Download as PDF / 36 KB ]
Forums Position Paper
the Proposed Framework of Outcome Documents for Earth Summit 2002
I. The Proposed Framework
on suggestions by the Secretariat, the earth Summit 2002 process is aiming to
produce two types of outcome documents, which shall be included in the overall
'package' of the Summit:
1: negotiated outcomes in two documents, for adoption by all Member States at
Johannesburg Programme of Action
Type 2: non-negotiated outcomes of two kinds, for
announcement / launch at the Summit:
and initiatives to implement Agenda 21. These "are expected to become one
of the major outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development"
(Chair's explanatory note). They would consist of a series of commitments and action-oriented
coalitions focused on deliverables and would contribute in translating political
commitments into action" (Chair's explanatory note).
II. Hopes and Concerns Relating to the
The overall concept of type 1 and type 2 outcomes of
the Johannesburg Summit seems to stem from two sources:
that governments cannot achieve sustainable development on their own and that
the multi-lateral system cannot cope with an increased number of programmes and
processes. This is part of the vision from Rio and has been outlined in more
detail in subsequent decisions of the CSD and other fora.
The concern that
governments have not done enough to implement the Rio agreements, and that they
might not be able to do so in the future, due to the lack of political will and
the lack of resources.
It is the former we need to emphasize, and the latter
we need to reverse. While it has been widely acknowledged that implementation
since Rio has been weaker than expected, it has not been altogether absent.
Similarly, it is not correct to say that the resources necessary do not exist
– they are being put elsewhere, and the political will to shift investments,
for example from military and defense into sustainable development, is lacking.
Emphasizing the fact that governments and all stakeholders need to work together
to achieve sustainable development effectively means a broadening of
responsibility. It should, however, not result in a diffusion of responsibility.
Rio provided us with a vision. But vision is not
leadership. Leadership is not action. And action can have some unintended
outcomes. What we need now is leadership and action. Leadership needs to come
from governments and international institutions. Within the UN process, we need
to build considerable global consensus for effective leadership and action. Such
leadership extends towards citizens and stakeholders. Only an international
arena with a strong global consensus can inspire and empower the
"coalitions of the willing" - as a permission to act, a forum to share
their experiences, as a challenge towards their creativity, their contributions,
Strengthening governments, international institutions
and the multi-lateral system must be a primary goal of a UN process. Within the
framework of type 1 & 2 documents, this can only be achieved if governments
are in the driving seat, providing leadership and challenging stakeholders on
the basis of (inter)governmental authority.
As a worst-case scenario, one could imagine the
outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit as follows:
a weak and patchy type
1 document, without effective commitments, targets, and benchmarks, and leaving
out many of the more difficult issues;
no new or real
partnerships being put forward under type 2.
would be the consequences? Certainly a diminishing of the importance of
sustainable development in the world as an overarching goal of policy making at
Another scenario could be that Johannesburg ends with
a weak type 1 document and a large number of initiatives, mostly led by
developed country governments and their corporations, employing processes that
offer opportunities to developing countries rather than being based on the needs
that they put forward, and with a lack of consideration of where revenues will
indeed end up.
the short term, this could lead a decrease of citizens' trust in governmental
authority and the value of intergovernmental processes. In the long-term, it
could reaffirm and perpetuate the late 20th century shifts in power
away from governments, particularly those of developing nations, and
Other concerns include:
One recent suggestion
was for a number of corporations to come together and develop and implement a
business model for LDCs. While business expertise is indeed highly relevant for
government economic policy development, no interest group should be in the
driving seat of developing policies, economic and legal structures that will
affect all citizens, be they relevant to that interest group or not.
are essentially empowered by their citizens. That is why education is such an
important component of the future path towards sustainable development. Citizens
need to understand that only they can empower their governments to build peace
and security without massive investments at the expense of sustainable
development. Only citizens can empower their governments to lever contributions
to redistribution mechanisms which can create necessary equity within countries
One can also imagine
that partnerships between countries will inevitably leave out a number of
developing countries; maybe those who are considered strategically unimportant
or lack natural resources that are of interest to investors (apart from other
possible reasons for non-engagement). For those that attract partnership
arrangements and investment, it will be important to clarify the beneficiaries
of activities. For example, one needs to look at the financial flows into and
from a developing country where companies from developed countries invest.
"Financial leakages" can reach very high levels in some sectors.
Another challenge to
consider is the possible change of dynamics in the negotiations of type 1
outcomes. We might see that governments are less inclined to work out
integrative agreements or compromises if they feel they can put forward their
priorities and plans in type 2. In this context, we need to consider the
possible long-term impacts of the type 1 & 2 outcome concepts on subsequent
international processes. Johannesburg will set a precedent – and needs to set
The challenge of the outcomes 'package' is to find
the balance of authority and leadership vs. widespread responsibility and
stakeholder participation. We don't want to see an exquisite self-disempowerment
exercise of (inter)governmental institutions, but we do want to achieve a strong
push for implementation of Agenda 21 that is carried out by all stakeholders.
A “package” of
type 1 & 2 outcome documents needs to be introduced by a preamble outlining
the roles and responsibilities of governments, intergovernmental bodies and
stakeholders. It is important to provide a frame of reference that marries
participatory, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approaches with leadership and
authority provided by legitimate bodies. The international community needs to
provide a clear and strong vision to stakeholders and citizens that puts the
type 1 and 2 outcome documents into an overall perspective. This will help
stakeholders to relate to the whole package of outcome documents as they
develop. It will clarify the challenge that the international community puts
towards them as regards developing their initiatives and partnerships to be
included in the type 2 outcome documents. It will also serve to underline that
the main responsibility for sustainable development indeed lies with
governments, and that the international community calls upon stakeholders to
contribute to the efforts that governments make at all levels.
Such a preamble could include:
The reaffirmation of
governments’ main responsibility and leadership in sustainable development
The Rio Declaration
References to the
descriptions of rights and responsibilities of stakeholders
An outline of how the
activities of governments, intergovernmental bodies and stakeholders should
interact to create the most effective outcomes: broadening but not diffusion of
A call for a spirit of
mutual respect and partnership between governments, intergovernmental bodies and
Type 1 Outcome Documents
The Programme of Action might be best built up on a
similar structure to that of Agenda 21. The PoA could include the following:
Introduction to the
Basis for action
Activities (at all
Means of implementation
– including capacity building, technology sharing, education and training)
Roles of stakeholders
Financial resources (=
appropriate resource mix, e.g. ODA, FDI, etc)
Timetable and targets
documents needs to reaffirm governments’
leadership and provide all stakeholders and citizens with clear information on
actions to be taken by governments and desired actions by stakeholders, and
enhance everybody’s ability to contribute to the PoA as well as to monitor
The future work programme of the Commission on
Sustainable Development should provide space for dealing with new and emerging
issues that will have not been sufficiently addressed during the Johannesburg
The suggested framework calls for
contributions by governments, governments and stakeholders, and stakeholders.
to include partnership initiatives in the overall Summit outcome challenges
governments and all stakeholders to develop concrete implementation initiatives
for the future. The concept also provides important opportunities to acknowledge
the specific conditions and needs at regional and national which require
specific measures, the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships, and
stakeholders' roles and responsibilities in sustainable development.
Governments’ Contributions and
focused and detailed draft Programme of Action would allow for individual
governments or groups of governments as well as government-led
public-private-partnerships to develop their commitments and initiatives to be
announced at the Summit. This component of type 2 outcome documents would
therefore help to create a package of Summit outcomes that are partly or fully
funded through contributions announced at the occasion.
proposed framework reflects statements made in the Secretary General's for
PrepComm II, saying that the CSD stakeholder dialogues were an important
mechanism but suffered two main shortcomings: lack of participation of women and
representatives from developing countries (para 169), and that "stakeholder
participation is rarely allowed in actual decision-making" (para 170). The
proposed framework aims to establish linkages between the 2 types of outcome
documents and considers both types as integral parts of the Summit outcomes.
Both aspects could significantly strengthen the integration and involvement of
stakeholders in the Johannesburg process.
proposed framework can create very valuable components of the Summit process,
its outcomes and follow-up. However, there are concerns by governments and
stakeholders as to which initiatives and partnerships will be included in the
type 2 outcome documents, and which criteria should be applied.
Criteria For Type 2 Outcomes
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" (Chair's explanatory note).
Chair has published a list of possible initiatives / partnerships, which have
arisen from discussions at previous preparatory meetings. "The purpose of
the list is to encourage interested parties to initiate action." (Proposal
for inclusion in type 2 outcomes as outlined in the current Proposal for
Partnerships (Feb 2002) are as follows. Partnerships are
targets and timetables,
monitoring arrangements as well as coordination and implementation mechanisms,
arrangements for systematic and predictable funding, and
arrangements for technology transfer that may be required to launch the
following criteria and mechanisms might be considered in addition to the ones
developed so far:
I. Content criteria: focus areas of initiatives and
Priorities / Content
Sustainable Development Agreements (Rio outcomes) and/or those likely to
be agreed at the Summit
are the beneficiaries of an initiative? Who benefits in what way
(financially, non-financially)? How are benefits distributed between
partners? The guidelines for identifying and prioritising benefits for
those most in need are embedded in existing Sustainable Development
Agreements and the Millennium Goals.
the initiative aiming to balance economic, social and environmental
aspects of possible action; how is it integrating the three pillars of
sustainable development? An approach aiming to mainstream cross-sectoral
issues into sectoral issues should be considered.
initiatives should not be limited to large, global proposals that the
Summit process is likely to attract. Experience has shown the
effectiveness of small-scale projects, interventions and investments - for
example: community-to-community exchanges arranged by networks of local
stakeholder groups; micro-finance investments and revolving funds.
II. Process criteria: development & follow-up of
initiatives involving multiple stakeholders
for developing partnership initiatives
using transparent, democratic mechanisms of engagement, position finding
leveling the playing field between stakeholders by creating dialogue and
integrating diverse views; providing support for meaningful participation;
applying principles of gender, regional, ethnic etc. balance where
appropriate; providing equitable access to information.
agree an agenda but keep the process flexible over time.
governance: developing the roles of stakeholders as complementary to the
responsibilities of governments.
using dialogue and consultation without imposition of pre-designed ideas
developing shared responsibilities for process and implementation.
should be presented in a common framework of an agreed action plan: Who
will do what, when, with which resources?
the initiative sufficiently resourced or likely to be resourced in the
very near future?
Who provides which resources and capital (financial, human, natural)?
is it going to be implemented?
Who is actively involved in implementation of the initiative (as opposed
to its development), who is monitoring implementation?
are the proposed indicators of successful implementation of the
will they be monitored and by whom? (in addition to monitoring in the
Summit follow-up process)
III. Follow-Up after the Summit
on the implementation of the initiatives should become an integral part of
future institutional mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of
Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Summit outcomes. An obvious space for such
reporting is the Commission on Sustainable Development where there already
is significant stakeholder involvement.
mechanisms should provide or initiate space for learning from partnership
initiatives and encouraging replication of successful partnerships.
learnt from the Johannesburg process should be informing the work of other
Application of Suggested Criteria
current Proposals for Partnerships text states: "Progress reports may be
provided to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee to be held in
Jakarta, 27May-7June 2002.To become part of the second type of outcomes, such
partnerships should be launched at the Summit. " The Chair has also issue a
table format form for submission of partnerships, which includes specification
of planned activities and the criteria mentioned above.
there are a number of open questions that need to be addressed to enable
partnerships to be developed in a way that can be sufficiently monitored and
supports their final inclusion in the Summit outcome documents:
The goal of
applying criteria should be to ensure that partnership initiatives are
consistent with and supportive of the implementation of Sustainable Development
Agreements and elements of the type 1 outcome documents. Criteria should be seen
and used as an enabling mechanism, supporting the development of partnerships.
A body needs to
be identified to review possible elements of type 2 outcomes. Forming a
multi-stakeholder group has been suggested; such a group could include Bureau
Members as well as the coordinators of Major Groups inputs in the Summit
process. It has also been suggested that the Secretariat provides the monitoring
mechanism. Another suggestion was to ask the GEF Council to review suggested
There needs to be
one point or several points in time when reviewing of submissions to type 2
outcomes would take place. This will be important to ensure maximum linkages and
cross-fertilization between type 1 and 2 outcome documents. The suggested
submission to PrepComm 4 needs to be specified: Will there be sessions where
partnerships can be presented and discussed? For example: Brief presentations of
initiatives under development by those involved; addressing the agreed set of
criteria and following a common framework (see above); questions and comments
from delegations and Major Groups. Delegations review scope and range of
initiatives so far; possibly to encourage further developments where there are
would like to thank stakeholders, governments, and representatives of
intergovernmental organisations who have contributed to this paper over the
past three months. We will continue to develop the paper and welcome further
comments. We are pleased to see the extensive use of our material by others
working in the same area.
Stakeholder Forum very much welcomes the use of our material by
governments, stakeholders and intergovernmental organisations, we request
appropriate referencing of copyrighted publications.
Stakeholder Forum, 2002
Download as PDF / 36 KB ]