for CENTRAL ASIA, described regional and subregional partnership programmes. ZAMBIA stressed mutually agreed terms of reference and new sources of financing, THAILAND requested greater elaboration of scope and modalities, and EL SALVADOR expressed hope that the Summit would coordinate national and global alliances. AUSTRALIA supported: flexible mechanisms; voluntary agreements and targets; and partner-driven reviews and indicators. BOLIVIA stressed shared responsibility, highlighting challenges involved in shifting to legal trade. Noting that voluntary international arrangements tend to bypass smaller states, the MALDIVES questioned the benefits of partnerships for SIDS. ROMANIA highlighted the need for inventiveness, creativity and innovation, as well as financial and monitoring mechanisms, and the MARSHALL ISLANDS called for financial and technical support to implement its Vision 2018. MOZAMBIQUE welcomed geographically distributed partnerships that involve governments and provide implementation resources.


FINLAND highlighted partnerships to mainstream sustainable development and supported Type 2 criteria. TURKEY emphasized partnerships for good governance and supported UNDP’s 2015 platform for capacity building. UNIDO stressed technology cooperation, JORDAN emphasized capacity building at all levels, and BELGIUM supported the CSD as a partnerships monitoring mechanism. NEPAL emphasized the need for international partnerships designed and implemented with stakeholder consensus. The EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY highlighted initiatives such as raising awareness of satellite Earth observation data. NIGERIA stressed that partnerships should not substitute for government responsibility. CUBA advised that partnerships should not replace multilateral cooperation, and emphasized common but differentiated responsibilities. ICELAND suggested that follow-up by the CSD can focus implementation efforts, and PAKISTAN said partnerships should address the livelihoods of poor communities marginalized from mainstream economic development.


SOUTH AFRICA observed linkages between timelines, targets, and Type 1 and 2 outcomes, stressing the need for a CSD monitoring programme with indicators. KYRGYZSTAN highlighted central Asian cooperative partnerships for the Aral Sea basin. YUGOSLAVIA supported the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on partnerships and the Vice-Chairs’ document as a basis for a programme of action. CHINA called for North-South partnerships based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. IRELAND urged, inter alia, partnership ownership by developing country governments, not donors. SENEGAL said sustainable development governance should be an element of partnerships. HONDURAS supported coordinated national partnerships strategies, and called for efficiency, coherence, and impact. Questioning a management, tracking, and information-sharing structure, BELIZE said partnerships should complement national priorities, regional initiatives and Agenda 21 objectives, and be transparent and accountable. GABON observed that partnerships since Rio have not yielded results in areas such as climate change, forest degradation and biodiversity conservation. UGANDA encouraged added value to ongoing partnerships in the areas of water, sanitation, health and energy. Noting that countries are "indulging in serial monologues," BENIN said there is a deficit of ethics in trade. CHAD identified prerequisites for partnerships at the global, national and regional levels. PANAMA reiterated the need for political will to comply with previous commitments. BAHAMAS suggested elaboration of guidelines on issues such as transparency, accountability and the review process. SOLOMON ISLANDS suggested that WSSD outcomes will not succeed unless countries cooperate, and AUSTRIA said that partnerships can make sustainability understandable to the general public. A BASEL CONVENTION representative gave examples of partnerships for sound management of hazardous wastes.


NEW ZEALAND reflected that Type 2 initiatives bring in new actors and different synergies, yet expressed concern about mainstreaming sustainable development, when the WSSD process has not been democratic or transparent. GUYANA suggested considering the process of concretizing partnerships to address the water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity (WEHAB) issue areas. Vice-Chairs Ballhorn, Kára, and Quarless summarized the steps between PrepCom IV and Johannesburg, including the preparation of partnership guidance documents for the five UN Secretary-General WEHAB areas.


Multi-stakeholder Dialogues, Tuesday, 28 May:


WOMEN elaborated on concerns regarding transnational corporations and international financial institutions, mechanisms guaranteeing gender mainstreaming and equity, and implementation of existing conventions. YOUTH called for a binding agreement on corporate accountability, and highlighted, inter alia, intergenerational equity, and social, environmental and economic justice as key criteria. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES lamented the historical attitude toward them and resource-intensive activities on traditional lands without consultation. NGOs emphasized the need for transparency, liability and accountability, while LOCAL AUTHORITIES underscored their role as the link between national governments and civil society.


TRADE UNIONS provided examples of good and bad partnerships, defining, inter alia, common objectives, extensive stakeholder consultations, and a balance of strength as characteristics of good partnerships. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY identified enabling environments and definition of roles and responsibilities as key elements of a partnerships framework. The SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY cautioned that knowledge can be misused, and highlighted information discrepancies between industrialized and non-industrialized countries. FARMERS highlighted their multifaceted role in sustainable development, expressed interest in renewable energy and research on genetically modified organisms, and recognized the need for public-private partnerships in water distribution systems.


Regarding partnerships as concrete means of implementation, the US stressed that commitments continue beyond the Summit, adding its preference for self-reporting mechanisms. The EU elaborated on the link between Type 1 and 2 outcomes, parameters and follow-up mechanisms and, with JAPAN, highlighted the importance of local authorities in achieving sustainable development. SAINT LUCIA called for a partnerships framework that includes criteria, terms of reference, and a monitoring mechanism.


In the discussion, facilitated by Ida Koppen, NGOs emphasized the importance in partnerships of non-interference in internal affairs and intimidation of other nations, and WOMEN and YOUTH proposed ratification of existing UN conventions as partnerships prerequisites. In response, the US highlighted voluntary initiatives as demonstrating commitment. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES stressed recognition of the negative impacts of globalization, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY underscored the arbitrary nature of the dichotomy between Type 1 and 2 outcomes, and WOMEN noted the limited consultative process in the establishment of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. SOUTH AFRICA expressed commitment to a clear framework, while DENMARK emphasized the need for internationally recognized frameworks and guidelines to help disadvantaged entities. The SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY stressed tangible outcomes, while TRADE UNIONS underscored the right to organize collectively and freely.


Summarizing the discussion, Koppen outlined a preliminary list of principles, including: transparency, accountability, equality, equity, full participation, measurability, replicability, the three pillars of sustainable development, and ownership. Major Groups added: the right to say no, non-intimidation, non-coercion, intergenerational equity, empowerment of historically disempowered, equal access, precautionary approach, ecosystems approach, performance, corporate accountability and a code of conduct, and commitment to existing UN conventions.


Throughout discussions in the afternoon session, Major Group representatives and country delegations shared specific examples of ongoing partnerships. TRADE UNIONS expressed concern that partnership funding "might be relegated to a parade of investment proposals," and NGOs noted that past partnerships have broken down because of conflict of need between partners. YOUTH detailed their partnerships selection criteria. The SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COMMUNITY stated its commitment to partnerships regardless of UN approval. FARMERS elaborated on risk management as a mechanism, and stressed rules and certainty. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY stated that partnerships should be voluntary agreements, while LOCAL AUTHORITIES called for the courage to set targets. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES lamented the lack of legal recourse, stated that transparency does not amount to equitable power, and inquired about mechanisms to ensure sustainability, particularly when priorities shift. WOMEN expressed concern with power balance, and noted the need for policies at regional and national levels, and skills and resources at the local level. NGOs said they did not want Type 2 initiatives to be a "trivial pursuit of diversion and cooptation," and expressed unwillingness to support such outcomes.


JAPAN stressed self-selection and self-governing of partners, FRANCE described financing of public-private partnerships and guaranteeing access to resources as mechanisms bridging the two outcomes. INDONESIA pointed out costs of developing partnerships, GUYANA emphasized that the main partnership emerging from Rio was between the North and South, and questioned whether it had been honored, while ETHIOPIA expressed concern that FARMERS reflected Northern rather than Southern perspectives. SWITZERLAND stated that interest in Type 2 activities should be backed up with commitment to Type 1 outcomes, and stressed that projects need to be bankable. BELGIUM suggested partnerships between Northern countries to change consumption patterns. FINLAND stated that partnerships are a new deal and questioned suspicions of certain groups.


Co-Chair Quarless said the WSSD should galvanize support for partnerships. WSSD Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, emphasized that partnerships are not a substitute for what governments need to do, and not just between corporations and other parties.


First informal consultation, Monday, 3 June:


The first informal consultation on partnerships/initiatives was facilitated by Jan Kára (Czech Republic) and Diane Quarless (Jamaica), and later attended by WSSD Secretary-General Nitin Desai. Both Vice-Chairs noted that this consultation was now "in the shadows" of the negotiations, particularly upstaged by Working Group III. Kára explained the history of Type 2 outcomes, expressing hope that these outcomes will mobilize additional capacities to implement Agenda 21 and other sustainable development goals. Co-Chair Quarless noted issues needing further explanation: equity, accountability, institutional oversight and framework.


AUSTRALIA requested clarification of the definition of a "new" partnership. Co-Chair Quarless stated that initiatives should not be a repackaging of existing ones, but should have true added value, with international relevance and impact. The EU introduced a non-paper proposing guiding principles and options for formalizing such principles, further emphasizing the need for developing a follow-up mechanism. JAPAN underscored ownership and concrete actions.


The US expressed strong support for Type 2 partnerships as a critical outcome of the WSSD, stressed the importance of creativity and imagination, and with the EU, ICELAND and JAPAN, opposed strict criteria frameworks. The Co-Chairs said that there will be a quality check, as opposed to screening, of partnerships. With respect to follow-up mechanisms, the US mentioned that CSD could play an important role and should provide access to information and facilitate new partnerships within existing resources. The EU suggested that the CSD could give technical advice and guidance for partnerships initiatives. Both countries suggested another consultation on follow-up mechanisms.


The PHILIPPINES underlined that Type 2 should be a way of bringing in new funds and not a means to shift existing resources, further expressing his reservations that Type 2 could be a "trap" imposing conditionalities defined by donor governments. He also noted a qualitative change from discussion at Rio, highlighting the recent focus on local, community-based actions, and stressed that Type 2 initiatives must be responsive to local needs. An NGO questioned the US focus on market-based incentives, as opposed to government regulation. The US emphasized that partnerships should be commensurate with the variety of countries and conditions, although they would be "tethered to" the Type 1 outcome. He also described markets as a social construct. UNEP recalled that partnerships are a means, not an end, to achieve sustainable development, NORWAY highlighted NGOs and civil society as important partners, and UNICEF warned against neglecting existing partnerships. CANADA said existing partnerships should have clear added value, and that both donors and recipients have to be effective partners.


The INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE stated that Type 2 outcomes could fill an implementation gap not achieveable under Type 1. He further cited the example of rural electrification, noting that for a profit and given the right of way, businesses could do what individual countries might not be able to. AUSTRALIA called for a distinction between a commercial relationship and a partnership. The STAKEHOLDER FORUM FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE noted the distinction between partnerships and initiatives. CANADA highlighted how official development assistance can build better synergies with foreign direct investment, and CHINA expressed hope that more attention will be paid to Chinese civil society. Concluding, Desai emphasized that partners should have an equal state in knowledge and capacity, encouraged delegates to conceive a programme to strengthen negotiating capacity, and suggested that the UN provide a clearinghouse for partnership guidelines. He stated that the first week of the WSSD will devote sessions to partnerships, and mentioned his preference for a thematic approach.




 From the ENB Summary

Facilitated by Bureau Vice-Chairs Jan Kára (Czech Republic) and Diane Quarless (Jamaica), informal meetings on Type 2 outcomes – partnerships/initiatives – were held on Tuesday, 26 March, Thursday, 28 March, Monday, 1 April, and Wednesday, 3 April. During these meetings, delegates, UN agencies, regional commissions, industry associations and NGOs exchanged views on Type 2 outcomes, presented initiatives underway, and clarified questions regarding the scope and modalities of potential partnerships.


Throughout discussions, delegates called for guidelines and parameters for Type 2 outcomes, stressing that new partnerships need to contribute to Agenda 21 implementation and the achievement of the Millennium Declaration goals. Elements of successful partnerships were identified as having: leadership and common objectives; clearly defined deliverables; a participatory approach, where ownership of initiatives is shared among all partners; and leveraged private sector resources and capacity.


Participants raised questions on the scope and modalities of partnerships and their relationship to Type 1 outcomes, stressing that partnerships should not replace agreements by governments, but rather contribute to implementing political commitments. Concerns regarding corporate accountability, "greenwashing," transparency and equity were raised. Some participants also indicated that supporting new partnerships could divert resources from existing successful partnerships. Many delegates called for a monitoring strategy for Type 2 outcomes, with New Zealand suggesting that the CSD monitor partnerships. The US highlighted the CSD’s potential role in replicating successful initiatives, identifying lessons learned, and facilitating additional partnerships.


Concrete initiatives were announced by CropLife International, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Land Partnership Initiative, the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, the UN Industrial Development Organization, IUCN and Business Action for Sustainable Development. Delegations indicated key interest areas, with: the US focusing on drinking water/sanitation, and food security/ sustainable agriculture/rural development; the Netherlands highlighting water, energy, rural development, sustainable agriculture, health care, urban poverty, and initiatives for Africa; and the Czech Republic underscoring public awareness, education and science.


At the final informal meeting on partnerships, South Africa tabled a non-paper – A Proposed Approach to Action-Oriented, Time-Bound Outcomes for the WSSD – identifying six themes considered critical for poverty eradication in the context of sustainable development: water and sanitation; energy; agriculture and food security; technology; education; and health. The non-paper proposes four elements:

  • a clear, negotiated Type 1 outcome establishing a process and framework for implementation plans;

  • a focused set of priority themes that operationalize poverty-related targets in the negotiated text;  

  • a basis for linking Type 2 outcomes to the implementation process; and  

  • an illustrative framework for implementation plans that flow from the priority themes.

In view of the discussions held during the session, the Vice-Chairs circulated the Vice-Chairs’ Explanatory Note On Further Guidance For Partnerships/Initiatives during the closing Plenary. The note contains general guidelines elaborating Type 2 outcomes and supplements an explanatory note from the Chair, released at PrepCom II, Proposals for Partnerships/Initiatives to Strengthen the Implementation of Agenda 21. The general guidelines state that Type 2 partnerships/initiatives should:

  • achieve further implementation of Agenda 21 and Millennium Declaration goals; 

  • complement globally agreed Type 1 outcomes and not substitute government commitment;  

  • be voluntary in nature and not be subject to negotiation within the PrepCom; 

  • be participatory, with ownership shared between partners; 

  • be new initiatives, or, in the case of ongoing initiatives, demonstrate added value in the context of the Summit; 

  • integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development; 

  • be international (global, regional or subregional) in scope and reach; 

  • have clear objectives, and set specific targets and timeframes for their achievement; and 

  • have a system of accountability, including arrangements for monitoring progress.

The paper: states that the role of the CSD in monitoring Type 2 initiatives will be discussed and decided in negotiations on sustainable development governance within the PrepCom; invites interested parties to submit proposals for partnerships/initiatives to the Summit Secretariat; and states that consultations on partnerships will continue throughout PrepCom IV. The paper also mentions that proposed partnerships will be posted on the Johannesburg Summit website at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org.


Vice-Chairs' Summary of the Informal Meetings on Partnerships/Initiatives at PrepCom III

Annexed Further Guidance for Partnerships/Initiatives - an explanatory note by Vice-Chairs Jan Kára and Diane Quarless, as an addendum to the Chair's explanatory note

A Proposed Approach to Action-Oriented, Time-Bound Outcomes for the WSSD - Non-Paper submitted by South Africa for discussion at PrepCom III


PrepCom III Side Events on Partnerships

A common platform for action on access to land - Presented by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

White water to blue water: A cross-cutting approach to regional oceans and coastal ecosystem management - Presented by the US delegation

The rural energy challenge: Meeting the needs of the poor  - Presented by UNDESA and UNDP

Food security and wild biodiversity: A new partnership  - Presented by IUCN, Future Harvest, the Equator Initiative, UNDP and partners

The potential for using the multi-stakeholder network model to develop and deliver partnerships for implementation  - Presented by the Royal Institute of International Affairs

Water: Crisis or opportunities? - Presented by UNESCO and Green Cross International

Powering sustainable development  - Presented by e7 in cooperation with UNDESA, UNEP and UNIDO






Focusing Partnerships, A Sourcebook for Municipal Capacity-Building in Public-Private Partnerships Edited by Janelle Plummer

'This is the most comprehensive account available of the factors affecting successful public-private partnerships. The book provides a systematic approach and a rich source of examples for capacity-builders and managers.' Richard Batley, Director, International Development Department, University of Birmingham, UK


Business Partners for Development Report Reveals How Globalisation Can Benefit Both Business and Communities


Comments on the Proposed Framework of Outcome Documents for the Earth Summit 2002, Stakeholder Forum For Our Common Future's (formerly UNED Forum) position paper on Type 1 and 2 outcomes - includes further suggestions on criteria and mechanisms for Type 2 outcomes.


Realising the Global Deal: What Can Cross-Sectoral Collaborations Deliver?, IIED Background Paper presenting current discussions on the realisation of a 'Global Deal' at the Johannesburg Summit.


Questioning Partnerships from SDIN's Taking Issue


Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) Discussion - Partnerships, Dialogue and Stakeholders

9 October 2001, Paris

Discussions in the Working Group "Partnerships, dialogue and stakeholders" focused on identifying initiatives that could be used to demonstrate achievements by business and progress in tackling the challenges ahead.




UN Official Website on Type 2 Partnership/Initiatives - http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/sustainable_dev/type2_part.html

Contains background information and info on partnership registration. Also houses the list and descriptions of initiatives submitted to the Secretariat at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/sustainable_dev/partnership_initiatives.html


The Equator Initiative - http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/

The Equator Initiative has been designed to support the WSSD and the Convention on Biodiversity, and will highlight successful initiatives undertaken by communities in the Equatorial belt that promote poverty alleviation through the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. For this initiative, UNDP is partnering with BrasilConnects, the Government of Canada, the International Development Research Centre, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, the Television Trust for the Environment, and the UN Foundation to showcase highly successful and innovative partnerships for sustainable development in tropical ecosystems.


Virtual Exhibition - http://www.virtualexhibit.net/index.php

Virtual Exhibition initiative is a joint project of Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It has been created to provide a platform for all members of society - governments, NGOs, businesses or local communities - to share their sustainable development experiences and achievements. Billed as an "innovative multi-media showcase of sustainable development initiatives," Virtual Exhibition will display sustainable development projects being pursued around the world and bring summit proceedings to a global audience - in real time, via the internet. By visiting Virtual Exhibition at any time during the two weeks of the summit, you can see what is happening in Johannesburg.


Virtual Exhibition Online Discussion - http://www.virtualexhibit.net/mainpages/discuss/index.php

Virtual Exhibition also has an interactive component, supported by IISD. IISD will facilitate a six week electronic consultation on the nature of partnerships for sustainable development. This consultation will explore what works in partnerships, what detracts or undermines partnerships, what is needed to establish and sustain effective partnerships. The consultation is expected to begin at the end of April. 


Business Partnership Initiatives - http://www.basd-action.net/initiatives

In an effort to document actions of the business community towards sustainable development, Business Action for Sustainable Development is compiling partnership initiatives to be presented on the BASD website. These initiatives will be prominently displayed on the BASD website and will be fed into the preparations for the Johannesburg Summit. Submissions of initiatives are encouraged through an online submission form.


Business Partners for Development - http://www.bpd-waterandsanitation.org/index.htm

Dealing with tri-sector partnerships (public, private and civil society) to bring water and sanitation to the poor, the BPD Water and Sanitation Cluster lies at the crux of two core themes for the WSSD, namely Partnerships and Water & Sanitation. The newly-launched BPD WSSD portal makes two contributions to the debate around these issues in the run up to Jo'burg:

1. It provides links to other WSSD initiatives that relate specifically to either partnership or to water & sanitation

2. It provides a set of short notes that elaborate the benefits (and risks) of being in partnership for the public, private and NGO sectors





PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT- WSSD Round Table in Copenhagen: On 20 and 21 February 2002 the Danish Government hosted a Round Table in preparation for the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development. The purpose of the event was ‘to further a common understanding of the roles and contributions of the private sector and the civil society in bringing about sustainable development’. For some, this entailed focusing on proposals for ‘partnership’ initiatives or ‘track 2’ approaches. Participants were invited from governments, the private sector, trade unions and NGOs. The report is available at: http://www.iied.org/pdf/wssd_CopenhagenRT_background_paper.pdf



4-5 May 2002, Montreal, Canada

The event will bring together the Canadian International Development Agency's (CIDA) partners, both African and Canadian, to discuss and raise awareness about the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), a plan developed by African leaders to lift the continent out of poverty. The meeting will feature African speakers and presenters on topics related to key issues, including: governance; health and education; gender equality, peace and security; and, economic growth. For further information contact: Hilary Humphrey, Office of the Minister for International Cooperation; tel: +1-819-953-6238; e-mail: media@acdi-cida.gc.ca; Internet: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/dccfe1952450f552852568db00555b47/ae3ddda5d7d6b3d985256b9500542fac?OpenDocument


WSSD Partnerships E-Consultation

6 May - 7 June 2002

What makes partnerships work? What undermines them? And what is needed to establish and sustain effective partnerships?

On behalf of the Virtual Exhibition, IISD will facilitate an electronic consultation on the nature of partnerships for sustainable development. The dialogue, energized by the participation of guest facilitators, will explore the power and potential of SD partnerships.

The WSSD Partnerships E-consultation will provide opportunities to explore:

  • Types of partnerships and peak moments of partnership excellence (May 6-12)

  • Planning processes for partnerships (May 13-19)

  • Communication tools for partnerships (May 20-26)

  • Evaluation of partnerships and their outcomes (May 27 - June 2)

  • Post-WSSD support for partnerships (June 3-7)

At the beginning of each week, participants will receive an overview of the topic and a list of background readings and resources. Each week will conclude with the circulation of a discussion summary. Guest moderators will assist with facilitating the discussion and drawing out the experiences of participants.

The results of the e-consultation will provide critical input to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) as they prepare their submission to PrepCom IV on partnerships. It will also serve as the basis for discussions at the UNDP Roundtable on networking partners for sustainable development July 22-23 in Cairo, Egypt.

To join the e-consultation, go to: http://www.iisd.org/networks/partnerships.asp


Parliamentary Dialogue on Partnerships for Sustainable Development

13-14 May 2002, Windhoek, Namibia

GLOBE Southern Africa Second Parliamentary Conference ahead of the WSSD will bring together about 80 parliamentarians and a host of different civil society organizations to consider the role of partnerships in taking forward the outcomes of the WSSD. We will examine existing partnerships in the region under the issues of Financing, Governance, Freshwater and Energy and identify positive elements and current barriers to their effectiveness. The intention is to come up with practical suggestions and recommendations that parliamentarians can implement in terms of removing legislative barriers that are currently impeding the optimal effectiveness of multi-stakeholder partnerships. GLOBE Southern Africa believes that this conference will also inform the debate on the Type 2 Outcomes of the WSSD. e-mail: capeoffice@globesa.org; Internet: http://www.globesa.org



19 July 2002, New York

IUCN convened a meeting in New York on Friday, 19 July 2002, to help clarify outstanding issues relating to proposals for WSSD partnerships (also known as "type II" outcomes). The meeting was chaired by Bureau Vice-Chairs Diane Quarless (Jamaica) and Jan Kara (Czech Republic), and attended by representatives of the Friends of the Chair and other governments, plus key NGOs and private sector entities. The event facilitated a dialogue and clarified key partnerships issues, including:

- who will decide which partnerships can be accepted;

- how the partnerships will be launched in Johannesburg;

- whether the partnerships will be financed with new and additional resources;

- how partnership implementation will be monitored; and

- how to link partnerships to the Type I outputs.

On the last point, the meeting considered a matrix showing alternative ways to link Type I and Type II outputs, delineating objectives, activities, timeframes, outputs, partners and monitoring mechanisms. The matrix will be revised based on the meeting feedback and re-circulated.

A full meeting report will be available on the UN website shortly. The revised matrix linking Type I and Type II outputs will also be available shortly on the IUCN WSSD website.  



UNDP will be convening a series of global roundtables between April and July 2002. The roundtable on vulnerability and SIDS – exploring mechanisms for partnerships – will take place on 29-30 April, in Saint Lucia. The roundtable on Sustainable Development in Trade & Investment will convene in Abuja, Nigeria from 18-19 July. For more information, contact: Yasmin Padamsee, UNDP; tel: +1-212-906-6175; fax: +1-212-906-5364; e-mail: yasmin.padamsee@undp.org; Internet; http://www.undp.org/wssd/regional.html


Implementation Conference

24-26 August 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa

Facilitated by Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future (formerly UNED Forum), the Implementation Conference will bring together 500-1000 of leading representatives of the Agenda 21 Major Groups and other stakeholders to work on five key issues and agree concrete action plans for aspects of each one. The objective is to demonstrate that stakeholders, working in partnership, can play their roles and meet their responsibilities in delivering the sustainable development agreements. Internet: http://www.earthsummit2002.org/ic/