Issues Brief - IFSD

www.uncsd2012.org

RIO 2012 Issues Briefs

October 2011
Produced by the UNCSD Secretariat             No. 3*

IFSD: Issues related to an intergovernmental body on SD

1. Introduction Development. 1 This option reflects the expansion of the
Discussions on the institutional framework for sustainable discussion to cover the crucial question of an intergovernmental
development (IFSD) have been gaining momentum. While clear body on SD.
signs of convergence have not emerged, there is a clearer focus
on defining some of the options on the table. One set of options 2. Mandate and outputs of the Commission
covers the functions of an intergovernmental body or A number of SD governance reform proposals have direct
arrangement on sustainable development (SD). or indirect implications for the Commission and the scope of its
work. Some proposals, e.g. the establishment of a SD Council or
What is the role of an intergovernmental body on SD in a the transfer of the Commission’s functions to ECOSOC, would
reformed institutional framework? How should it go about the entail disbanding the Commission. Other proposals, such as
task of promoting the integration of the three dimensions of SD? upgrading UNEP to the status of a specialized agency, would at
What is the balance among the following: the very least invite a re‐assessment of the Commission’s
mandate. Irrespective of the precise form of the reform proposals
o Advocating for SD and setting the agenda for the future, thus
going forward, there is merit in examining the functions carried
involving negotiations to fill gaps and address emerging
out by the Commission on Sustainable Development, not least to
challenges;
answer basic questions about what has worked and what has not.
o Reviewing progress in implementation of commitments, thus Accordingly, the aim of this note is twofold: (a) provide a brief
involving metrics for monitoring and mechanisms for assessing overview of the Commission’s mandate and main outputs; and (b)
progress; relate these insights to some of the proposals for an
intergovernmental body on SD. Given its modest scope, this paper
o Reviewing mainstreaming and integration of all three pillars of
does not aim for systematic analysis of the Commission’s track
SD at all levels;
record.
o Reviewing progress in meeting commitments to provide
support for SD in developing countries; GA resolution 47/191 of 22 December 1992 called on ECOSOC to
establish the Commission as a high level commission, a status that
o Sharing experiences and lessons learn and extending
was re‐affirmed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
partnerships with other stakeholders, thus playing a facilitative
(JPOI). The Commission’s functions as outlined in the GA
role; and
resolution are the following:
o Building technical capacity of countries in the area of
a) monitor progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, based
sustainable development?
on analysis and evaluation of reports from all relevant organs,
programmes and institutions of the United Nations system;
After the United Nations Conference on Environment and
b) consider information provided by Governments, including
Development (UNCED) in 1992, the General Assembly endorsed
problems faced in implementation;
the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as a high level
commission, a status that was re‐affirmed in the Johannesburg c) review the progress in the implementation of the
Plan of Implementation in 2002 and in all subsequent sessions of commitments set forth in Agenda 21, including those related
the General Assembly. The CSD was thus intended as the to the provision of financial resources and transfer of
cornerstone of the intergovernmental framework for sustainable technology;
development governance in the United Nations.
d) review and monitor regularly progress made by developed

countries towards achieving the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP
Under the broad heading of IFSD, various processes have
as ODA, as reaffirmed in JPOI;
attempted to address the sub‐set of issues related to
international environmental governance (IEG), primarily the e) review on a regular basis the adequacy of funding and
status and functions of UNEP. Likewise, scholarly literature and mechanisms, including efforts to reach the objectives agreed
policy work has also gravitated towards these questions, in in chapter 33 of Agenda 21;
particular the establishment of a specialized agency for the
environment. Most recently, the Nairobi‐Helsinki Outcome, which
emerged from the UNEP‐led process on IEG identified five
* Re‐issued for technical reasons.
options, including reforming the United Nations Economic and 1
The structural, legal and financial implications of the five options
Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
are covered in a separate consultant’s study.
1

f) receive and analyse relevant input from competent non‐ approach to the CSD (Kaasa, 2005). Methodological difficulties
governmental organizations, including the scientific meant that output was selected as the explanatory variable for
community and the private sector;   investigation; it should be readily apparent that tracing cause and
effect relationships for outcomes and, even more so, impact
g) enhance the dialogue with non‐governmental organizations
presents problems that are insurmountable for practical
and other entities outside the United Nations system;
purposes. In particular, since the CSD policy decisions are “soft”
h) consider information regarding the progress made in the and do not impose binding obligations, it is very difficult to isolate
implementation of environmental conventions, which could impact (Kaasa, 2005); distinguishing causation from correlation
be made available by the relevant conferences of parties; and remains very difficult.

i) provide appropriate recommendations to the GA, through
The CSD has played a role in providing a ‘home’ for keeping the
the ECOSOC.
broad sustainable development agenda under active review, and
has in a number of instances been instrumental in launching new
The resolution also enjoins representatives of various parts of the initiatives and introducing topics into the broader UN
United Nations system and other intergovernmental intergovernmental framework (Dodds et al, 2002).
organizations, including international financial institutions and
regional development banks, to “assist and advise the commission For analytical purposes, the activities of the CSD can be grouped
in the performance of its functions” and “participate actively in its under three headings that capture its core mandate:
deliberations”.
o Monitoring and reviewing progress on the implementation of

Agenda 21;
Thus at the core the CSD’s mandate are monitoring progress in
the implementation of Agenda 21 and reviewing progress in the o Agenda setting: developing policy recommendations;
implementation of the commitments set forth in Agenda 21,
o Partnerships and multi‐stakeholder dialogue.
including those related to the provision of financial resources and

transfer of technology. Beginning its work in 1993, the
Commission has held 19 annual sessions to date. Following
2.1 Monitoring and reviewing progress on the
reforms outlined at the World Summit on Sustainable implementation of Agenda 21
Development, and beginning in 2004, the CSD has followed a two‐ Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 calls on countries and the international
year cycle, with the first year being devoted to review and the community to develop indicators of sustainable development. At
second to policy decisions.   its third session in 1995, the CSD adopted a Work Programme on
Indicators of Sustainable Development, which resulted in the
Sustainable development is an exceptionally broad field to cover. preparation of an indicator set in 1996, with a second in 2001. The
An assessment of the Commission’s performance as an institution third, revised set of CSD indicators was finalized in 2006 by a
must be cognizant that the North‐South political divide manifests group of experts from developing and developed countries and
itself in the work of the Commission. A fair‐minded appraisal of international organizations. The revised edition contains 96
the Commission ought thus to consider carefully whether indicators, including a subset of 50 core indicators. A cursory
criticisms truly bear on the CSD as an institution, or reflect a overview of the Division for Sustainable Development’s national
broader lack of political agreement that is also evident in other information database suggests that a considerable number of
processes at the United Nations not least in the development countries maintain some form of indicators, but whether these
field. An example falling into the latter category is the are based on, or draw upon, the CSD indicators is not clear.
disagreement between developed and developing countries However, it seems plausible that the Commission’s promotion of
about the so‐called “means of implementation”, encompassing indicators has to some extent influenced their implementation at
finance, technology transfer and capacity building.   the country level.

Given the very breadth of the Commission’s mandate, what is a The CSD has maintained a system of national voluntary reporting.
sensible way of assessing its performance? What is a realistic Although the reporting rate may appear less than stellar, in fact
yardstick for measuring its effectiveness? A theoretical approach observers note that reporting has been quite creditable for a
used to analyse international regimes defines effectiveness in voluntary initiative; rather, a more serious shortcoming in the
terms of output, outcome and impact. Here output refers to the eyes of some is that the reports are not comparable and lack
rules, programs and regulations emanating from the regime, e.g. quality assurance mechanisms (Kaasa, 2005). Secretary‐General’s
in this case the decisions of the Commission and related reports have drawn on national reports, as well as inputs from UN
initiatives; outcome refers to change by key target groups, e.g. system entities. A pertinent question is the degree to which
passage of national laws to implement international national reports have been utilized in the review process,
commitments; impact refers to actual improvements on the especially the review year of the two‐year cycle.
ground in the relevant issue area (Miles et al, 2002; Andresen et
al, 2006). At least one comprehensive study has applied this
2

2.2 Agenda setting: developing policy recommendations   consensus‐building among countries, conditions that may not
The fulfilment of the agenda‐setting role has seen the exist in a predictable pattern. This suggests that, in addition to
Commission serve as the entry point for SD issues, which have agenda‐setting, an intergovernmental body on SD should perform
then been further elaborated in other bodies, e.g. the General other, bread‐and‐butter functions of a more routine and
Assembly. Thus, on a number of occasions CSD outputs have predictable nature. In this regard, it has been suggested that it
contributed to setting the agenda on SD issues, including may be worth exploring ways of establishing more robust
agriculture, forests, oceans, freshwater, education for sustainable connections with those UN actors responsible for implementation
development, and energy. A comprehensive examination of the at the country level. It also points to the need to have enough
Commission’s treatment of various themes falls outside the scope flexibility to address new and emerging issues and to be able to
of this paper; rather, what is aimed for is to draw out selected, react quickly if and when the need arises.
illustrative examples.
2.3 Partnerships and multi‐stakeholder dialogue
The CSD was instrumental in advancing intergovernmental
The CSD has been characterized by openness toward the
consideration of forests, building on the Forest Principles that
participation of major groups (civil society). Multi‐stakeholder
emerged in Rio after difficult and polarizing discussions. In a major
dialogues, introduced at CSD‐6, have given greater prominence to
contribution to intergovernmental forest policy development, the
major group participation, but questions remained as to their
Commission established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
actual impact (Dodds et al, 2002).
(1995 – 1997) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (1997
– 2000). In 2000, ECOSOC established the United Nations Forum The idea of voluntary, multi‐stakeholder partnerships to facilitate
on Forests (UNFF), a subsidiary body with the main objective to and expedite the realization of sustainable development goals and
promote the management, conservation and sustainable commitments was an important contribution of the World
development of all types of forests. This could be characterized as Summit on Sustainable Development. Following the attention
the Commission’s filling one of the “gaps” left on the SD agenda given to voluntary, multi‐stakeholder partnerships at WSSD, CSD‐
after Rio.   11 set out guidelines for partnerships and requested that the
Secretariat establish a database to register what became known
On oceans, there are a number of examples of follow‐up actions
as CSD Partnerships. The provisions related to partnerships
flowing from CSD decisions. CSD‐7 recommended that the General
established a flexible framework and provide a solid mandate to
Assembly establish an open‐ended consultative process on
work with all stakeholders, notably the private sector, which often
oceans. The Commission’s decision is thorough and balanced – a
does not find an easy fit with the UN. The Partnership for Cleaner
model policy decision. Acting on the Commission’s
Fuels and Vehicles stands out for having catalyzed private sector
recommendation, the Assembly established the UN Open‐ended
participation and for having achieved a tangible goal, namely the
Informal Consultative Process on Oceans to review developments
global phase‐out of lead in fuels. The SG report on Partnerships
in ocean affairs.
states that the majority of partnerships working towards
Extending the coverage of energy beyond the rather cursory sustainable development tend to have a multi‐sectoral approach
treatment of the issue in Agenda 21, the decision on energy at to implementation. Agriculture, energy for sustainable
CSD‐9 systematically covered key energy issues – accessibility, development, education and water are among the leading
energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy – and primary themes identified. Partnerships have showcased their
identified associated challenges. Given that energy lacks an work through the partnership fairs, held at the CSD sessions,
institutional “home” in the UN system, CSD‐9 provided an contributing to broad‐based participation. The Learning Centre –
opportunity to consider energy within the broader sustainable consisting of courses designed impart practical knowledge and
development context, while integrating the concerns and know‐how to CSD participants –improves understanding of
perspectives of different groups of countries. Although energy sustainable development issues and helps to promote
proved to be a contentious issue, the World Summit on implementation.
Sustainable Development (WSSD) made considerable steps
Although the CSD can rightly be said to have pioneered multi‐
forward, including the need for providing financing for modern
stakeholder partnerships on this scale, Rio+20 offers the
energy services, as well as the diversification of energy resources
opportunity for reflection on strengthening this mechanism to
towards cleaner and renewable energy. At CSD‐15 when energy
promote a more participatory approach to the implementation of
and climate change were on the agenda, however, the fault lines
sustainable development. UNCSD can be a platform to revitalize
re‐emerged, and the Commission was unable to reach consensus,
partnerships, especially public‐private partnerships, making them
victim perhaps of prevailing disagreements among key actors over
more effective in advancing the sustainable development agenda
climate change.
and, in particular, in leveraging additional resources for
The above examples suggest that the CSD, or a similar body, can implementation of commitments.
provide useful policy guidance and contribute towards setting the
intergovernmental SD agenda on selected issues. Successfully
influencing the intergovernmental SD agenda requires addressing
a combination of issues that are ripe for discussion and
3

Table 1. “Strawman” grouping of sample CSD outputs
                        Less effective                More effective
Country reporting SD Indicators
Monitoring &
Monitoring financial
reviewing progres contributions

Reporting on follow‐up &
implementation
Energy – UNGASS (1997) Water – Assessment of Forests – Inter‐
Agenda setting expanded consideration of Freshwater Resources (1997), governmental Panel on
energy & transport; policy priority theme at CSD‐6 in 199 Forests (1995),
decisions at CSD‐9 (2001) and considered at CSD‐12/13 International Forum on
contributed to JPOI; no (2004/5) Forests (1997) and
consensus at CSD‐15. recommendation to
establish UN Forum on
Forests (2000)

Oceans – recommended
establishment of open‐
ended consultative proce
on Oceans (1999)
Partnerships & Engagement of UN system Multi‐stakeholder dialogues Overall openness to and
multi‐stakeholder entities (UNDP, IFIs, etc) (1998); value seen as declining participation of Major
over time Groups
dialogue &
engagement CSD partnerships, instituted
after WSSD

Source: Adapted from Dodds et al (2002, 2011) and Kaasa (2005).

3. Participation more fundamentally, a truer measure of participation would also
A common criticism levelled at the CSD is that high‐level account for involvement in the Partnership Fair, Learning Centre,
participants are mainly from environmental portfolios, as side events, and other events taking place around the CSD.
opposed to other ministries – finance, economy, planning,
development – that are regarded as also playing a critical role in Overall, many countries show a fairly stable pattern of
sustainable development at the national level. A partial analysis of representation, with several European countries together with
ministers recorded as having spoken in the CSD bears this out: Australia and Canada very frequently being represented by
ministers of environment accounted for fully 80 per cent of Ministers of Environment, or ministers with environment in their
ministers speaking in the course of the first 10 sessions of the portfolios, which have been placed in the same category here.
Commission. In many cases, high‐level representation below Some countries, e.g. the U.S., have most often been represented
ministerial rank, e.g. senior civil servants, has also been drawn by that part of the executive responsible for foreign affairs. In the
from the ranks of the environment ministries. However, some case of the U.S., the State Department has played a coordinating
caution is called for in measuring participation in terms of role for the sometimes extensive input of other parts of the
speakers at formal CSD sessions. In some cases, more than one federal government.
minister or high level official may have attended the session, but
only one was chosen to speak. Since the post‐WSSD introduction The analysis of countries recorded as having spoken also evinces
of regional implementation meetings (RIMs), the level of the strong influence of foreign affairs, which predominates over
participation and engagement in these forums could also be senior‐level (non‐ministerial) participants from environment or
counted as a measure of commitment to the Commission’s other parts of government. Participation of ministers who did not
agenda. The CSD ha also benefited from the participation of have environment in their portfolios was limited; the participation
principals and senior officials of UN specialized agencies, funds of non‐environment ministers increased in relation to certain
and programmes, and IFIs. Also, many countries leave formal themes, e.g. agriculture and energy. With a few exceptions, there
statements to political groups, e.g. G77.China and EU. Perhaps is very little evidence of ministers from portfolios that might
4

relate in a cross‐cutting manner to sustainable development, such debate on sustainable development”, as do subsequent GA
as finance, commerce or planning.    resolutions.

The predominant participation of Ministers of Environment in the Some observers argue that the disparity in representation
CSD must also be considered in light of UNEP’s Global Ministerial between developed and developing countries leads the latter to
Environmental Forum (GMEF), which since 2000 has provided an fall back on general political positions, rather than more detailed
annual opportunity for environment ministers and high‐level engagement with substantive issues (Kaasa, 2005). To some
officials to meet with the mandate to “review important and degree, this also pertains to the predominant conception of the
emerging policy issues in the field of the environment.” General Commission as either primarily a forum for negotiation or as a
Assembly resolution 53/242, which established the GMEF notes forum for sharing experiences and best practices, with
“…the need to maintain the role of the Commission on negotiations taking an ancillary role.
Sustainable Development as the main forum for high‐level policy

Table 2. Snapshot of participation
CSD‐1 CSD‐5 CSD‐9 CSD‐13 CSD‐15 CSD‐17 CSD‐19
Member
States 116 140 162 162 144
attending
Ministers 35 42 37 89 107 54 16***
speaking*
% Env 77% 90% 75% 49% 54% 83% 63%
Ministers**
UN system Pres of GA ES of UNEP DSG SG, ES UNEP, ED SG
participation ASG of FAO CEO GEF SG of WMO UN‐Habitat,
ES CBD Asst Admin. ES CBD, ED UNIDO
UNDP ES ECLAC,
VP World Ban CEO GEF,
VP World Bank
   * Counting solely Ministers or Deputy/Vice Ministers recorded as having spoken during the session, as reflected in official records.
  ** Ministers with environment listed in their portfolio.
*** More than 40 ministers or Deputy/Vice Ministers were listed as attending the session.

4. Starting with a clean slate: proposals for strengthening implementation actor as such, the SD body could promote
an intergovernmental body on SD implementation through improved monitoring and review,
focused policy guidance, and a more catalytic approach to
4.1 Integration partnerships. .
As described above, the Commission has chalked up a number of
achievements. Yet as Member States and other stakeholders Enhanced standing vis‐à‐vis UN system entities would be an
engage more deeply with the institutional framework, there is a important characteristic of an intergovernmental SD body. The
willingness to consider a fresh start with respect to the Commission has very little influence, persuasive or otherwise,
intergovernmental arrangements on sustainable development.  If over the operational parts of the UN system, except for the few
it is to be an improvement over current arrangements, a future examples above when it managed to have its recommendations
intergovernmental body on SD must aspire to do justice to the endorsed by the General Assembly, and it has not generally been
enormity of the challenge, but at the same time be solidly successful in catalyzing action. One notable example was the 16th
grounded in political and institutional reality. This implies and 17th sessions of the Commission that dealt, among other
addressing three areas where the present arrangements are issues, with agriculture, as it so happened at the peak of the food
under‐performing: integration, implementation and coherence. crisis in 2008‐9. Although the Commission adopted a strong set of
policy options, none of the implementing agencies of the UN
4.2 Implementation system took it up in their governing bodies, with the result that
There is a widely shared view that an intergovernmental SD body implementation of the Commission’s decisions was limited and
must be a more forceful and effective agent for promoting and amounted to some technical capacity building projects.
facilitating implementation of sustainable development. While
remaining an intergovernmental body, and not an A more meaningful linkage between the SD body and UN system
entities would ensure that intergovernmental policy decisions
5

become more relevant for countries’ sustainable development ECOSOC. However, it should be borne in mind that ECOSOC has a
agendas. An option in this regard would be to build on the distinct Charter mandate, including responsibility for matters
experience of the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) unrelated to sustainable development, e.g. humanitarian policies
carried out by ECOSOC, supplemented by an implementation and coordination activities (Strandenaes, 2011). Doing justice to
matrix, which would improve review of UN entities’ performance sustainable development would entail regular, in‐depth
in the relevant areas of work. Rigorous reporting by the UN consideration, a step that could risk overloading the Council’s
system entities would strengthen partner countries, putting them already busy agenda. Overall, the Council can and does engage in
in the driving seat. It has also been suggested that enhanced political debate on issues agreed in its functional commissions;
review of multi‐stakeholder partnerships from the CSD could however, the Council generally does not engage in detailed
make them a more effective instrument for implementation dialogue on the recommendations of its functional commissions,
(Beisheim et al, 2011).   nor are discussions structured to aggregate recommendations ‐
into a substantive discussion on the three pillars of sustainable
The introduction of (universal or voluntary) periodic country development. There is also little horizontal dialogue among the
presentations could serve to promote implementation through different functional commissions of ECOSOC. Their agenda and
shared learning (Beisheim et al, 2011). The practice of country work is independently set, and there is little cross‐fertilization of
presentations could over time become one of the core, re‐current ideas. Silos rather than integration characterize the current
activities of the intergovernmental SD body. A review of UN situation.
system and IFI support to countries could be included in the
process (Strandenaes, 2011). The experience with the UN Human It would be incorrect to view a SD body as duplicating the
Rights Council provides valuable lessons with respect to ECOSOC, or as diminishing and weakening its authority
establishment of such a mechanism, as do other bodies. If a (Strandenaes, 2011). Rather, a SD body would essentially take to
thematic focus is desirable, countries could have the option of the next level functions currently carried out by the CSD, more or
specifying one or two “sectors” for presentation, or certain less self‐contained and without integration into the broader
themes would be specified for a particular cycle. The lesson from agenda of the ECOSOC. In this regard, a high‐level body on SD
a range of review processes is that they can be structured to focus would thus recognise the urgent need to give greater priority and
on mutual learning and support, through a country‐led, non‐ standing to functions already being carried out, albeit not at the
adversarial process.    desired level of performance.

The Commission has improved linkages with the regions through Coherence across functional commissions could be improved – at
the holding of regional implementation meetings (RIMS) during present intergovernmental bodies operate in a silo fashion, e.g.
the review year, which encouraged the participation of regional there has been little cross‐pollination between the CSD and the
actors, including the UN regional commissions. For its part, the Commission for Social Development (CSocD), the Commission on
ECOSOC has the Development Cooperation Forum, which the Status of Women (CSW), the Statistical Commission or the
addresses broader policy issues. An intergovernmental SD body Commission on Population and Development, all of which have
would be able to build on these efforts, while also engaging UN relevance for sustainable development. A high‐level
system initiatives directed at the country level, e.g. the UN intergovernmental body on SD could engage more in‐depth with
Development Group and Delivering as One.    these functional commissions on common sustainable
development concerns, thus promoting a more coherent
4.3 Coherence treatment, and even work on mutually beneficial projects that
A SD body should also be able to foster greater coherence among would involve more than one commission. There is certainly
all the relevant UN system entities. On one hand, the SD body scope for creative thinking, which would strengthen, rather than
could establish a cooperative relationship with the governing weaken any of the institutions involved.
bodies of the key funds, programmes, and the Rio conventions
dealing with sustainable development. If the SD body is structured The fact that a SD Council would interact with functional
as a subsidiary body of the GA, it would be better placed to commissions under the ECOSOC could be dealt with through
establish meaningful, institutionalized relationships with the appropriately structured reporting relationships. Thus, while a SD
governing bodies of funds, programmes, and the Rio conventions. body would be a subsidiary organ of the GA, on some matters it
Currently, the conventions report to the GA (Second Committee), would also innovatively draw on the work of the ECOSOC
but not to ECOSOC, which is a significant gap that could be filled machinery, e.g. on issues pertaining to functional commissions,
by a SD body. which could report through ECOSOC to the SD Council.

A critical question confronting the proposal for a SD body relates 4.4 Steps towards a SD body
to the ECOSOC. The argument can be made that that the kind of The experience with the Commission suggests that careful
functions described in this note could be assigned to a reformed thought would need to go into the agenda of the new SD body.
6

The selection of topics, in particular the number of issues per Even so, the question could well be asked whether a successor to
session, is a candidate for an overhaul. While recognizing that the the CSD is simply old wine in a bigger, shinier, bottle. First, if it is
Commission’s multi‐year programme of work was designed to accepted that an intergovernmental body on sustainable
unify issues into a thematic cluster, the fixed nature of the agenda development meets a genuine need, then it can be argued that
has contributed to the perception that the Commission is not tinkering with the existing arrangements is an inadequate
sufficiently responsive to current SD debates. Sharper, more response. Good as the record of the CSD has been, starting with a
focussed engagement with a more limited set of issues would lead clean slate opens a new door to real institutional innovation and,
to a more strategic – and manageable – approach. This would importantly, breaks from negative perceptions that have, rightly
entail consideration of the following: or wrongly, taken hold about the CSD. The new arrangements
would need more time and greater flexibility in meeting, as in the
o revising the multi‐year programme of work, so as to permit
case of the Human Rights Council. Second, it could be argued that
greater flexibility to deal with emerging issues;
the importance of SD has superseded the institutional level of
o building in a follow‐up “space” for core issues/clusters of CSD and it is time to have an elevated body overseeing this
issues, e.g. energy, water and sanitation, food/agriculture, agenda. This note has outlined what CSD did well and where it
SIDS; was lacking. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of CSD has been
that, as the high level intergovernmental body for sustainable
o revamping the cycle to consist of a “technical” session and an
development in the United Nations, it has kept sustainable
“integration” session.
development on the agenda. That agenda – it is widely
recognized – needs to encompass all of the three pillars in the
The technical session would be similar to the current review cycle, hands of an institution focused on promoting integration by
permitting in‐depth discussion and shared learning in relation to reaching out to all relevant ministries, major groups and the parts
selected topics. The integration session would have as its purpose of UN system.
bringing together environment, economy and social ministers to
deliberate a common agenda. Periodic country presentations Bibliography
(whether universal or voluntary) could then be designed as
integrative reviews spanning and linking the three pillars. A Beisheim, Marianne., Birgitte Lode and Nils Simon. A Sustainable
Development Council. SWP Comments 28, 2011. German Institute for
regular follow‐up mechanism has also proved beneficial as it
International and Security Affairs, Berlin.
monitored the implementation of suggested policies.
Dodds, F, Gardiner, R, Hales, D, Hemmati, M. and Lawrence, G. 2002.
The manner of establishing the HRC is instructive, as the General Post Johannesburg: The Future of the UN Commission on Sustainable
Assembly resolution that established HRC (60/251), apart Development, Stakeholder Forum Paper # 9, November 2002, WHAT
Governance Programme.
outlining the Council’s functions and participation, left it to the
HRC itself to devise its own programme and work modalities Economic and Social Council. Official Records (various years). New York,
through a process on “Institution‐building of the United Nations United Nations.
Human Rights Council”. The option of a successor body to the CSD Kaasa, Stine Madlan. The Commission on Sustainable Development: A
also needs to address issues about its programme and working Study of Institutional Design, Distribution of Capabilities and
methods. In terms of institution‐building, the lesson from the HRC Entrepreneurial Leadership. Fritjof Nansen Institut, 2005.
and other exercises such as UN Women is that, once the broad
Edward L. Miles, Arild Underdal, Steinar Andresen, Jargen Wettestad, Jon
functional framework has been agreed, the implementing details Birger Skjaerseth, and Elaine Carlin. 2002. Environmental Regime
can be filled in. The review of the work of the HRC after five years Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT
has also proved a beneficial tool for increasing efficiency of its Press.
work.
Skodvin, Tora, Steinar Andresen and Jon Hovi (guest eds). 'Special Issue:
The Negotiation and Effectiveness of International Environmental
Twenty years after UNCED sustainable development has been Agreements'. Global Environmental Politics, Vol 6(3) 2006.
mainstreamed to a remarkable degree, whether it is in the
business sector or in the work of UN agencies. Does that success Strandenaes, Jan Gustav. A Council for Sustainable Development – a
possible outcome of the Rio + 20 Process. Paper prepared for
weaken the case for a dedicated, high‐level intergovernmental
Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future, September 2011.
body on sustainable development? Heartening as the acceptance
of sustainable development is, objectively the sustainable The purpose of the Rio 2012 Issues Briefs is to provide a channel for
development agenda has expanded, not shrunk, since 1992. In policymakers and other interested stakeholders to discuss and review
short, a good case can be made for a high‐level standard‐bearer issues relevant to the objective and themes of the conference, including
a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty
for sustainable development.
eradication, as well as the institutional framework for sustainable
development. For further information on this Brief, contact Friedrich
Soltau (soltau@un.org).
7

Issues Brief - IFSD

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Issues Brief - IFSD (20)

More from uncsd2012 (20)

Issues Brief - IFSD