Commission on Sustainable Development

Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting

7^th & 8^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Sustainable Consumption Patterns Should Start With People, Not Governments,

 

Expert Panellist Tells Commission on Sustainable Development

 

Intergovernmental Meeting also Considers Interlinkages among Focal Themes

“Too many people use money they don’t have to buy things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like,” the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting for the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development heard today as it considered the elaboration of a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

During a panel discussion on interlinkages and cross-cutting issues among the five focal themes on the Meeting’s agenda, Joachim Spangenberg, Vice-President of the Sustainable Europe Research Institute and Co-Coordinator of Sustainability Strategies, said that changing unsustainable consumption patterns should start, not with Governments, but with populations.  Sustainable consumption patterns should be made socially acceptable and unsustainable ones demonetized, he stressed.

Elaborating a 10-year framework of programmes was one of the five thematic areas upon which delegates would focus during the upcoming session, the others being transport, chemicals, waste management and mining, which the Commission had discussed over the past two days.

Kevin Brady, founding Partner and Director of Five Winds International, stressed the importance of integrating sustainable production and materials management initiatives into policy objectives, and of linking them with such fields as trade, innovation and fiscal policy.  He also underscored the critical importance of data and information.

Chee Yoke Ling, Legal Adviser to the Third World Network, said developing countries needed a fair system to help them through the expensive process of shifting to sustainable production.  It was therefore necessary to discuss issues not currently on the agenda, such as justice and equity, she added, noting that, left to itself, the market would not work.

As the Commission took up cross-cutting issues relating to the five focal themes, Vice-Chair Andrew Goledzinowski (Australia) pointed out that policies and measures aimed at one issue might have co-benefits for the others.  A life-cycle perspective would help elucidate those linkages, with sustainable consumption and production patterns as a unifying theme.

Dil Najam, Frederick S. Pardee Professor of Global Public Policy at Boston University, said treaty bodies relating to biodiversity and chemicals were on the cutting edge of international environmental governance.  While it had previously been necessary to start issue by issue, there was now a need to put all the issues in “piles” in order to reduce the “clutter” in international environmental governance.

Jeremy Gregory, Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stressed the importance of multidisciplinary teams and partnerships in which participants became vested in the policies developed.

Pat Mooney, an expert on issues of global governance, corporate concentration and intellectual property monopoly, called attention to the fact that policymakers often claimed technology as a fix to problems, despite a lack of capacity to assess new technologies.

The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 4 March, to hold multistakeholder dialogues.

Background

The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting for the nineteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development met this morning to hold a panel discussion on a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns, one of the five thematic areas of focus during the upcoming session.  It was expected to discuss interlinkages and cross-cutting issues during its afternoon meeting.

Panel Discussion on 10-Year Framework

The following panellists featured in the discussion on policy options to address barriers and constraints in the implementation of sustainable development as it applies to the thematic issue of a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns: Kevin Brady, founding Partner and Director, Five Winds International; Joachim Spangenberg, Vice-President, Sustainable Europe Research Institute and Co-Coordinator, Sustainability Strategies; and Chee Yoke Ling, Legal Adviser, Third World Network.

LÁSZLÓ BORBÉLY (Romania), Chair of the Commission, said sustainable consumption and production had been on the international agenda for years.  The eighteenth session had undertaken an in-depth review of Member States, including those under the Marrakech Process, and five broad lessons had emerged: a lot of initiatives were already in place under different names; they all shared commonalities; the most successful initiatives were those underpinning mutually supportive partnerships; there were persistent capacity-related or policy-induced barriers to sustainable consumption and production; and sustainable consumption and production initiatives were fragmented.

He went on to note that the Commission was the only forum that offered members a chance to share information and discuss objectives, stressing its importance in determining how best to foster sustainable consumption and production programmes that enhanced performance without jeopardizing the economies of developing countries and those with economies in transition.  Existing programmes faced a number of problems; while the Marrakech Process had been effective in bringing communities together, its credibility and legitimacy were weakened by its voluntary status.  Many existing programmes, entailing issues ranging from cleaner production centres to networks of researchers, had produced results and developed knowledge, but they faced challenges because they were either only weakly connected to one another or not at all.

A 10-year framework of programmes could provide coherence and consistency in goals, facilitating a cross-fertilization of ideas that could be adapted to different regional needs and circumstances, he continued.  It could help identify and explore synergies between countries and monitor progress.  There was often a lack of coherence in programmes targeting the same sector, so a framework could integrate policies and measures, he noted.  That would enable stronger measures rather than a reliance on voluntary action.

National actions needed to be supplemented by global solutions, although initiatives at the local and regional levels must reflect the various priorities of countries at different levels of development, he said.  A 10-year framework of programmes would help devise such global solutions while recognizing national sovereignty.  Sustainable consumption and production was a cross-cutting issue that required cooperation among numerous groups at all levels.  Without it, the framework would remain confined and lacking the benefit of knowledge-sharing, he cautioned, emphasizing the necessity of working together to achieve a framework representing the “highest common denominator”, and the need for criteria to help develop effective programmes.

He said that questions to focus on included: what the framework of programmes should be in order to achieve their goals and enhance poverty alleviation gains from sustainable consumption and production activities; which institutional arrangements should support sustainable consumption and production so as to realize international priorities; and what sort of structure would be best suited to ensure that the 10-year framework delivered the functions that States wanted.

TARIQ BANURI, Director, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, introduced the Secretary-General’s report “policy options and actions for expediting progress in implementation:  a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns” (document E/CN.17/2011/8), describing sustainable consumption and production as a compelling vision on the basis of “more can be done with less”.  That idea, first offered in 1971, had undergone a long evolution, with Agenda 21 in 1992 and the 2002 Johannesburg Programme of Implementation having set off the 2003 voluntary Marrakech Process.

Presenting an overview of issues touching on consumption and production patterns in Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Programme of Implementation, he noted that the latter introduced such elements as clean production and corporate responsibility while also addressing issues like energy, transport, waste, chemicals and tourism.  The goal of a 10-year framework of programmes would be to achieve results on the ground, with stakeholder participation and the mobilization of support.  Selected programmes should have clear targets and objectives and be led by an agency such as a ministry or international organization.

He said programmes could be clustered around such subjects as education and value-chain management, as well as sectoral programmes like industry, agriculture, transport, tourism, building and waste, adding that each programme must have objectives, structure and justification.  Some questions were still outstanding, such as the issue of a vertical versus horizontal structure and how to effectively engage a broad group of stakeholders.  The value chain approach, as compared to the national approach, was also a matter of discussion, he said, emphasizing, above all, that resources were essential.

Mr. BRADY discussed his research on sustainable materials management as well as the linkages and areas of collaboration he had helped identify in a background paper for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) global forum last October.  That research had entailed examining the work of various bodies, including that of OECD on green-growth strategy; the European Commission on integrated product policy; the Group of Eight (G-8), particularly Japan, on “3R” action plans; and the Belgian Presidency of the European Union on sustainable material management.

He went on to state that he had found that all that work covered the lifecycle and activities to promote increased resource productivity and the reduction of pollution associated with production.  Activities ranged from promoting socially responsible products, to greener consumption and procurement, to managing end-of-life products and materials, he said, adding that the key linkage point in the documents reviewed was reducing the impacts of manufacturing and consumption.

Regarding the common objectives of those initiatives, he said there was a focus on strengthening collaboration, transferring knowledge, educating consumers, involving stakeholders and integrating policies and regulation.  Instead of managing from a “silo perspective”, the initiatives addressed integration into policy objectives and linking with such fields as trade, innovation and fiscal policy.  Another key area was the “promotion of a trajectory shift” — transforming to a system that promoted and enhanced sustainable production — and accelerating technology, research and innovation, creating standards and promoting more sustainable management of materials and large-scale investment.  The objectives included measuring progress and establishing a baseline, he said.

As for common areas of collaboration, he said there was a focus on communication with consumers as well as technology transfer, noting that most jurisdictions were struggling with those issues, although priorities depended on the area of the world with which they were dealing.  Tied to the promotion of a trajectory shift was collaboration on research and development, the creation of certifications and standards, and the development of greener technologies.  Other areas of collaboration included removing barriers, saving money through public procurement and measuring progress across jurisdictions.  While overlapping objectives could lead to efficiency gains, many Governments were struggling with financing, he said, adding that savings could be achieved through cooperation.

“Green growth” strategies were comprehensive approaches to guide Government actions, so it would be useful to look at integration with those initiatives, he said, noting that the concept of sustainable consumption and production was not easily communicated.  Green growth was more tangible, so there may be opportunities to link the two as they both promoted improved resource extraction and production, he said.  Sustainable management was a cross-cutting issue, he said, adding that if it was to be better managed, there would be a need to consider all the different initiatives.  One main challenge was the existing growth paradigm, because the current way of ensuring growth rewarded consumption and production, but did not take their impact into account, he emphasized.

Offering recommendations, he underscored the critical importance of data and information, saying there was a considerable amount of activity involving greener materials and products.  More data and information would be critical to making better, sustainable choices, he said, adding that when people had access to that information and understood how materials could contribute to sustainable consumption and consumption, they would make the right choices.  Much work was already being done within the United Nations, such as making lifecycle tools available globally, but was it was not enough, he said.  Additionally, because not everything could be done at work, he recommended identifying priorities, such as starting with priority materials, defining which materials had the most impact, identifying the best mix of policies and programmes, and looking at things not in isolation but in terms of system linkages.

Mr. SPANGENBERG focused his presentation on eco-efficiency, emphasizing that sustainable consumption and production was not separate from development, but “another way to slice the cake”.  There was no need for specific sustainable consumption and production since sustainable development targets already existed, such as the Millennium Development Goals.  He warned, however, that as long as the results of sustainable consumption and production measures did not meet the standards defined by a 2° Celsius warming in climate change, those measures were a wasted effort and must be considered as having failed.

Sustainable consumption and sustainable production had different dynamics, he continued.  Resource consumption had been increasing worldwide, in both developed and developing countries, but economic incentives and minimum standards were needed to promote more efficient production.  A win-win situation was not possible, he said, citing the example of Europe, which had seen saw a rise in the importation of resources.  That was an indication that the production system had become more sustainable, but consumption patterns had not, and the gap was filled by imports, he said, noting that Europe imported more resources than it exported but earned more from exports than it spent on imports.  That was a win-win situation for Europe, but a lose-lose one for the rest of the world, he said, pointing out, however, that each economic gain diminished environmental gains, and that there was no such thing as a win-win situation.

Turning to sustainable consumption, he said a distinction should be made between overconsumption and underconsumption.  The former was not sustainable as there were not enough resources in the world to sustain, for instance, the 350 per cent increase in energy consumption expected by 2050, given current trends.  The latter, on the other hand, was socially unsustainable and there was, therefore, a need to find sustainable lifestyles within and between countries.  The world population suffering from overconsumption was not divided between countries but between groups, he noted, emphasizing that the majority of poor people did not live in poor countries, but in middle-income, threshold or transition countries.

One must focus less on groups than on countries, he said, adding that in order to achieve sustainable consumption, individuals must be willing to accept that concept.  Group behaviour should be changed through leadership by example, he said, juxtaposing a minister’s choice of the smallest car available against his chauffeur’s reluctance to drive it.  Unsustainable consumption should be stigmatized, he stressed, adding: “Too many people use money they don’t have to buy things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like.”  There was a need to rethink the development model, recognizing that the current level of resource consumption in industrialized countries was much too high.  New approaches should be tried, such as feed-in tariffs, top-runner rules and green stimuli.  An information exchange mechanism should be established, he suggested, adding that it should include a science-policy interface as well as criteria for measuring success.

Ms. LING offered perspectives from her experience of developing countries as part of a network of non-governmental organizations working with community groups and Governments on three major continents of the South.  Sustainable consumption and production raised the issue of gross inequalities across countries, which had become worse in recent years, she said, adding that there was an imbalance in terms of wealth and decision-making.  While consumer choice was emphasized and unsustainable lifestyles promoted around the world, they had not developed accidentally, she said, pointing out that advertising and marketing were deliberately promoting them.

Voluntary activity was talked up as though each stakeholder had equal power, but they had witnessed more corporate wealth across sectors, whether in medicine or banking.  Amid greater corporate wealth and influence, there had been a rollback of State power, which in turn had weakened measures like regulation and knowledge-sharing.  Unless the resources of developing countries were freed up, the global community would have failed in sustainable resource management, she said, emphasizing that she was not referring to official development assistance (ODA), but the developing-world resources that had been sucked up.

Shifting to sustainable production was expensive and developing countries needed a fair system, she stressed, noting that, left to itself, the market would not work.  Rather, it would continue to cause a lot of the problems afflicting those countries.  It was therefore necessary to be courageous and discuss issues not currently on the agenda, like justice and equity, because a failure to pursue those principles would amount to a failure to address the core issues.  While recognizing that they were not all equal stakeholders, non-governmental organizations remained willing to work with Governments because laws and regulations were needed.  Nonetheless, they were concerned about the multilateral process because they saw an erosion of multilateralism despite the need for an all-inclusive negotiating forum.

Representatives of developing countries said the 10-year framework should be in line with the three pillars of sustainable development, promote social and economic development as well as environment protection, and embrace corporate responsibility.  The framework should begin with a common vision based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Programme of Implementation, particularly regarding sustainable consumption and production.  It should be flexible and refrain from imposing new constraints or conditions.

Moreover, sustainable consumption and production activities should not be used to implement trade protectionism, speakers said, emphasizing that they should reflect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.  The consumption and production patterns of developed countries aggravated climate change and they should therefore take the lead in changing behaviour, some stressed.  After all, the current environmental, energy and financial crises had been caused by the prolonged unsustainable consumption and production patterns of developed countries, according to one speaker.  All countries must reap the benefits of a new framework.

Sustainable consumption and production was at the centre of the concept of “green economy”, according to one speaker.  It was about the very nature of an economic process in which production was cleaner, more resource-efficient and competitive, and in which products were better at meeting consumer needs with lower accompanying environmental impacts.  Since sustainable consumption and production initiatives supported the transition to a green economy, there were opportunities to make a clearer link between the Commission’s discussions on the issue and the 2012 Rio+20 Conference, another speaker said.

The 10-year framework should include an ambitious common global vision of shared prosperity and human development within the planet’s carrying capacity and with developed countries taking the lead, speakers said.  It should support local, national, regional and international initiatives on sustainable consumption and production by providing a global platform for Governments and stakeholders.  Its key functions should be knowledge-sharing, networking, awareness-raising and education, speakers said, adding that it must also open new market opportunities through differentiated treatment in trade and more flexible intellectual property rights.

On the structure of a 10-year framework, many speakers said it should establish concrete measures to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns and be based on work already done in that area.  It should also be flexible, facilitate the sharing of information and take different regional needs into account.  The document should use existing language, rather than negotiating new language, and be voluntary in nature.

Some speakers noted that a lead agency or secretariat was yet to be established for the coordination of programmes.  Others underlined the need to develop an appropriate institutional framework that would promote the involvement of all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector, within the Secretariat’s existing arrangements.  Another speaker urged shared oversight by all stakeholders as well as support for regional, national and local initiatives.

Speakers from small island developing States called attention to their unsustainable fish stocks and their islands’ lack of sufficient resources, which was preventing them from implementing the Mauritius Strategy.  Sustainable consumption and production programmes should recognize the need for small island developing States to receive sustainable and predictable finances, preferential treatment in international trade and support for poverty-eradication efforts.

Panel Discussion on Interlinkages and Cross-Cutting Issues

The discussion on interlinkages and cross-cutting issues relating to transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns featured Dil Najam, Frederick S. Pardee Professor of Global Public Policy, Boston University; Pat Mooney, an expert on issues of global governance, corporate concentration and intellectual property monopoly; and Jeremy Gregory, Research Scientist, Materials Systems Laboratory and Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

ANDREW GOLEDZINOWSKI ( Australia), Commission’s Vice-Chair, said in opening remarks that strong interlinkages and interlocking relationships existed among the five thematic issues because policies and measures aimed at one might have co-benefits for the others.  A life-cycle perspective would help to elucidate those linkages, with sustainable consumption and production patterns as a unifying theme.  Cross-cutting issues such as poverty eradication, education, health and gender also benefited from improvements made in respect of the five themes.  Addressing the themes together would facilitate the development of policy recommendations for resource efficiency, with a view to decoupling economic growth from resource use and environmental impacts.

He said a green economy should provide substantially increased investment in economic sectors such as renewable energy, low-carbon public transport, energy-efficient buildings, cleaner technologies and improved waste management.  He asked participants to focus their remarks on questions such as: what must be undertaken to ensure that policy measures adopted in one area had benefits for other areas; what kind of economic and financial policies and public and private investments were needed to promote sustainability in the five themes; and what policies should be adopted to provide an enabling environment to support research, innovation and technology cooperation across all themes.

Mr. BANURI, Director, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, presenting the Secretary-General’s report “policy options and actions for expediting progress in implementation:  interlinkages and cross-cutting issues” (document E/CN.17/2011/3), said the current cycle’s common denominator was dematerialization — maintaining and enhancing the current standard of living while reducing net dependence on material resources.  That would require education, awareness, capacity-building and financial support.  An integrated approach that exploited the interlinkages among the various themes was important.  The report covered the history of work on the topic, assessment tools, linkages between the present and cycle and the last one, which called attention to sustainable agriculture, the need for enhanced participation by all stakeholders, and means of implementation.  The orientation was towards “win-win” activities that promoted sustainable development but followed a trajectory towards a “green” economy, he said.

Mr. GREGORY, addressing the four questions raised by the Vice-Chair, stressed the importance of multidisciplinary teams and partnerships.  A multidisciplinary approach was required because the problems posed by the thematic issues were complex, requiring an examination of environmental, economic and social issues.  Policy alternatives motivated by sustainability should be evaluated through an approach driven by science, social science and management, he said, adding that a proposal for developing and evaluating policy alternatives should include goals, tools and metrics for measurement.  The effects of policy should be evaluated throughout the system, using the life-cycle perspective, since the thematic cluster for the nineteenth session comprised the entire life cycle of products, from mining to consumption and disposal.

He called for the use of multidisciplinary partnerships – such as those between Governments and industry — because participants became vested in the policies developed.  Good examples were SmartWay, in the area of transport, and Call2Recycle, on waste management issues.  Multistakeholder policy development partnerships would spur innovation and cooperation, he said, citing the company Starbucks.  Wishing to make its cups recyclable, it had brought together partners along the whole value chain, as well as those from the competition, with the recognition that the problem affected the entire sector.  Vesting stakeholders in policy-development processes also helped to limit uncertainty and risk, he said.

Mr. NAJAM said that, when discussing the five themes, what came to mind were linkages with other issues, such as energy, water, poverty and development.  Just as linkages could be made between the five themes, the same was true of any five issues on the Commission’s agenda.  There might be a need to rethink what to do with interlinkages, he said.  The traditional process was to identify an issue of concern, go through the relevant policies, highlight a number of interlinkages and then put whatever one could into addressing the issue so that it became a secondary concern.

Some issues were now mature enough to allow a move to the next level of governance innovation, so as to consolidate issues opened up over the past 20 years and move towards consolidated governance.  The goal for Rio+20 should be to emerge from the Conference with fewer institutions and treaties than had been in existence going in, he said, recalling that the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro had created many treaties due to the emergence of new issues.  Many of them had matured and interlinkages had arisen, he noted, adding that chemicals was one particular area in which more and better linkages were seen within treaties.

The relevant treaty bodies were in the habit of talking to each other, specifically those relating to biodiversity and chemicals, he said, adding that they were on the cutting edge of international environmental governance.  While it had previously been necessary to start issue by issue, there was a need at the present point to consolidate and put all the issues in “piles” so as to make international environmental governance less cluttered.  There was a template on how to gather issues around big themes like energy and water.  They could keep the integrity of the issues, but force linkages by forcing governance mechanisms to communicate and focusing on the overarching framework.

Mr. MOONEY said the issue was not Rio+20 but “Silent Spring +50”.  In focusing on cross-cutting issues, Governments often invoked the term “technology”, he said, adding that policymakers often claimed technology as a fix to problems without addressing the gaps that it could not resolve.  Although access to technology was often requested, it should also be assessed, though the capacity of the United Nations to make such assessments had disappeared in the 1990s, he said, emphasizing that it was critical that the Commission establish a process for assessing new technology.

Nanotechnology, for example, was developing rapidly, with implications for all five thematic topics and all sectors, he continued, noting, however, that despite billions of dollars in annual sales, there was only one regulation covering that issue.  Another area in which regulations ran behind technology was that of biomass, he said, warning that in the future, the “biomasters” would be in charge since they had acquired numerous key patents covering every known crop.  Through those patents, known as “climate-ready” patents and controlled by just six companies, control of biomass production could be taken over unless Governments knew how to address the problem.  In that area and that of genomics, there was no benefit-sharing, he said.

During the ensuing interactive dialogue, delegates underlined the need for the nineteenth session to reach agreement on policy options and practical measures, while carefully considering cross-cutting issues.  A major priority was promoting resource efficiency, including “green” industry, since the current global use of resources was unsustainable.  A decision on the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production patterns would be crucial in that regard and the themes needed to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.  Consensus was required at the present stage, including policy coherence on global, regional and national levels, as well as participation by stakeholders, including multilateral institutions, the private sector and civil society.

Discussing the Commission’s future, one delegate asked a panellist, Mr. Najam, what he thought would become of it beyond 2012, given his having recommended the consolidation of existing treaties, and uncertainty over whether there would be a twentieth session after the upcoming one.

Replying that he hoped there would be a twentieth session, Mr. NAJAM said delegates were mature enough not to look at “bite-sized” issues and to grapple instead with the big questions of the times.  Ultimately, consolidation was necessary because managing a system with so many treaties and sub-discussions was an inefficient way to deal with a planet in urgent need of care.

Ensuring the transfer of financial and technological resources was also a major point of discussion.  One speaker said it was not enough to compile a list of policy options without finding the means to implement them.  Developing countries stressed their limited capacities and inadequate technical skills, which required them to seek partnerships and international institutions that could help them play a bigger role in accelerating investment.

On the topic of technology, one speaker asked Mr. Mooney whether the speed and level of new technological developments diminished the effectiveness of protocols and subverted the benefits of global regulations, since big business was “a step ahead” of Government policy.

Mr. MOONEY said such policies were not too late and progress had been made in that area.  However, technologies such as digital DNA mapping, in which DNA could be modified quickly and patented, compromised any Government that believed it had national sovereignty over natural resources, he said, adding that Governments would “lose out” if knowledge was not shared.

Delegates also called for good governance, saying that resource management depended on it to ensure efficiency.  One speaker noted that if countries had the funds lost through corruption, they would be in a much better situation.  There was also a need for legal frameworks that allowed the integration of sustainable consumption and production processes into agendas aimed at developing strategies for a “green” economy.  Additionally, speakers emphasized that Governments could promote job creation through “green” innovation and business opportunities.

Education and awareness-raising were key factors for successful implementation and should be highlighted during the nineteenth session, various delegates said.  Because sustainable development involved embarking on a journey that would outlive the present generation, education would play a key role in raising the awareness of the next, one speaker said.  In one country, a project implemented by various ministries allowed schools to receive a monetary prize for “green” accreditation, which was based on the integration of environmental subjects into the curriculum, a rational use of resources and contributions to the community.  Numerous delegates also focused on young people, discussing the hundreds of millions living below the poverty line and the need to prevent child labour.

The promotion of gender equality was also emphasized as speakers noted that women and girls were important to sustainable development, and that countries that excluded them generally lagged behind those that did.  Unsustainable resource management had an impact on women, who needed a bigger role and a greater presence in decision-making.  Financial incentives to empower women in public and private endeavours were also necessary, so that women could be equal partners in advancing a “green” economy.

Delegates, particularly those from small islands, focused on climate change, emphasizing how their transport and waste-management structures were often located close to the ocean, so that they must be “climate-proofed”, often with international assistance.  Furthermore, they emphasized the critical need to stop illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which was depleting small-island fish stocks, thereby undermining food security.  Other speakers discussed efficiency in food production, stating that they were focusing on increasing crop productivity in a sustainable manner and that raising agricultural production would require an effective use of resources.

As Commission Vice–Chair GOLEDZINOWSKI (Australia) gave the panellists another opportunity to make remarks inspired by the discussion, Mr. GREGORY said that, while the discussion’s common theme was identifying linkages among topics, it was more challenging to analyse the impacts of policy initiatives on those cross-cutting themes.  He reiterated his recommendation on the need to be precise about policy initiatives and specific about the implications of applying policy.

Mr. MOONEY thanked the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on its work relating to science and technology for development, and called on Governments to consider finding ways to support the agency’s efforts.  UNCTAD would agree that, compared to the contribution of the United Nations in the field during the 1980s, financing had dropped dramatically, he said.  For example, the formerly vibrant tissue technology no longer existed and there was no sign of nanotechnology at the United Nations.  However, he applauded the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) restructuring of its Committee on Food Security, with strong participation by civil society and farmer’s organizations, describing it as a model of coordination.

Mr. NAJAM apologized if his remarks had not been in the desired direction, but stressed that the policy framework went against the idea of linkages because certain issues had been “left out of the conversation” and then, somehow, had to be put back.  The challenge was to focus on the centre of the debate rather than the periphery, he said.

Finally, the Vice-Chair concluded the discussion by commenting on how the statements had been less about divergence and more about convergence.  The topics addressed included poverty eradication, life-cycle analysis, “green” jobs, promoting efficient energy, sustainable consumption and production, building capacity, gender equality, technology transfer, financing and good governance.  It was clear that delegates were in agreement about what they wished to achieve, but they still needed to focus on how to achieve it, which would be left for another time.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record