Report from Geneva:
A Citizens Consultation on the
ECE Regional Ministerial Meeting

Friday, October 19, 2001
Organized by the US Citizens Preparatory Committee
Hosted by National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC 

This meeting summary consists of two parts:

• Consultation with US government and NGOs
• US NGO strategy session  

Summary: Consultation with US government and NGOs

Background

On September 24-25, 2001, the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) convened in Geneva a ministerial level meeting of member states, including the United States, to agree upon a region-wide ministerial statement for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.(see  http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2001/ece/ac22/ece.ac.22.2001.4.e.pdf)  The purpose of this meeting and the process leading up to it was “to  review the progress made since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and to outline key policy issues, priorities and follow-up, in order to provide input to the preparatory process for the Summit in Johannesburg (South Africa) in September 2002.”

One part of this process was to agree on the 90+ page assessment report on progress by the ECE countries (including North America, Western Europe, and the CEE/NIS “countries in transition.”)  However, the Ministerial Statement was seen as the more controversial document, as this would define the agreed-upon regional platform of action for implementing the commitments to sustainable development

On October 19, the Citizens Network and National Wildlife Federation organized a meeting in Washington, DC to discuss with US government representatives the significance of the Geneva meeting with regard to US policy on sustainable development and to the United States’ preparations for the World Summit.

The Washington meeting, one of a series of Citizen Preparatory Meetings which the Citizens Network and other NGOs have been hosting, was organized into two parts.  The first part was a consultation meeting with members of the US delegation to the World Summit.  The second part of the meeting was an NGO-only strategy session discussing US NGO priorities and plans for the Summit.

Consultation with US government

Briefing on Geneva by Jonathan Margolis

Representing the Office of Oceans, Environment and Science in the Department of State, Jonathan reported back on his understanding of the meeting in Geneva and tried to define some of this country’s policy positions with regard to both the European Union and to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Jonathan began the discussion by first describing the agreed-upon themes which the ECE will propose be adopted for the World Summit:

• Achieving further progress on the two overarching objectives of poverty eradication and sustainable production & consumption patterns.
• Sustainable management and conservation of natural resources.
• Environment and health
• Making globalization work for sustainable development
• Improving governance and democratic processes at all levels
• Education, science and technology
• Financing for sustainable development

Jonathan also cited the speech which Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and Head of the US delegation gave in Geneva.  This speech, highlighting the Administration’s priorities for the Summit, focused especially on the topic of good governance as “the indispensable foundation for sustainable development.”  This idea was outlined further in terms of six “essential features of domestic governance in the WSSD context.”  These are:

• capacity building
• effective institutions
• public access to information
• informed and science-based decision-making.
• public participation, coordination and partnerships, and
• access to justice and enforcement.

For those of us planning to get more involved in the agenda-setting process which will take place at the global prepcom in January, this language should be noted, as well as Dobriansky’s speech in Geneva.

(see http://www.citnet.org/worldsummit/docs/24Sept01-ECE-USG-Stmt.htm )

NGO presentations

Several US NGOs were scheduled to present statements and/or questions, which Jonathan agreed to respond to as a group.

Carolyn Nunley of Consumers International raised her concerns about the process moving forward, that the US is tending to confuse the means with the ends, for example in the overriding priority given to trade.  While good governance is important, it should also not be seen as the end but the means.  Further, while we may have many of the elements of good governance in this country, we are far from where we want to be. 

Second, over the past decade the debate about sustainable development focused on “best practices” instead of more critical discussion of what is not working.  Considering the lack of progress to implement the Agenda 21 objectives, we need to focus more attention on the worst practices, to identify the barriers to sustainability and how to overcome them.

Victor Menotti of the International Forum on Globalization drew attention to the emphasis the theme of globalization is being given in the World Summit discussions, voicing his concerns about the ECE Ministerial Statement’s support for launching a new round of trade negotiations at the next WTO conference.  “This is not what we need,” he stressed, warning that by going in this direction “Johannesburg may be hijacked to promote unsustainable globalization.”  Rather, Johannesburg is the place to take the discussion of trade and sustainable development and talk about the issue.  Victor highlighted the contradiction of the US promoting the rule of law in environmental protection yet looking the other way in the case of abuses by trading partners. 

Camilla Feibelman and Kristen Casper spoke representing the USA Youth Action Planning Group, a network of youth leaders across the United States.  This group, which includes youth activists from Sierra Student Coalition (a network of 24, 000 students affiliated with Sierra Club), Greenpeace, and other organizations, aims to produce a USA Youth Action Plan on sustainable development as a contribution to the WSSD process.  Kristen reported on the meeting of 600 young people from around the world who met in Borgholm, Sweden last May to begin youth preparations for WSSD.  The USA Youth Action Planning Group emerged from this meeting to mobilize youth in the United States. [The group’s website can be found at http://www.avolio.org/rio+10.html.]

Camilla reported on the UNEP Youth Advisory Group meeting which took place in Nairobi.  There she experienced the “outrage” felt towards Americans, who are perceived as “continually disrupting progress” on sustainable development.  The need, she expressed,  is to achieve the actual implementation of Agenda 21 – less talk and more action.

Amy Rutledge from the Center for a New American Dream reported on the UN Environment Program’s request for the Center to host an industry working group in the United States to help produce a report card on sustainable production and consumption for the WSSD.  She highlighted some of the positive changes coming out of the corporate sector, but emphasized the message that requires consumer demand to spur sustainable consumption.  On the other hand, the Center has major concerns over the “shop for patriotism” message which the Bush Administration is sending to Americans.  Amy reinforced Camilla’s criticism of the Administration, focusing on the US role in making Kyoto a disaster as well as rolling back on progress towards sustainability.

Linda Elswick and Thomas Forster of International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture pushed Jonathan Margolis to confirm what the US will hold as their thematic priorities for WSSD.  Linda asked about what the US is already doing, such as in the Farm Bill, actions on transportation, etc. and how the domestic agenda is being linked with the overall framework for promoting sustainable development.  As a practical question, she wanted to know how US NGOs are to relate to the State Department as lead in the WSSD process. (See Government Response section for details.)

Fran Irwin of World Resources Institute returned to the issue of governance, emphasizing that public participation is a major issue.  With this in mind, what concrete ways will (or should) the US be taking regarding governance?  One important step is for the US to ratify the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information on Decision-making, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (see http://www.mem.dk/aarhus-conference/issues/public-participation/ppartikler.htm ).  While the United States has made progress in establishing its Community Right to Know laws, which resulted in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), many of the European nations, especially those in Countries in Transition, need the Aarhus Convention to establish similar laws and institutional change.  The TRI has been a successful tool in the US; other countries are trying to establish similar Pollutant Release and Toxics Registers (PRTRs).  However, US reluctance to ratify the Aarhus Convention creates a major barrier to progress within the ECE. 

In the context of the WSSD, where many G77 countries are reluctant to have a northern agenda on citizen information imposed on them (that is, language referring to an “international expansion of Aarhus”), the key here is support for implementing Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration.  The aim is to establish global benchmarks for the three areas of Principle 10 – access to information, participation (in policy, siting decisions, EIAs, etc.), and access to justice.

Government response and general discussion

After hearing the various NGO presentations, Jonathan Margolis responded. 

First, in response to Victor’s concerns about promoting a new trade round, Jonathan made it clear that he disagreed, that the new trade round is important, that free trade is an excellent way to promote growth.  For the US Administration, he explained, poverty eradication requires a growth-oriented approach, not a consumption-reduction approach.

To Carolyn’s concerns about governance as ends or means, he replied that “it’s both.”  For example, government with transparent rules is both ends and means. 

In response to a question about the US assessment of its own progress, Jonathan relayed news that they are indeed producing a country report for the WSSD, which would report (drawing from the relevant government agency) on US progress for each chapter of Agenda 21.  This should be finished within the next couple of weeks.  He cautioned us, however, that this report is not an “assessment” per se but more of a “description,” a statement of fact following the agreed-upon UN format. 

As to how seriously the US is taking the World Summit, Jonathan reported that the White House is now engaged in discussions considering what kind of review this Administration wants to take.  The US does not have a “ministry of sustainable development;” domestic concerns on this are instead taken up by the Council on Environmental Quality. 

As to US international policy on sustainable development, Jonathan described some of the institutional structures involved in policymaking on this, such as the 17 policy coordinating committees (PCCs), whereby WSSD preparations fall under the International Development PCC chaired by Al Larson.  For the sub-PCC on sustainable development, John Turner (president of the Conservation Fund) has been nominated as chair.  This work falls under the State Department’s Office of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES).  The interagency working group on the WSSD is chaired by Jonathan Margolis.

As to how US NGOs should relate to the State Department and this process, Jonathan pointed out that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) would like to address the domestic elements of sustainable development, in parallel to the international process.  (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/ ).  James Connaughton is the new director of CEQ.

Jonathan explained that 25-30 existing, ad hoc interagency groups within the Administration are now dealing with sectoral issues (e.g., forests, water, fisheries, oceans).  A sub-PCC cannot possibly duplicate these sectoral groups and processes.  How do you coordinate these different processes?  This is clearly a “work in progress.”  Thus, “good governance” is not just a goal for other countries but also for us. (CitNet will make this information on the US Government’s structure, as it applies to sustainable development, available on the website soon.)

Victor Menotti then raised the point that in the US’s definition of growth, which its sustainable development strategies are based upon, requires rethinking, especially regarding the emphasis given to expanding free trade.  He pointed out that in Indonesia 85% of logging is done illegally, but when Bush met with the president of this country he granted increased trade – rather than stressing adherence to the rule of law protecting forests. 

On the subject of forestry, Adela Bakiel of the Department of Agriculture pointed out that three public consultations have already taken place in this sector in preparation for the WSSD.  One of the objectives of the group is to identify how to do the kind of assessment requested by the UN for the Summit.  The US country report did not allow them to speak to the specific issues, such as the failures and barriers which Carolyn raised.  The question is what needs to be the affirmative agenda on forests?

Jonathan stressed the importance of sustainable development indicators, where the US has an effort (another interagency working group), in parallel with the CSD and OECD’s efforts.

John Matuszak from the Global Center for the Environment, within the Agency for International Development reported on AID’s external assessment of its programs on forest management and sustainable use.  Their approach is to encourage community-based resource management (e.g., and the empowerment of communities (e.g., in land tenure, resource rights and obligations, etc.)

Carolyn posed the question of the drivers – what will it take to effect the significant changes that are needed?  In the roundtable discussions about governance, the problem of lack of political will in making sustainability a priority kept coming up.  In the NGO Statement from Geneva <http://www.anped.org/PDF/FINAL%20UNECE%20NGO%20Statement.pdf> they pointed out that the developed countries have fallen far short in implementing Agenda 21 and sustainable development.  In particular, rather than looking critically at the barriers and lessons learned, there has been more of an avoidance of looking closely at these obstacles.  To be successful the Summit needs to closely examine the barriers preventing progress. (See paper submitted to the July ECE meeting: http://www.citnet.org/worldsummit/docs/AddressingConstraints.htm)

Asked to identify some of the points within the ECE Ministerial Statement <http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2001/ece/ac22/ece.ac.22.2001.4.e.pdf>  where the US continues to have reservations, Jonathan pointed to the ECE call for “seeking the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002” (para 14), with the lack of definition surrounding the proposed “global deal” (para 7),  and with the call to “reach the accepted UN target of 0o.7% of GNP” in official development assistance (para 28).

Jim Rochow of the Alliance for Childhood Lead Poisoning raised the question about the future of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD).  He pointed out that whereas the CSD was not politically equipped to follow through on the implementation of Agenda 21, the Summit could identify ways of improving and strengthening the CSD in monitoring and helping ensure compliance with sustainable development agreements.

The discussion then naturally turned to UNEP’s review of international environmental governance (IEG).  CIEL is currently working with UNEP to channel NGO input into this discussion of IEG. (See www.ciel.org )

Summary: US NGO strategy session

Following the consultation meeting, a smaller NGO-only strategy session was held to discuss priorities of participating NGOs as well as  approaches to making our participation in the World Summit worthwhile.  About 28 NGOs discussed a range of subjects.

The summary of the strategy session has been distributed to NGO representatives who have been participating in the process to date.  If you would like to receive a summary of this session and are a member of a civil society NGO, send email to info@citnet.org or call 301-770-6375 to request the "October 19^th NGO Strategy Session Summary".