Commission on Sustainable Development

Eleventh Session

AM Meeting

MAJOR CIVIC GROUPS COMMENT ON PROPOSED FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME

OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Nine major civil society groups commented on draft decisions introduced yesterday by the Commission on Sustainable Development on its future work programmes, as that body continued its eleventh session this morning.

The nine groups included farmers, indigenous people, youth, trade unions, women, scientific and technological community, local authorities, business and industry, and farmers, which are those recognized in Agenda 21, the actual plan of the World Summit on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), as having specific roles and responsibilities in achieving sustainable development.

The current session of the Commission is the first since last year’s World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and the focus is on formulating a long-term work programme to implement the Johannesburg outcome, as well as Agenda 21.  The Plan of Implementation agreed upon in Johannesburg contains specific goals and targets aimed at an accelerated transition to sustainable development.  As presented in the draft decision, the Commission’s future work will be organized as a series of two-year “Implementation Cycles”, which will consist of a review year to evaluate progress and a policy year to agree on measures to expedite implementation of concerns identified in the review.

During this morning’s meeting, many groups noted that they were involved with the Commission’s work during its review year, but not in the policy year.  The farmers’ representative said he had hoped the Commission would be improving the way it worked with major groups, rather than affirming the status quo.  The draft work organization was really just a list of good intentions, he said, stressing that a phrase outlining a specific role in implementation for major groups was needed, which would also help groups raise funds for capacity-building.

Others recommended different cross-cutting issues that should be included in the work plan.  The woman’s group, for example, stressed that peace and human rights be included, and suggested that a gender focal point within the Commission, as well as tools for gender mainstreaming, be set up to integrate gender as a cross-cutting issue.  The youth group suggested that education also be included, and proposed that consumption and production patterns be included as themes in the two-year work cycle.

Several groups noted that implementation was largely a local affair, yet the term “local” failed to appear in the work plan.  The scientists’ group urged the Commission to include the term “local” in the plan, especially for monitoring and evaluation.  Implementation began locally, he stressed, adding that initiatives

were most successful when assurances for community involvement were provided.  Referring to evaluation efforts at the local level, the trade union representative said his group could accomplish that in cooperation with industry.

Youth and non-governmental organizations agreed that Agenda 21 should not be renegotiated.  The non-governmental organizations representative said the potential for tinkering with Agenda 21 was implied in the current draft, which was unacceptable.  Youth representatives said the Commission must stick to the goals of Agenda 21, as outlined in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and not formulate new proposals that merely reiterated what had already been decided.

Some groups said the Commission needed to help with major group funding, training and coordination.  The indigenous peoples group stressed that financial mechanisms be set up so that their group, as well as others, could more broadly participate in the Commission process.  Major groups had much to lend the process, which should include advising on nominating and selecting experts.

The Commission will meet again at a time and date to be announced.

* *** *