Local Authorities at CSD-15: ICLEI Media Blog
A daily post on the fifteenth session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-15) to keep ICLEI's Members connected by Tanya Imola, ICLEI's International Media Coordinator.
Day 10: Friday, 11 May
I realize I must summarize the whole day, but as CSD-15 ended so dramatically, I must leave you with two words to entice you to keep reading. Those two words are ‘no deal’…
CSD-15 already thinning out on this, the final day; displays are beginning to come down, and you can actually see through the smoke haze at the Vienna Café!
On this final day, I got to meet and connect with Emilia Saiz, of UCLG’s Executive Offices. ICLEI is keen to work with UCLG’s members to strengthen the work ICLEI is currently doing on climate, so meeting in person I hope is the start of future opportunities to work collaboratively on climate action at the local level.
At 13:15 ICLEI hosted a side event, titled ‘Cities: Taking Action on Climate’. Speaking on behalf of Local Authorities and for ICLEI were:
The panel: Laura Valente, Harvey Ruvin, Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, David Cadman, Wayne Wescott
The delegates representing local governments outlined their own local achievements, which ICLEI staff presented a more broader view. For being the last day of CSD, the event was well attended, and as hoped, a real dialogue opened up with questions and comments.
In the afternoon, all remaining delegates streamed in to – or should I say crammed themselves in to? – Conference Room 4 for the presentation and adoption/discussion of the Chairman’s text. The text had been negotiated over the past week and a half, and this was the result of all the modifications and negotiations. The Major Groups, however, were informed that the negotiations had been very difficult, and on some issues, unresolved. Everyone was wondering how this would be resolved, and I heard that there were high-level meetings amongst certain influential countries trying to reach consensus.
At around 18:00, the Chair could wait no longer, as he had an evening flight to Qatar to catch. He handed over Chairmanship responsibilities to Vice Chair Figueriedo Machado, and informed the delegates that the decision text was being photocopied, and would be released to all delegates in the next 15 minutes. Delegates would have the opportunity to review the document for approximately 45 minutes, and then would have to “take it or leave it”, he said.
This is quite significant, the possibility that a final decision text might not be adopted at the end of CSD-15. Previous CSD’s have extended into the wee hours as deliberations continued, but the opportunity for any urther modifications had passed.
Alas, I did not remain at the CSD until the bitter end, as I had feared that it would continue to the wee hours of the night. I was later informed that, at 20:45, the decision text proposed by the Chairman was NOT adopted. The EU would not support the text, saying that it neither addressed the identified challenges nor met international expectations.
The EU went on to note that the relevance of the Commission was at stake, and stressed the need to improve the CSD decision-making process.
Instead of an adopted text, what will be released will be a Chair’s summary next week; that can be accessed on the CSD website at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm.
A final text not adopted at the conclusion of CSD – an indication of how strongly vested individual/national interests are on the issues of energy and climate change.
ICLEI, as the organizing coordinator of the Local Authorities Major Group, will begin discussions with the CSD Secretariat beginning this July, and will share with its Members and association partners progress leading to CSD-16 in May 2008, along with more analysis on the impacts of CSD-15 not concluding with an approved text. In the words of the Earth Negotations Bulletin analysis of CSD-15, “… the validity of the CSD in its present form has been questioned.”
CSD-15 already thinning out on this, the final day; displays are beginning to come down, and you can actually see through the smoke haze at the Vienna Café!
On this final day, I got to meet and connect with Emilia Saiz, of UCLG’s Executive Offices. ICLEI is keen to work with UCLG’s members to strengthen the work ICLEI is currently doing on climate, so meeting in person I hope is the start of future opportunities to work collaboratively on climate action at the local level.
At 13:15 ICLEI hosted a side event, titled ‘Cities: Taking Action on Climate’. Speaking on behalf of Local Authorities and for ICLEI were:
- Konrad Otto-Zimmerman, ICLEI Secretary General
- David Cadman, Councillor from Vancouver, (Canada) and ICLEI President
- Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of the Court for Dade County (Florida, USA)
- Wayne Wescott, Chief Executive Officer, ICLEI Oceania Secretariat
- Laura Valente, Regional Director, ICLEI Latin America and Caribbean Secretariat
- Gino Van Begin, Regional Director, ICLEI European Secretariat
The panel: Laura Valente, Harvey Ruvin, Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, David Cadman, Wayne Wescott
The delegates representing local governments outlined their own local achievements, which ICLEI staff presented a more broader view. For being the last day of CSD, the event was well attended, and as hoped, a real dialogue opened up with questions and comments.
In the afternoon, all remaining delegates streamed in to – or should I say crammed themselves in to? – Conference Room 4 for the presentation and adoption/discussion of the Chairman’s text. The text had been negotiated over the past week and a half, and this was the result of all the modifications and negotiations. The Major Groups, however, were informed that the negotiations had been very difficult, and on some issues, unresolved. Everyone was wondering how this would be resolved, and I heard that there were high-level meetings amongst certain influential countries trying to reach consensus.
At around 18:00, the Chair could wait no longer, as he had an evening flight to Qatar to catch. He handed over Chairmanship responsibilities to Vice Chair Figueriedo Machado, and informed the delegates that the decision text was being photocopied, and would be released to all delegates in the next 15 minutes. Delegates would have the opportunity to review the document for approximately 45 minutes, and then would have to “take it or leave it”, he said.
This is quite significant, the possibility that a final decision text might not be adopted at the end of CSD-15. Previous CSD’s have extended into the wee hours as deliberations continued, but the opportunity for any urther modifications had passed.
Alas, I did not remain at the CSD until the bitter end, as I had feared that it would continue to the wee hours of the night. I was later informed that, at 20:45, the decision text proposed by the Chairman was NOT adopted. The EU would not support the text, saying that it neither addressed the identified challenges nor met international expectations.
The EU went on to note that the relevance of the Commission was at stake, and stressed the need to improve the CSD decision-making process.
Instead of an adopted text, what will be released will be a Chair’s summary next week; that can be accessed on the CSD website at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm.
A final text not adopted at the conclusion of CSD – an indication of how strongly vested individual/national interests are on the issues of energy and climate change.
ICLEI, as the organizing coordinator of the Local Authorities Major Group, will begin discussions with the CSD Secretariat beginning this July, and will share with its Members and association partners progress leading to CSD-16 in May 2008, along with more analysis on the impacts of CSD-15 not concluding with an approved text. In the words of the Earth Negotations Bulletin analysis of CSD-15, “… the validity of the CSD in its present form has been questioned.”
Day 9: Thursday, 10 May 2007
Today I welcomed the senior brass of ICLEI to my ‘home’ for the last two weeks here at the UN, with their arrival today for ICLEI-related meetings. They will also be participating in the Local Authorities side event tomorrow.
In this picture, the images of the former UN Secretary Generals that appear in the background are actually hand-woven Persian rugs, a gift to the UN from the Republic of Iran.
Pictured above (from l to r) are: Gino van Begin (Regional Director for Europe), David Cadman (ICLEI President), Wayne Wescott (Oceania CEO), Michelle Wyman (US Office Executive Director), Laura Valente (Regional Director, Latin America and Caribbean) and Konrad Otto-Zimmermann (Secretary General)
In the dialogue sessions the high-level segment continued, this time with an interactive discussion with UN organizations, regional commissions, UN-specialized agencies and Bretton Woods institutions. Official statements continued as well – again, all available on the CSD website.
Our heroes: UN-Habitat. In their remarks, they highlighted the importance of urban energy access and called for strengthening local authorities. GEF noted that $US 1 billion of last year’s replenishment is targeted for climate change and $US 200 million has been mobilized for adaptation. I anticipate high interest within ICLEI to engage in a conversation with GEF in the near future …
I took Gino Van Begin and Laura Valente to a special dialogue session with the EU Commissioner on the Environment, the Germany Minister of the Environment, and the Portuguese Minister of the Environment. It was an opportunity for the Major Groups to bring forth their viewpoints to the European Union. Farmers raised the role of biofuels, and the ‘food for fuel’ debate. Youth questioned the status of the negotiations that seem to be blocked, and wondered if CSD is an effective venue to achieve results. Women asked for clarity on what is meant by voluntary commitments, especially in relation to gender mainstreaming. NGOs offered their impression that CSD has failed as a forum to engage not only on energy, but also on climate. Business and Industry asked for support for strengthening the CSD, and expressed their disappointment that industrial development did not get as much attention. Science and Industry raised the need for biofuel targets. Workers and Trade Unions asked that the social questions be recognized even further in future commissions.
Local Authorities, voiced by Gino, asked for clarification on what the opportunities for dialogue were with national governments, as local governments will be necessary for national governments to reach their reduction targets. The EU responded by saying that while setting ambitious targets, they have yet to discuss the impacts to local government, the planning sector in particular. This will happen in Germany in the coming month, as it is the next necessary step – not just in Germany, but internationally.
In the afternoon, Major Groups had their opportunity to add their voices – their three-minute maximum voices specifically – to the dialogue on ‘Turning Commitments into Action: Working Together in Partnerships”. I got the chance to expand my role at the CSD – coordinator, networker and negotiator, presentation writer, and now … presenter!!!
For a copy of the presentation, please click here. It is also available on the UN website; I’m currently tracking down the exact link.
OK, I was THRILLED to have the opportunity to speak. It was a highlight of this week, so I rewarded myself later that evening with a piece of cheesecake from the infamous Carnegie Deli with a good friend!
My fellow Major Groups all spoke VERY well, resulting in an actual bona fide interactive dialogue in the room!!!! Many thought it was not possible in the CSD environment! Credit must be given to the Chair, His Excellency Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiya of Qatar. He talked openly and candidly about his country, and their need and reliance on oil as an energy source. I share with you some of his remarks:
And funnily enough, he agreed with the Youth Major Group that there should not be nuclear energy…!
The Chair then addressed all of the delegates, in reference to the ongoing negotiations, and the need to end the current deadlock. Again, his comments are worth sharing with you: “We need your help; we are stuck. We don’t see white smoke. Major Groups, you can go to sleep tonight. Governments, there is work to be done before you go to sleep.”
In the evening, I joined ICLEI’s Advisory Council, who met all day at UNEP offices, for dinner in Little Italy. A pleasant escape from midtown Manhattan, and a lovely, relaxing evening.
In this picture, the images of the former UN Secretary Generals that appear in the background are actually hand-woven Persian rugs, a gift to the UN from the Republic of Iran.
Pictured above (from l to r) are: Gino van Begin (Regional Director for Europe), David Cadman (ICLEI President), Wayne Wescott (Oceania CEO), Michelle Wyman (US Office Executive Director), Laura Valente (Regional Director, Latin America and Caribbean) and Konrad Otto-Zimmermann (Secretary General)
In the dialogue sessions the high-level segment continued, this time with an interactive discussion with UN organizations, regional commissions, UN-specialized agencies and Bretton Woods institutions. Official statements continued as well – again, all available on the CSD website.
Our heroes: UN-Habitat. In their remarks, they highlighted the importance of urban energy access and called for strengthening local authorities. GEF noted that $US 1 billion of last year’s replenishment is targeted for climate change and $US 200 million has been mobilized for adaptation. I anticipate high interest within ICLEI to engage in a conversation with GEF in the near future …
I took Gino Van Begin and Laura Valente to a special dialogue session with the EU Commissioner on the Environment, the Germany Minister of the Environment, and the Portuguese Minister of the Environment. It was an opportunity for the Major Groups to bring forth their viewpoints to the European Union. Farmers raised the role of biofuels, and the ‘food for fuel’ debate. Youth questioned the status of the negotiations that seem to be blocked, and wondered if CSD is an effective venue to achieve results. Women asked for clarity on what is meant by voluntary commitments, especially in relation to gender mainstreaming. NGOs offered their impression that CSD has failed as a forum to engage not only on energy, but also on climate. Business and Industry asked for support for strengthening the CSD, and expressed their disappointment that industrial development did not get as much attention. Science and Industry raised the need for biofuel targets. Workers and Trade Unions asked that the social questions be recognized even further in future commissions.
Local Authorities, voiced by Gino, asked for clarification on what the opportunities for dialogue were with national governments, as local governments will be necessary for national governments to reach their reduction targets. The EU responded by saying that while setting ambitious targets, they have yet to discuss the impacts to local government, the planning sector in particular. This will happen in Germany in the coming month, as it is the next necessary step – not just in Germany, but internationally.
In the afternoon, Major Groups had their opportunity to add their voices – their three-minute maximum voices specifically – to the dialogue on ‘Turning Commitments into Action: Working Together in Partnerships”. I got the chance to expand my role at the CSD – coordinator, networker and negotiator, presentation writer, and now … presenter!!!
For a copy of the presentation, please click here. It is also available on the UN website; I’m currently tracking down the exact link.
OK, I was THRILLED to have the opportunity to speak. It was a highlight of this week, so I rewarded myself later that evening with a piece of cheesecake from the infamous Carnegie Deli with a good friend!
My fellow Major Groups all spoke VERY well, resulting in an actual bona fide interactive dialogue in the room!!!! Many thought it was not possible in the CSD environment! Credit must be given to the Chair, His Excellency Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiya of Qatar. He talked openly and candidly about his country, and their need and reliance on oil as an energy source. I share with you some of his remarks:
- “How can you tell 300 million people who are dependent on oil to stop? You are asking them to die. We should not be radicals.”
- “We should be more pragmatic, more reasonable – try to feel.”
- “We have to stop blaming each other; let us work together.”
- “Cut oil, and I will die. We live together and we die together.”
And funnily enough, he agreed with the Youth Major Group that there should not be nuclear energy…!
The Chair then addressed all of the delegates, in reference to the ongoing negotiations, and the need to end the current deadlock. Again, his comments are worth sharing with you: “We need your help; we are stuck. We don’t see white smoke. Major Groups, you can go to sleep tonight. Governments, there is work to be done before you go to sleep.”
In the evening, I joined ICLEI’s Advisory Council, who met all day at UNEP offices, for dinner in Little Italy. A pleasant escape from midtown Manhattan, and a lovely, relaxing evening.
Day 8: Wednesday, 9 May 2007
Today, the big show! The high-level segment began, with this year’s segment being unique due to three circumstances: opening remarks by the new UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, an address by the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, and such excitement – we are meeting in the UN General Assembly. First time for me, so I held on tightly to my personal invite to gain access to the floor.
Ministers and their entourage entering the General Assembly
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon touched upon the importance of all of the thematic issues being addressed at CSD-15, but made special note of the global issue that demands urgent attention – climate change. “Climate change is a matter of urgency that needs a sustained, urgent and high level of attention. At last, climate change is rising on the international agenda. I have put climate change at the top of my political agenda.” He mentioned the appointment of his three Special Envoys on Climate Change.
To watch his presentation, please go to www.un.org/webcast/2007.html.
Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, well recognized in international circles as the author of the Brundtland Report, affirming the concept of sustainable development, was the keynote speaker. She gave a very powerful presentation; here are some of her remarks that resonated with me:
I will investigate if her presentation is available electronically; it is on the UN site as a webcast at www.un.org/webcast/2007.html.
Ministers then all had the opportunity to give a statement, which continued through the afternoon. All of the presentations are available on the CSD website at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm. Scroll down, find your country, and hear what your Minister had to say on these thematic issues!
Thursday also saw the arrival of ICLEI’s Secretary General, Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, who arrived a day early in New York to engage in meetings with various UN agencies. He will participate at CSD later in the week.
In the afternoon, the Local Authorities delegate, Mr. David Cadman, was asked to represent local authorities in the Ministerial Roundtables.
The dialogue was not as ‘intimate’ as I had expected it to be, possibly due to the fact this is my first policy session of the two-year cycle that I have had the privilege to attend and I misinterpreted the format. I had anticipated a more intimate discussion between Ministers, supported by one aide only, and the Major Groups represented by only one person. Unfortunately, what transpired were statements from many nation-states, with the Major Groups patiently waiting with flags up asking for the floor, not recognized in the end due to time limitations. (The union supporting the UN translators is very protective of its workers, and translation services are NOT provided past set meeting times.)
I attended one of the final side events of the day, on civil society engagement in the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change. The Gleneagles Dialogue is an informal forum for discussion, held at the ministerial level, with ministers and senior officials with responsibility for energy and environment issues. The next ministerial meeting will be convened in Germany on 9-11 September in Berlin, submitting a report and recommendations to Heads of State at the Japanese G8 summit in 2008.
Mr. Karsten Sach, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and Minister of State for DEFRA Ian Pearson of the UK
With the Ministers of both Germany and the UK in attendance, the discussion centred on the Gleneagles Dialogue, its relevance in the international negotiations, and how civil society can be engaged. It was encouraging to hear from both Ministers that they feel the engagement of civil society is critical - to inform the process, to put pressure on ministers, and to bring to the table best practices.
ICLEI hopes to have the opportunity, either in the remaining days of CSD-15 or in the near future, to learn more about the Gleneagles Dialogue and determine if there is a role for ICLEI, representing local authorities.
Ministers and their entourage entering the General Assembly
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon touched upon the importance of all of the thematic issues being addressed at CSD-15, but made special note of the global issue that demands urgent attention – climate change. “Climate change is a matter of urgency that needs a sustained, urgent and high level of attention. At last, climate change is rising on the international agenda. I have put climate change at the top of my political agenda.” He mentioned the appointment of his three Special Envoys on Climate Change.
To watch his presentation, please go to www.un.org/webcast/2007.html.
Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, well recognized in international circles as the author of the Brundtland Report, affirming the concept of sustainable development, was the keynote speaker. She gave a very powerful presentation; here are some of her remarks that resonated with me:
- Many of the challenges of sustainable development can be solved by individual countries and groups of countries – but not climate change. Nobody can hide from it, or buy protection.
- It is irresponsible, reckless and immoral to ignore climate change.
- The time for diagnosis is over; the time for action is now.
- We must build trust and find the solutions.
- Rich countries need to be carbon neutral (accentuated by finger wagging!)
- Failure is not an option.
I will investigate if her presentation is available electronically; it is on the UN site as a webcast at www.un.org/webcast/2007.html.
Ministers then all had the opportunity to give a statement, which continued through the afternoon. All of the presentations are available on the CSD website at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm. Scroll down, find your country, and hear what your Minister had to say on these thematic issues!
Thursday also saw the arrival of ICLEI’s Secretary General, Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, who arrived a day early in New York to engage in meetings with various UN agencies. He will participate at CSD later in the week.
In the afternoon, the Local Authorities delegate, Mr. David Cadman, was asked to represent local authorities in the Ministerial Roundtables.
The dialogue was not as ‘intimate’ as I had expected it to be, possibly due to the fact this is my first policy session of the two-year cycle that I have had the privilege to attend and I misinterpreted the format. I had anticipated a more intimate discussion between Ministers, supported by one aide only, and the Major Groups represented by only one person. Unfortunately, what transpired were statements from many nation-states, with the Major Groups patiently waiting with flags up asking for the floor, not recognized in the end due to time limitations. (The union supporting the UN translators is very protective of its workers, and translation services are NOT provided past set meeting times.)
I attended one of the final side events of the day, on civil society engagement in the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change. The Gleneagles Dialogue is an informal forum for discussion, held at the ministerial level, with ministers and senior officials with responsibility for energy and environment issues. The next ministerial meeting will be convened in Germany on 9-11 September in Berlin, submitting a report and recommendations to Heads of State at the Japanese G8 summit in 2008.
Mr. Karsten Sach, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and Minister of State for DEFRA Ian Pearson of the UK
With the Ministers of both Germany and the UK in attendance, the discussion centred on the Gleneagles Dialogue, its relevance in the international negotiations, and how civil society can be engaged. It was encouraging to hear from both Ministers that they feel the engagement of civil society is critical - to inform the process, to put pressure on ministers, and to bring to the table best practices.
ICLEI hopes to have the opportunity, either in the remaining days of CSD-15 or in the near future, to learn more about the Gleneagles Dialogue and determine if there is a role for ICLEI, representing local authorities.
Day 7: Tuesday, 8 May 2007
Must share part of my morning routine in between meetings and the start of the official negotiations – is this not an idyllic spot to enjoy your morning coffee whilst organizing your thoughts for the day? I’ll have to investigate if the coffee is fair trade….
Another day of negotiations, with delegates moving to smaller negotiating rooms to continue deliberations. David Cadman, President of ICLEI, remained in the Local Authorities hot seat for most of the time.
This was the day that the negotiated text was to be finalized – we will find out tomorrow morning how it all went. Huge divisions within the G-77/China group continue, for instance. The daily publication ‘Outreach Issues’ captured it well in its cover article today, titled ‘Slow Dance’, which states that, “The compromises within G-77 between oil-producing countries and oil-importing states, between those with faith in the so-called advanced energy technologies and those who fear the sinking of the islands they call home – have seriously diluted the strong positions that a number of its members have put forward in the current thematic cycle.” A must-read as are other articles in today’s edition, including a piece on the position of indigenous people’s, and a thought-provoking piece on selecting the chair for CSD-16. Again, ‘Outreach Issues’ can be accessed at www.anped.org.
Here, for your pleasure is an example of how the negotiations plod along; I copy this word for word out of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin report from Monday, 7 May:
"On taking actions on indoor air pollution, the EU supported referencing 'improved knowledge' whereas the US, supported by the G-77/China, proposed text on 'improving infomration and its dissemination'. Australia proposed alternative language, eventually agreed by delegates, to 'improve information dissemination of, and the knowledge base on, sources and health impacts of indoor air pollution, in particular on women, children and workers.'
Enough said.
In the afternoon, I attended an hour-long course offered by the UN Daj Hammarskjold Library on how to find information on sustainable development on the UN website. We surfed through the site using a variety of entry points, so I greatly increased my ability to successfully navigate and locate important material. I can now add to my job title "trained UN website surfer'.
The UN website also contains all UN webcasts, so I recommend you to visit it!
Another day of negotiations, with delegates moving to smaller negotiating rooms to continue deliberations. David Cadman, President of ICLEI, remained in the Local Authorities hot seat for most of the time.
This was the day that the negotiated text was to be finalized – we will find out tomorrow morning how it all went. Huge divisions within the G-77/China group continue, for instance. The daily publication ‘Outreach Issues’ captured it well in its cover article today, titled ‘Slow Dance’, which states that, “The compromises within G-77 between oil-producing countries and oil-importing states, between those with faith in the so-called advanced energy technologies and those who fear the sinking of the islands they call home – have seriously diluted the strong positions that a number of its members have put forward in the current thematic cycle.” A must-read as are other articles in today’s edition, including a piece on the position of indigenous people’s, and a thought-provoking piece on selecting the chair for CSD-16. Again, ‘Outreach Issues’ can be accessed at www.anped.org.
Here, for your pleasure is an example of how the negotiations plod along; I copy this word for word out of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin report from Monday, 7 May:
"On taking actions on indoor air pollution, the EU supported referencing 'improved knowledge' whereas the US, supported by the G-77/China, proposed text on 'improving infomration and its dissemination'. Australia proposed alternative language, eventually agreed by delegates, to 'improve information dissemination of, and the knowledge base on, sources and health impacts of indoor air pollution, in particular on women, children and workers.'
Enough said.
In the afternoon, I attended an hour-long course offered by the UN Daj Hammarskjold Library on how to find information on sustainable development on the UN website. We surfed through the site using a variety of entry points, so I greatly increased my ability to successfully navigate and locate important material. I can now add to my job title "trained UN website surfer'.
The UN website also contains all UN webcasts, so I recommend you to visit it!
Day 6: Monday, 7 May 2007
With the climate change text more or less adopted, the focus of the morning has been revising the text for the three other cross-cutting themes: energy for sustainable development, industrial development, and air pollution/atmosphere.
CSD once again off to a prompt 10am start.
Attended the side event on ‘Energy for Sustainable Development to Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change: Integrating Cross-Cutting Issues into Mainstream Means of Policy Implementation’. ICLEI was a co-sponsor of this event, as on the panel local authorities were to be represented by Professor Jose Goldemberg of the State of Sao Paulo, and Mayor Diani Budiarto of Bogor, Indonesia. The focus of the side event was to address the theme of how to turn commitments into action by integrating socio-economic and environmental factors that lead to climate change.
The operative word here is ‘were’. Unfortunately, with the wealth of activities taking place simultaneously at CSD, and when one factors in that this particular side event took place across from the UN building, both local government representatives were ‘missing in action’. (Highly coveted being those particular events that generously serve food as the side events take place during meal breaks, giving credence to the saying “The way to a CSD delegates’ heart is through his/her stomach”!)
And today the Local Authorities delegation welcomed the participation of Councillor David Cadman of Vancouver (Canada), President of ICLEI. President Cadman attended the side event “Industry as a Partner for Sustainable Development: Managing Supply Chains and Investment to obtain Value’.
Again in the afternoon, negotiations on the Chairman’s text were cut short due to strong (and heated I’m told!) disagreements within the G77/China over the use of fossil fuels – this group has not been successful in adopting a unified position on this issue. Negotiations have therefore been deferred on these three remaining themes until tomorrow, where delegations will have to proceed quickly on finalizing text in time for the high-level segment starting the following day.
A day of meetings – a well-deserved weekend perhaps had all batteries recharged and CSD delegates eager for progress. Some of the meetings that I attended included catching up with Sean Southey, former Secretary General of ICLEI and currently Manager of UNDP’s Equator Initiative; NGOs already strategizing for the next CSD cycle, discussing in particular the theme of agriculture; and a possible media event, either at the UN or at the penguin or polar bear exhibit at the Central Park Zoo, to mobilize awareness of the need for specific actions on energy and climate change.
Enjoyed a lovely dinner where I was invited as a guest of ANPED. ANPED is the Northern Alliance for Sustainability, working to empower Northern civil society in creating and protecting sustainable communities and societies worldwide. ANPED builds capacity among Northern European civil society organizations through information, knowledge and skill-sharing, and enable their participation in local, national, regional and international decision-making processes on sustainable development – hence their active participation at CSD. Have a look at their website at www.anped.org. Also, it is on ANPED’s website that you can electronically access the daily newsletter ‘Outreach Issues’ that is produced by ANPED and Stakeholder Forum – I had mentioned earlier in this daily report that I would investigate whether it would be possible to pull up these newsletters remotely. The link is the following: www.anped.org/index.php?part=113.
Here at CSD represented by accomplished CSD veterans, Executive Director Jan Rademaker and Senior Policy Advisor Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED has helped ICLEI immeasurably, in making important contacts, and generally by getting maximum value for local authorities here at CSD. They have been wonderful.
Around the table at dinner were NGO supporters and members of ANPED from across Europe – Norway, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Germany, the Russian Federation, and France, among others.
CSD once again off to a prompt 10am start.
Attended the side event on ‘Energy for Sustainable Development to Mitigate the Impacts of Climate Change: Integrating Cross-Cutting Issues into Mainstream Means of Policy Implementation’. ICLEI was a co-sponsor of this event, as on the panel local authorities were to be represented by Professor Jose Goldemberg of the State of Sao Paulo, and Mayor Diani Budiarto of Bogor, Indonesia. The focus of the side event was to address the theme of how to turn commitments into action by integrating socio-economic and environmental factors that lead to climate change.
The operative word here is ‘were’. Unfortunately, with the wealth of activities taking place simultaneously at CSD, and when one factors in that this particular side event took place across from the UN building, both local government representatives were ‘missing in action’. (Highly coveted being those particular events that generously serve food as the side events take place during meal breaks, giving credence to the saying “The way to a CSD delegates’ heart is through his/her stomach”!)
And today the Local Authorities delegation welcomed the participation of Councillor David Cadman of Vancouver (Canada), President of ICLEI. President Cadman attended the side event “Industry as a Partner for Sustainable Development: Managing Supply Chains and Investment to obtain Value’.
Again in the afternoon, negotiations on the Chairman’s text were cut short due to strong (and heated I’m told!) disagreements within the G77/China over the use of fossil fuels – this group has not been successful in adopting a unified position on this issue. Negotiations have therefore been deferred on these three remaining themes until tomorrow, where delegations will have to proceed quickly on finalizing text in time for the high-level segment starting the following day.
A day of meetings – a well-deserved weekend perhaps had all batteries recharged and CSD delegates eager for progress. Some of the meetings that I attended included catching up with Sean Southey, former Secretary General of ICLEI and currently Manager of UNDP’s Equator Initiative; NGOs already strategizing for the next CSD cycle, discussing in particular the theme of agriculture; and a possible media event, either at the UN or at the penguin or polar bear exhibit at the Central Park Zoo, to mobilize awareness of the need for specific actions on energy and climate change.
Enjoyed a lovely dinner where I was invited as a guest of ANPED. ANPED is the Northern Alliance for Sustainability, working to empower Northern civil society in creating and protecting sustainable communities and societies worldwide. ANPED builds capacity among Northern European civil society organizations through information, knowledge and skill-sharing, and enable their participation in local, national, regional and international decision-making processes on sustainable development – hence their active participation at CSD. Have a look at their website at www.anped.org. Also, it is on ANPED’s website that you can electronically access the daily newsletter ‘Outreach Issues’ that is produced by ANPED and Stakeholder Forum – I had mentioned earlier in this daily report that I would investigate whether it would be possible to pull up these newsletters remotely. The link is the following: www.anped.org/index.php?part=113.
Here at CSD represented by accomplished CSD veterans, Executive Director Jan Rademaker and Senior Policy Advisor Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED has helped ICLEI immeasurably, in making important contacts, and generally by getting maximum value for local authorities here at CSD. They have been wonderful.
Around the table at dinner were NGO supporters and members of ANPED from across Europe – Norway, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Germany, the Russian Federation, and France, among others.
Weekend in New York City
Here are a few images capturing what I did over the weekend in New York City.
Approaching the Brooklyn Bridge.
The famous Grand Central Terminal (often miscalled Grand Central Station)
New York's Little Italy
A New York hot dog cart.
Enjoying a coffee outside the New York Library.
Approaching the Brooklyn Bridge.
The famous Grand Central Terminal (often miscalled Grand Central Station)
New York's Little Italy
A New York hot dog cart.
Enjoying a coffee outside the New York Library.
Day 5: Friday, 4 May 2007
While using printers generously provided for the Major Groups in Conference Room C, I remained in the room during the strategy session of the NGOs. I had previously been invited by Jan-Gustav Strandenaes of ANPED, so I felt very welcome to remain.
The analysis of the previous day’s interventions to modify the chairman’s draft negotiating text was incredibly thorough – the positions of nation-states that have been attempting to push positions detrimental to civil society were all captured and discussed.
One should not be surprised, for instance, to learn that the nation-states supportive of nuclear energy are more than aware that saying the word ‘nuclear’ outright in the text would not be supported by those vehemently opposed to it, the NGOs included. Its supporters have therefore masked nuclear by the term ‘advanced energy technologies’. Interestingly, it had previously been called ‘advanced, cleaner fossil fuel technologies’. Thanks then go to the nation-states of Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Canada and the Russian Federation for the even more misleading term of ‘advanced energy technologies’.
Sigh – the CSD is a very fascinating negotiation process, and a very humbling one at that, at least to me. There is simply so much to learn…
I joined many others in the Dag Hammarskjold Library for a special performance by the New York City High School for Environmental Studies. Called ‘Penguins on Thin Ice’, the performance was a musical revue to engage people on energy and climate change through bits of dialogue connected through song.
The performance was a delight, and it very powerfully conveyed messages in very clear terms using music as the communications vehicle. The subject matter being very serious, a positive message that lifestyle change is necessary was conveyed through songs titled ‘Beat the Heat’, ‘Energy Crisis’, and the ‘Solutions Rap’, among others. I strongly encourage that a visit be made to www.penguinsonthinice.com, where the script, lyrics and solutions are all available. This being the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, the creators of the musical revue are eager to have others in the global community create their own performance as an education tool.
Speaking of education, did your local media cover the release today of the third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? This particular report focuses on the costs and benefits of various policies, suggesting that if major climate impacts are to be avoided, global emissions should peak and begin declining within one or two decades.
The IPCC Report states that: “There is considerable economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.”
Negotiations continued all day on the text. The assessment provided by the daily Earth Negotiations Bulletin is that the first week has laid the ground for long days and nights in the coming week negotiating "hotly contested issues" (their quotation marks). For example, references to post-2012 negotiations is in dispute, with the EU and Switzerland, in particular, supporting language on post-2012 negotiations, and Australia, Canada, Japan and the US opposed.
The crowd definitely thinned out on Friday, the final day of week one. There were many delegates with flights to catch as a new ‘team’ quite often takes over for the second week of CSD-15. As well, many delegates will be traveling to Bonn to attend the UNFCC Subsidiary Body on Implementation that starts on Monday, 7 May.
Hopefully a chance for everyone to recharge their batteries for the work ahead, under the leadership in many cases of their Ministers of Environment and/or Sustainable Development.
On the Ministers coming next week for the high-level segment – UN DESA kindly provided all of the Major Groups with the list of Ministers who will be here for the final three days of CSD-15. If you are interested in learning who is representing your particular country, email me and I will gladly provide you with that information.
Day 4: Thursday, 3 May 2007
I could not resist sharing with you the view from my hotel room of the famed Empire State Building, on a beautiful spring day. The building is illuminated at night, currently in green; I’ve taken a picture at night that appears at the end of today’s report. On American Independence Day, the 4th of July, the Empire State Building is bathed in the colours red, white and blue – a very beautiful and patriotic site on the New York skyline.
Today’s New York Times newspaper had a cover story on climate change. The article, titled ‘Feeling Warmth, Subtropical Plants Move North’, said that if there were an upside to global warming, it would be for gardeners, who in the U.S.A. make up three-quarters of the US population, and nationally spend $US 34 billion a year. Climate change has meant a longer growing season and a more robust selection. The article points out, however, that horticulturalists warn that it is shortsighted to view this as good news, with warmer temperatures helping pests as well as plants.
The article also points out that some U.S. states are facing the possibility that their cherished local flora will disappear within their borders. By the end of the century, the climate will no longer be favourable for the official state tree or flower in 28 (of the 50) states.
Hard to tell how many delegations remained up into the wee hours of the morning editing the draft negotiating text; I would never call the CSD participants a particularly jovial bunch to begin with. Many are beautifully resplendent in their colourful national dress at times, but a serious group for the most part. A somber tone to fit tomorrow’s release of the third IPCC report on climate change tomorrow, perhaps?
Margarita joined me in the Café in good spirits this morning, having had news that many of her recent proposals to support climate change work in the U.S.A. and Mexico have been accepted. Margarita has been instrumental in engaging our Mexican participants, whether it be in international sharing and learning, or energy efficiency projects. ICLEI will share more information on these projects, on our website, once they become operational.
We joined Edgar, Director of ICLEI’s Mexico Office, in his Learning Centre event, ‘Energy Efficiency in the Public Sector: Saving Money, Energy and the Environment’. The event was jointly organized by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), ICLEI, and US AID.
Edgar spoke of the PEPS program in Mexico, a joint effort between a number of partners that is working with 42 cities in Mexico to implement procurement policies for energy efficient products. He showcased procurement activities in Mexico City and Chihuahua for energy efficient lighting, fleets and water savings products, pointing out that since the project started in 2002, more than 5,000 municipal officers have been trained on developing procurement policies and energy efficiency technologies. He flashed some impressive figures - $US 11 million dollars in energy efficiency products have been procured, resulting in total energy savings of 15.5 GwH, 100,000 litres of fuel, all equivalent to 11,000 tonnes of eCO2.
Revisions continued in the morning and afternoon on the chairman’s draft negotiating text, ICLEI’s particular interest drawing us into Conference Room 4 where the discussion focused on the thematic areas of industrial development and climate change. Actually, it was the only Conference room to go to – the discussions on the thematic areas of air quality/atmosphere and energy for sustainable development were halted – all day in fact – at the request of the G77 who need more time to prepare their comments.
I realize I’m a novice at the CSD – many of my Major Group colleagues have been coming to CSD for 13 years, and have the battle scars to prove it! – but I was quite impressed with the high level of engagement. While not every nation state requested a modification to the text, there was much word-smithing going on, in some cases trying to strengthen the text; for others, an attempt to weaken the language. And you all know who those countries are!!
Met Professor Hamanaka in the halls – he will present on a panel on sustainable development in Asia during the lunch break. Professor Hamanaka is Chair of ICLEI’s Japan Office, and is at CSD for this presentation in his capacity as Chair of the IGES Board of Directors. The IGES is the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, established by the Japanese Government as a research institute to promote sustainability in the Asia Pacific region.
In this session, the speakers – representing national governments and research institutions in the countries of China, India, Indonesia and Japan – all stressed the need for the Kyoto Finance Mechanisms, and for the adoption of targets for future years (post 2012). The event was covered by ‘ENB on the Side’, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin specifically reporting on selected side events at CSD-15. This can be accessed at
www.iisd.ca/csd/csd15/enbots.
Had a quick meeting with the delegation here at CSD from San Sebastian, Spain. They are not ICLEI Members – yet. They are eager to join as they are very committed to sustainability. We hope to welcome them shortly to the ICLEI family.
In the afternoon, the EU ‘Troika’ agreed to meet with the Major Groups, so ICLEI representing the Local Authorities Major Group attended. Another term I’ve learned here at the CSD this week – Troika. The ‘Troika’ consists of the current EU presidency – Germany, the future presidency – Portugal, and the Commission.
The purpose of the meeting was to share and then have a dialogue on where we are in the present negotiations, and what the EU delegates expected from the Major Groups. Some general observations of the EU delegation:
• There is a big danger that the whole exercise leads to a rather low outcome.
• It is critical that there be time-bound targets in place for post-2010.
• There is a sense from many that the current text is weaker than the text that came out of Johannesburg at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, therefore we are not actually moving forward.
The EU requested that the Major Groups develop proposals on their positions so they can potentially incorporate the requested language into the formal text. A very generous offer to all the Major Groups; Local Authorities will respond appropriately.
ICLEI, as the coordinator for the Local Authorities Major Group, was invited by the Stakeholder Group and the French Mission to the United Nations to a meeting on reforming international governance of the environment in the UN. Yes, as inspiring and important as it sounds, and ICLEI was honoured to be invited and to become engaged in the discussions. As ICLEI’s involvement is still in its infancy, I will only comment that many nation-states active at the UN and civil society are working together, at the lead of the French, calling on a “stronger international authority on environment to safeguard the environmental pillar of sustainable development, as UNEP’s present mandate and resources prevent it from achieving this”. To illustrate the issue – there are more than 500 multilateral environmental agreements, and 30 different UN agencies with environment-related processes. More on this as it proceeds.
And here is the Empire State Building at night, albeit a bit blurry as the picture is taken through a window.
Today’s New York Times newspaper had a cover story on climate change. The article, titled ‘Feeling Warmth, Subtropical Plants Move North’, said that if there were an upside to global warming, it would be for gardeners, who in the U.S.A. make up three-quarters of the US population, and nationally spend $US 34 billion a year. Climate change has meant a longer growing season and a more robust selection. The article points out, however, that horticulturalists warn that it is shortsighted to view this as good news, with warmer temperatures helping pests as well as plants.
The article also points out that some U.S. states are facing the possibility that their cherished local flora will disappear within their borders. By the end of the century, the climate will no longer be favourable for the official state tree or flower in 28 (of the 50) states.
Hard to tell how many delegations remained up into the wee hours of the morning editing the draft negotiating text; I would never call the CSD participants a particularly jovial bunch to begin with. Many are beautifully resplendent in their colourful national dress at times, but a serious group for the most part. A somber tone to fit tomorrow’s release of the third IPCC report on climate change tomorrow, perhaps?
Margarita joined me in the Café in good spirits this morning, having had news that many of her recent proposals to support climate change work in the U.S.A. and Mexico have been accepted. Margarita has been instrumental in engaging our Mexican participants, whether it be in international sharing and learning, or energy efficiency projects. ICLEI will share more information on these projects, on our website, once they become operational.
We joined Edgar, Director of ICLEI’s Mexico Office, in his Learning Centre event, ‘Energy Efficiency in the Public Sector: Saving Money, Energy and the Environment’. The event was jointly organized by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), ICLEI, and US AID.
Edgar spoke of the PEPS program in Mexico, a joint effort between a number of partners that is working with 42 cities in Mexico to implement procurement policies for energy efficient products. He showcased procurement activities in Mexico City and Chihuahua for energy efficient lighting, fleets and water savings products, pointing out that since the project started in 2002, more than 5,000 municipal officers have been trained on developing procurement policies and energy efficiency technologies. He flashed some impressive figures - $US 11 million dollars in energy efficiency products have been procured, resulting in total energy savings of 15.5 GwH, 100,000 litres of fuel, all equivalent to 11,000 tonnes of eCO2.
Revisions continued in the morning and afternoon on the chairman’s draft negotiating text, ICLEI’s particular interest drawing us into Conference Room 4 where the discussion focused on the thematic areas of industrial development and climate change. Actually, it was the only Conference room to go to – the discussions on the thematic areas of air quality/atmosphere and energy for sustainable development were halted – all day in fact – at the request of the G77 who need more time to prepare their comments.
I realize I’m a novice at the CSD – many of my Major Group colleagues have been coming to CSD for 13 years, and have the battle scars to prove it! – but I was quite impressed with the high level of engagement. While not every nation state requested a modification to the text, there was much word-smithing going on, in some cases trying to strengthen the text; for others, an attempt to weaken the language. And you all know who those countries are!!
Met Professor Hamanaka in the halls – he will present on a panel on sustainable development in Asia during the lunch break. Professor Hamanaka is Chair of ICLEI’s Japan Office, and is at CSD for this presentation in his capacity as Chair of the IGES Board of Directors. The IGES is the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, established by the Japanese Government as a research institute to promote sustainability in the Asia Pacific region.
In this session, the speakers – representing national governments and research institutions in the countries of China, India, Indonesia and Japan – all stressed the need for the Kyoto Finance Mechanisms, and for the adoption of targets for future years (post 2012). The event was covered by ‘ENB on the Side’, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin specifically reporting on selected side events at CSD-15. This can be accessed at
www.iisd.ca/csd/csd15/enbots.
Had a quick meeting with the delegation here at CSD from San Sebastian, Spain. They are not ICLEI Members – yet. They are eager to join as they are very committed to sustainability. We hope to welcome them shortly to the ICLEI family.
In the afternoon, the EU ‘Troika’ agreed to meet with the Major Groups, so ICLEI representing the Local Authorities Major Group attended. Another term I’ve learned here at the CSD this week – Troika. The ‘Troika’ consists of the current EU presidency – Germany, the future presidency – Portugal, and the Commission.
The purpose of the meeting was to share and then have a dialogue on where we are in the present negotiations, and what the EU delegates expected from the Major Groups. Some general observations of the EU delegation:
• There is a big danger that the whole exercise leads to a rather low outcome.
• It is critical that there be time-bound targets in place for post-2010.
• There is a sense from many that the current text is weaker than the text that came out of Johannesburg at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, therefore we are not actually moving forward.
The EU requested that the Major Groups develop proposals on their positions so they can potentially incorporate the requested language into the formal text. A very generous offer to all the Major Groups; Local Authorities will respond appropriately.
ICLEI, as the coordinator for the Local Authorities Major Group, was invited by the Stakeholder Group and the French Mission to the United Nations to a meeting on reforming international governance of the environment in the UN. Yes, as inspiring and important as it sounds, and ICLEI was honoured to be invited and to become engaged in the discussions. As ICLEI’s involvement is still in its infancy, I will only comment that many nation-states active at the UN and civil society are working together, at the lead of the French, calling on a “stronger international authority on environment to safeguard the environmental pillar of sustainable development, as UNEP’s present mandate and resources prevent it from achieving this”. To illustrate the issue – there are more than 500 multilateral environmental agreements, and 30 different UN agencies with environment-related processes. More on this as it proceeds.
And here is the Empire State Building at night, albeit a bit blurry as the picture is taken through a window.
Day 3: Wednesday, 2 May 2007
In the morning, the sessions from the previous day continued, to accommodate the number of delegates who asked to speak. Our thanks to the delegation from UN-Habitat, who spoke up during the climate change deliberations on climate change, urging responsible urban planning as cities are part of the problem and solution to climate change. The suggestion made was stricter energy efficiency standards for transport and buildings.
The staff commitment from ICLEI grew today, though sadly they will only be present at CSD for today and tomorrow. Representing ICLEI’s US Office is Ms Margarita Parra, Coordinator of the CCP Campaign globally. And Sr. Edgar Villaseñor Franco, Director of ICLEI’s Office in Mexico is also here, both to participate in a Learning Centre event tomorrow on the PEPs Project.
Margarita was invaluable today as I was unavoidably detained and could not represent ICLEI on the panel on ‘The Benefits of Partnering to Address Climate Change Challenges’. One of a series of ‘Partnerships in Practice Interactive Discussions’ hosted by UN DESA (Department of Economic and Social Affairs), the discussion focused on practical issues related to partnership efforts to promote climate change initiatives. ICLEI was asked to present the CCP Campaign, and how networks of cities globally are adapting to and implementing practical measures – all with a myriad of partners. Margarita reported back that the ICLEI presentation was well received, and was drawn into discussions on how to engage other cities, and the opportunities provided by climate change action. Special thanks to Ewa Ciuk, ICLEI’s International Membership Coordinator, for putting together a visual ‘montage’ of cities engaged in climate protection globally. The powerpoint will be posted on the UN DESA website (I will get that link), and also, ICLEI can send it to you if you would like. It is simply too large a file to post here.
The afternoon found delegates pacing the halls anxiously awaiting the release of the updated Chairman’s draft negotiating text. I took some photos of the feeding frenzy when CSD staff arrived with copies, followed by silence when delegates all dispersed to quiet corners and committee rooms to thoroughly review the document.
A much improved document was the consensus of many, local authorities included, and the document respectfully sidestepped major controversial issues – no nuclear, for instance. The ngo community was a bit less complimentary, claiming that there was nowhere to go but up! All of the major groups had the opportunity to use the CSD media to convey their comments – the daily newsletter ‘Outreach Issues’ asked each of the Major Groups for their overall impressions and specific comments. (I’ll make a link to the newsletter tomorrow, when it hits UN newsstands…)
Specific comments from Local Authorities:
- while the term ‘all levels of government’ appears infrequently, the term ‘regional and sub-regional’ is throughout the whole document. Could not all levels of government be used, to encompass local governments?
- The bullet “To promote North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation, as well as regional and sub-regional cooperation” could encourage local cooperation and partnerships.
- The bullet “Involve the private sector more actively in implementation” could be followed by a bullet to involve local authorities in implementation.
- The bullet “Strengthen international support to enhance national institutional capacities in developing countries and countries with economies in transition for their effective participation in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation, where appropriate” could mention the participation of local governments.
My evening ended with a dinner enjoying the breathtaking view of Midtown Manhattan and the East River at the famous Beekman Towers, after which Deputy Mayor D’Alessio and I deliberated the role of ICLEI at the CSD as we strolled on a mild spring evening.
Tomorrow national delegates will have the opportunity to comment back on this draft. I purposely mention national delegates – the nine Major Groups are not recognized in these discussions. They are invited to listen, and the only mechanism for revising the text is to ask a national delegation to raise their particular concern.
And for all those waiting on baited breath for the definition of lldc’s, a term I had not heard before – I found it spelled out in the revised Chairman’s draft negotiating text. It refers to land-locked developing countries!
The staff commitment from ICLEI grew today, though sadly they will only be present at CSD for today and tomorrow. Representing ICLEI’s US Office is Ms Margarita Parra, Coordinator of the CCP Campaign globally. And Sr. Edgar Villaseñor Franco, Director of ICLEI’s Office in Mexico is also here, both to participate in a Learning Centre event tomorrow on the PEPs Project.
Margarita was invaluable today as I was unavoidably detained and could not represent ICLEI on the panel on ‘The Benefits of Partnering to Address Climate Change Challenges’. One of a series of ‘Partnerships in Practice Interactive Discussions’ hosted by UN DESA (Department of Economic and Social Affairs), the discussion focused on practical issues related to partnership efforts to promote climate change initiatives. ICLEI was asked to present the CCP Campaign, and how networks of cities globally are adapting to and implementing practical measures – all with a myriad of partners. Margarita reported back that the ICLEI presentation was well received, and was drawn into discussions on how to engage other cities, and the opportunities provided by climate change action. Special thanks to Ewa Ciuk, ICLEI’s International Membership Coordinator, for putting together a visual ‘montage’ of cities engaged in climate protection globally. The powerpoint will be posted on the UN DESA website (I will get that link), and also, ICLEI can send it to you if you would like. It is simply too large a file to post here.
The afternoon found delegates pacing the halls anxiously awaiting the release of the updated Chairman’s draft negotiating text. I took some photos of the feeding frenzy when CSD staff arrived with copies, followed by silence when delegates all dispersed to quiet corners and committee rooms to thoroughly review the document.
A much improved document was the consensus of many, local authorities included, and the document respectfully sidestepped major controversial issues – no nuclear, for instance. The ngo community was a bit less complimentary, claiming that there was nowhere to go but up! All of the major groups had the opportunity to use the CSD media to convey their comments – the daily newsletter ‘Outreach Issues’ asked each of the Major Groups for their overall impressions and specific comments. (I’ll make a link to the newsletter tomorrow, when it hits UN newsstands…)
Specific comments from Local Authorities:
- while the term ‘all levels of government’ appears infrequently, the term ‘regional and sub-regional’ is throughout the whole document. Could not all levels of government be used, to encompass local governments?
- The bullet “To promote North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation, as well as regional and sub-regional cooperation” could encourage local cooperation and partnerships.
- The bullet “Involve the private sector more actively in implementation” could be followed by a bullet to involve local authorities in implementation.
- The bullet “Strengthen international support to enhance national institutional capacities in developing countries and countries with economies in transition for their effective participation in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation, where appropriate” could mention the participation of local governments.
My evening ended with a dinner enjoying the breathtaking view of Midtown Manhattan and the East River at the famous Beekman Towers, after which Deputy Mayor D’Alessio and I deliberated the role of ICLEI at the CSD as we strolled on a mild spring evening.
Tomorrow national delegates will have the opportunity to comment back on this draft. I purposely mention national delegates – the nine Major Groups are not recognized in these discussions. They are invited to listen, and the only mechanism for revising the text is to ask a national delegation to raise their particular concern.
And for all those waiting on baited breath for the definition of lldc’s, a term I had not heard before – I found it spelled out in the revised Chairman’s draft negotiating text. It refers to land-locked developing countries!
Day 2: Tuesday 1 May 2007
Starting the day in typical New York City fashion – joining the throngs of people on the street walking to their respective jobs. And, what great fortune for the ICLEI delegation that there are Starbucks Coffee Shops in close vicinity to the hotel – to the North, South and West of the front doors. Coincidence? As a matter of fact, a strategic decision.
The second day dawned with many of our delegates still missing – a result of continuing visa problems unfortunately. Luckily both myself and Deputy Mayor D’Alessio (Ancona, Italy) are here, and able to share duties to represent local authorities in the parallel sessions today - energy for sustainable development, air pollution/atmosphere, industrial development and climate change.
The focus of the Energy for Sustainable Development session was the use of renewables, energy efficiency, access to energy, and biofuels. Oil-producing countries, not surprisingly, stressed the continuing role of fossil fuels.
In this session, the Major Groups were understandably disgruntled when word came down that the Major Groups would not be recognized to speak. This was a departure from decisions put in place at CSD-11 where it was decided that ‘flags’ (the UN name for the nameplates identifying the nation states, observers and Major Groups) would be selected to speak in the order that they were raised. In the afternoon climate change session, most of the Major Groups already had their ‘flags’ up before the session had even started, so keen were they to enter into the dialogue!
This concern about procedural difficulties hindering the participation of Major Groups was raised to the UN DESA coordinator of Major Groups, and she promised that it would be raised with the Secretariat. But, as with all procedural issues at the UN, process is ‘at the discretion of the Chair’. The days ahead will determine if the complaint was heard and acted upon.
The focus of the Air Pollution/Atmosphere session was on both indoor air pollutants – the need to shift from traditional biomass home cooking fuels to cleaner options, and outdoor air pollutants - particularly CFCs. Not surprisingly, positions fell along standard divisions – those countries producing biofuels in support of greater dependency on this energy source, developing countries in support of cleaner indoor air, and the US urging delegates to not replicate other international agreements, referencing the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.
During the lunch break, I once again attended the US briefing, this time the focus being ‘Scaling Up and Replicating Energy Solutions’. Represented in the room were other Major Groups, and many US-based NGOs. One of the four presentations on US programs that sparked the most discussion was the presentation on nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a much-discussed topic at the CSD, and it is being pushed by many national delegations. A number of the Major Groups are vehemently opposed to nuclear energy being touted as the solution, and at the NGO strategy session at the end of the day, tactics to voice displeasure with nuclear energy as a viable solution were mapped out. It will be the cover story of the NGO newsletter that comes out tomorrow morning, for instance. ICLEI, as many likely know, does not promote nuclear as a viable energy source.
In the afternoon, Deputy Mayor D’Alessio attended the session on Industrial Development, and I attended the session on Climate Change. Now, for those not familiar with the CSD, let me explain how these ‘sessions’ work - they consist of statements made by delegations. It is not interactive so the Chair does not initiate dialogue; the Chair simply thanks the ‘distinguished delegate’ from that particular nation-state/Major Group for his remarks, and then invites the next ‘distinguished delegate’ to speak. The Chair, to his credit, did ask in this session that the statements made focus on suggested revisions to the Chairman’s Draft Text, and a gold star to Mexico for following these instructions to the letter – they made pointed suggestions to specific paragraphs in the draft text.
Opening this session on Climate Change was the Chair of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Implementation – Ambassador Assadi. In his remarks, he explained the difference between the SBI and the CSD, one being a high-level body discussing issues from a broad political perspective (CSD), while the SBI is a working body of the Convention. The SBI meets next week at the UNFCCC headquarters in Bonn (Germany), and many delegates mentioned that they would be traveling to Bonn next week for those deliberations.
The relationship between the CSD and UNFCCC is important to point out. Many of the comments raised by nation-states pointed out that the UNFCCC is the proper forum for policy discussions specific to climate change, while the CSD can deal with climate change as it relates to sustainable development as a whole.
Procedural anecdotes: I heard a new term, spoken by the ‘distinguished delegate’ from Pakistan, on behalf of the G77 – lldcs. I haven’t had the opportunity to ask CSD veterans what that term means – please send me an email if you can tell me what nation states this term refers to! And during this session, the Russian delegate got to red – meaning his presentation exceeded the three-minute limit. When the Chair tried to point that out to him, he spoke over the Chair, claiming that if he was able to speak directly in Russian, he would have made the time limit – he was speaking slower so that the translator could catch up. The Chair gets credit for attempting to rein in his time, and the translator gets credit for being unfazed at being blamed!
In terms of the discussion, here are some of the points raised:
In the Industrial Development session, key topics were economic growth for developing countries, the need for more technology transfer, cleaner production, and the consideration of all energy sources. NGOs suggested the adoption of a World Energy Efficiency Day.
In the evening, ICLEI as the coordinator of the Local Authorities Major Group was invited to a meeting over dinner to discuss the future of the CSD, and a potential World Summit on Environmental Security.
The Stakeholder Forum has held discussions with many delegations and the CSD Secretariat on how to make the CSD more effective. In fact, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin summarizing Tuesday, 1 May said the following: “Six former Chairs of CSD are supporting efforts by Stakeholder Forum and others to revisit the question of how best to implement the intergovernmental mandate to integrate environment and development into decision making. The aim is to go beyond ‘harping on lack of follow-up on real and imagined commitments’ made at UN Summits towards a pragmatic discussion on improved institutional arrangements.”
Many around the table feel that the deliberations are not achieving the necessary results. Some of the proposals offered up are to establish an adhoc working group to improve the process, and the Major Groups around the table made other suggestions, such as allowing Major Groups more opportunities to engage in the dialogues, and even suggesting that the Major Groups become the major focus of discussions on a daily basis.
The relevance of a World Summit on Environmental Security stemmed from the recent discussions on environmental security at the UN Security Council, which was not altogether well received from a number of critics. Critics were both developed country and developing countries as to whether this was the proper forum for this discussion, NGOs were concerned as access to any Security Council deliberations at the UN are severely limited, and then the criticism that many nation states as they are excluded from the dialogue when it takes place within the confines of the five-member Security Council. The discussion over dinner brought up concerns over positioning – should this be discussed within the UNFCCC for instance; to language – are we not talking about environmental insecurity? All only ideas and open thoughts at this point - this discussion is to continue over the weekend. If you as ICLEI Members have any strong thoughts on these two issues, please send me an email at tanya.imola@iclei.org, and I’ll try to share your ideas and/or concerns.
The second day dawned with many of our delegates still missing – a result of continuing visa problems unfortunately. Luckily both myself and Deputy Mayor D’Alessio (Ancona, Italy) are here, and able to share duties to represent local authorities in the parallel sessions today - energy for sustainable development, air pollution/atmosphere, industrial development and climate change.
The focus of the Energy for Sustainable Development session was the use of renewables, energy efficiency, access to energy, and biofuels. Oil-producing countries, not surprisingly, stressed the continuing role of fossil fuels.
In this session, the Major Groups were understandably disgruntled when word came down that the Major Groups would not be recognized to speak. This was a departure from decisions put in place at CSD-11 where it was decided that ‘flags’ (the UN name for the nameplates identifying the nation states, observers and Major Groups) would be selected to speak in the order that they were raised. In the afternoon climate change session, most of the Major Groups already had their ‘flags’ up before the session had even started, so keen were they to enter into the dialogue!
This concern about procedural difficulties hindering the participation of Major Groups was raised to the UN DESA coordinator of Major Groups, and she promised that it would be raised with the Secretariat. But, as with all procedural issues at the UN, process is ‘at the discretion of the Chair’. The days ahead will determine if the complaint was heard and acted upon.
The focus of the Air Pollution/Atmosphere session was on both indoor air pollutants – the need to shift from traditional biomass home cooking fuels to cleaner options, and outdoor air pollutants - particularly CFCs. Not surprisingly, positions fell along standard divisions – those countries producing biofuels in support of greater dependency on this energy source, developing countries in support of cleaner indoor air, and the US urging delegates to not replicate other international agreements, referencing the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances.
During the lunch break, I once again attended the US briefing, this time the focus being ‘Scaling Up and Replicating Energy Solutions’. Represented in the room were other Major Groups, and many US-based NGOs. One of the four presentations on US programs that sparked the most discussion was the presentation on nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a much-discussed topic at the CSD, and it is being pushed by many national delegations. A number of the Major Groups are vehemently opposed to nuclear energy being touted as the solution, and at the NGO strategy session at the end of the day, tactics to voice displeasure with nuclear energy as a viable solution were mapped out. It will be the cover story of the NGO newsletter that comes out tomorrow morning, for instance. ICLEI, as many likely know, does not promote nuclear as a viable energy source.
In the afternoon, Deputy Mayor D’Alessio attended the session on Industrial Development, and I attended the session on Climate Change. Now, for those not familiar with the CSD, let me explain how these ‘sessions’ work - they consist of statements made by delegations. It is not interactive so the Chair does not initiate dialogue; the Chair simply thanks the ‘distinguished delegate’ from that particular nation-state/Major Group for his remarks, and then invites the next ‘distinguished delegate’ to speak. The Chair, to his credit, did ask in this session that the statements made focus on suggested revisions to the Chairman’s Draft Text, and a gold star to Mexico for following these instructions to the letter – they made pointed suggestions to specific paragraphs in the draft text.
Opening this session on Climate Change was the Chair of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Implementation – Ambassador Assadi. In his remarks, he explained the difference between the SBI and the CSD, one being a high-level body discussing issues from a broad political perspective (CSD), while the SBI is a working body of the Convention. The SBI meets next week at the UNFCCC headquarters in Bonn (Germany), and many delegates mentioned that they would be traveling to Bonn next week for those deliberations.
The relationship between the CSD and UNFCCC is important to point out. Many of the comments raised by nation-states pointed out that the UNFCCC is the proper forum for policy discussions specific to climate change, while the CSD can deal with climate change as it relates to sustainable development as a whole.
Procedural anecdotes: I heard a new term, spoken by the ‘distinguished delegate’ from Pakistan, on behalf of the G77 – lldcs. I haven’t had the opportunity to ask CSD veterans what that term means – please send me an email if you can tell me what nation states this term refers to! And during this session, the Russian delegate got to red – meaning his presentation exceeded the three-minute limit. When the Chair tried to point that out to him, he spoke over the Chair, claiming that if he was able to speak directly in Russian, he would have made the time limit – he was speaking slower so that the translator could catch up. The Chair gets credit for attempting to rein in his time, and the translator gets credit for being unfazed at being blamed!
In terms of the discussion, here are some of the points raised:
- Pakistan, on behalf of the G77/China: Urge countries to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. Without effective mitigation, all efforts will be fruitless.
- Germany, on behalf of the EU: Urged the need for a post-2012 agreement.
- The Maldives, on behalf of the Small Island Developing States: Called for financing for adaptation.
- Israel: Mentioned local governments (yes!), in the context that local governments and small-scale energy projects need to have access to the Kyoto Finance Mechanisms.
- Those countries that stressed the governing body to address climate change is the UNFCCC: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan and the US.
In the Industrial Development session, key topics were economic growth for developing countries, the need for more technology transfer, cleaner production, and the consideration of all energy sources. NGOs suggested the adoption of a World Energy Efficiency Day.
In the evening, ICLEI as the coordinator of the Local Authorities Major Group was invited to a meeting over dinner to discuss the future of the CSD, and a potential World Summit on Environmental Security.
The Stakeholder Forum has held discussions with many delegations and the CSD Secretariat on how to make the CSD more effective. In fact, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin summarizing Tuesday, 1 May said the following: “Six former Chairs of CSD are supporting efforts by Stakeholder Forum and others to revisit the question of how best to implement the intergovernmental mandate to integrate environment and development into decision making. The aim is to go beyond ‘harping on lack of follow-up on real and imagined commitments’ made at UN Summits towards a pragmatic discussion on improved institutional arrangements.”
Many around the table feel that the deliberations are not achieving the necessary results. Some of the proposals offered up are to establish an adhoc working group to improve the process, and the Major Groups around the table made other suggestions, such as allowing Major Groups more opportunities to engage in the dialogues, and even suggesting that the Major Groups become the major focus of discussions on a daily basis.
The relevance of a World Summit on Environmental Security stemmed from the recent discussions on environmental security at the UN Security Council, which was not altogether well received from a number of critics. Critics were both developed country and developing countries as to whether this was the proper forum for this discussion, NGOs were concerned as access to any Security Council deliberations at the UN are severely limited, and then the criticism that many nation states as they are excluded from the dialogue when it takes place within the confines of the five-member Security Council. The discussion over dinner brought up concerns over positioning – should this be discussed within the UNFCCC for instance; to language – are we not talking about environmental insecurity? All only ideas and open thoughts at this point - this discussion is to continue over the weekend. If you as ICLEI Members have any strong thoughts on these two issues, please send me an email at tanya.imola@iclei.org, and I’ll try to share your ideas and/or concerns.
Day One: Monday, 30 April
Many of our local authorities delegates were not able to attend our first briefing, a result no doubt of the slow registration process, and difficulties some delegates are having in obtaining visas.
I met up first thing with the engaging Deputy Mayor of Ancona, Italy, Signore Emilio D’Alessio. Deputy Mayor D’Alessio is a member of ICLEI’s Executive Committee, and chair of the Italian Local Agenda 21 caucus. Well versed on the issues and a dynamic speaker, he was an excellent choice to make the statement on behalf of Local Authorities that would take place on the first morning.
CSD-15 was officially opened by its Chair, H.E. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Industry for the State of Qatar. He asked delegates to identify policy options and actions that yield benefits and are cross-cutting on the four thematic issues – solutions that help reduce poverty, improve access to energy, promote industrial development, reduce air pollution and combat climate change.
He said, “Let there be no doubt – the Commission only can succeed in its work when all member States work together in a constructive spirit of partnership.”
His remarks were followed by those of Mr. Jose Antonio Ocampo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs at the UN. He drew everyone’s attention to the fact that this session marks a full 20 years since the publication of “Our Common Future”, a report that fundamentally changed the international approach to development. (The author, Ms. Gro Harlem Brundtland, by the way, will be at CSD during the second week, marking the 20th anniversary of the infamous Brundtland Report.)
Mr. Ocampo hoped that the delegates would celebrate this anniversary by taking concrete policy decisions to spur action – “decisions that move us firmly and much further along the path towards achieving sustainable development goals”.
The major lobbying bodies then had the opportunity to share their goals for CSD-15, and I briefly captured some of their comments:
The G77 and China, represented by Pakistan: Political will is not enough to meet these challenges; action is needed that bridges the ever-growing gap between rich and poor. And a line I particularly liked: “Implementation continues to be the Achilles heel of the sustainable development agenda.”
EU, represented by Germany: Called for an integrated approach on these issues. They recommend time-bound targets to increase energy efficiency, and increase the share of renewable energy – both by the year 2010, along with a review arrangement.
US: Agreements need to turn into action; these agreements should be acknowledged and move forward to implementation. The measure of our success will be whether our collective efforts relate to concrete actions.
Africa Group, represented by Sudan: Emphasized the inter-linkages between the four thematic clusters. Called upon financial and technical support, and technological development for Africa.
Caribbean Community, represented by Antigua and Barbuda: Will be disproportionately effected by climate change so action is urged. Caribbean states are focusing on resiliency and responding to disasters, which is taking time, energy and resources away from other national development priorities.
Switzerland: CSD has not lived up to hopes and expectations out of Rio. This session of CSD has to make a difference.
The nine Major Groups then had the opportunity to give their three-minute statement. The format was three statements read, followed by 10 minutes of dialogue, broken into three blocks. The nine Major Groups are: Business and Industry, Farmers, Indigeous Peoples, Local Authorities, NGOs, Scientific Community, Women, Workers and Trade Unions, and Youth and Children.
Emilio D’Alessio [pictured below], Deputy Mayor of Ancona (Italy) and a member of ICLEI’s Executive Committee spoke on behalf of Local Authorities. In his three-minute presentation, he touched upon the strides being made at the local level, spoke of the policies that need to be adopted at the national level to combat climate change, and urged national states to be leaders and take action. A copy of the statement can be found here.
And one can listen to Deputy Mayor D'Alessio LIVE on UN webcasts! It can be found at href="">www.un.org/webcast/csd15/csd15-a.htm. See why Deputy Mayor D'Alessio was such an excellent choice to speak on behalf of local authorities...
Many countries responded to the statements, so both the CSD Secretariat and the Major Groups were pleased with the level of engagement. I was informed that at the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting held just this past May, there was no feedback from any of the delegates to the statements made by the Major Groups; in fact the session ended early. Both the Secretariat and the Major Groups were eager to avoid that scenario.
During the lunch break, I attended the briefing given by the US delegation on their aspirations at CSD. The US delegation is familiar with ICLEI and its work, and during the session often mentioned the need for others to collaborate with ICLEI. In their remarks during the opening of CSD-15, the US spoke of the need for implementation, which resonated well with the Major Group delegates who attended the US briefing. The days ahead will determine if the US can galvanize other delegations to push for concrete actions in the final text.
In the afternoon, discussions took on a regional focus, where the Chairman’s draft negotiating document was reviewed from regional perspectives.
If one is eager to follow the deliberations through official daily reports, I recommend ‘Outreach Issues’ and the ‘Earth Negotiations Bulletin’. This year, the two NGO newspapers that are prepared and disseminated at CSD have been combined into one. Called ‘Outreach Issues’, it is a daily synopsis of deliberations at COP, prepared by the Stakeholder Forum and the Sustainable Development Issues Network. It touches upon the discussions and progress being made from an NGO perspective, openly analyzing and sometimes critiquing the process. It is a must-read for all delegates at CSD-15, and I will at times share with you some of its features. (I will inquire if it is available online). And the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is a detailed account of all the major sessions at CSD, from a non-partisan point of view. To access that publication, please link to www.iisd.ca/csd/csding15/
I spent a lovely evening walking the streets of New York with Jan-Gustav Strandenaes of the Sustainable Development Issues Network. A veteran of many CSDs and an expert on international UN processes, he has increased my understanding – and respect – for the UN system immeasurably, and has been patient with my many questions on how local authorities can have an impact.
I met up first thing with the engaging Deputy Mayor of Ancona, Italy, Signore Emilio D’Alessio. Deputy Mayor D’Alessio is a member of ICLEI’s Executive Committee, and chair of the Italian Local Agenda 21 caucus. Well versed on the issues and a dynamic speaker, he was an excellent choice to make the statement on behalf of Local Authorities that would take place on the first morning.
CSD-15 was officially opened by its Chair, H.E. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Industry for the State of Qatar. He asked delegates to identify policy options and actions that yield benefits and are cross-cutting on the four thematic issues – solutions that help reduce poverty, improve access to energy, promote industrial development, reduce air pollution and combat climate change.
He said, “Let there be no doubt – the Commission only can succeed in its work when all member States work together in a constructive spirit of partnership.”
His remarks were followed by those of Mr. Jose Antonio Ocampo, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs at the UN. He drew everyone’s attention to the fact that this session marks a full 20 years since the publication of “Our Common Future”, a report that fundamentally changed the international approach to development. (The author, Ms. Gro Harlem Brundtland, by the way, will be at CSD during the second week, marking the 20th anniversary of the infamous Brundtland Report.)
Mr. Ocampo hoped that the delegates would celebrate this anniversary by taking concrete policy decisions to spur action – “decisions that move us firmly and much further along the path towards achieving sustainable development goals”.
The major lobbying bodies then had the opportunity to share their goals for CSD-15, and I briefly captured some of their comments:
The G77 and China, represented by Pakistan: Political will is not enough to meet these challenges; action is needed that bridges the ever-growing gap between rich and poor. And a line I particularly liked: “Implementation continues to be the Achilles heel of the sustainable development agenda.”
EU, represented by Germany: Called for an integrated approach on these issues. They recommend time-bound targets to increase energy efficiency, and increase the share of renewable energy – both by the year 2010, along with a review arrangement.
US: Agreements need to turn into action; these agreements should be acknowledged and move forward to implementation. The measure of our success will be whether our collective efforts relate to concrete actions.
Africa Group, represented by Sudan: Emphasized the inter-linkages between the four thematic clusters. Called upon financial and technical support, and technological development for Africa.
Caribbean Community, represented by Antigua and Barbuda: Will be disproportionately effected by climate change so action is urged. Caribbean states are focusing on resiliency and responding to disasters, which is taking time, energy and resources away from other national development priorities.
Switzerland: CSD has not lived up to hopes and expectations out of Rio. This session of CSD has to make a difference.
The nine Major Groups then had the opportunity to give their three-minute statement. The format was three statements read, followed by 10 minutes of dialogue, broken into three blocks. The nine Major Groups are: Business and Industry, Farmers, Indigeous Peoples, Local Authorities, NGOs, Scientific Community, Women, Workers and Trade Unions, and Youth and Children.
Emilio D’Alessio [pictured below], Deputy Mayor of Ancona (Italy) and a member of ICLEI’s Executive Committee spoke on behalf of Local Authorities. In his three-minute presentation, he touched upon the strides being made at the local level, spoke of the policies that need to be adopted at the national level to combat climate change, and urged national states to be leaders and take action. A copy of the statement can be found here.
And one can listen to Deputy Mayor D'Alessio LIVE on UN webcasts! It can be found at href="">www.un.org/webcast/csd15/csd15-a.htm. See why Deputy Mayor D'Alessio was such an excellent choice to speak on behalf of local authorities...
Many countries responded to the statements, so both the CSD Secretariat and the Major Groups were pleased with the level of engagement. I was informed that at the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting held just this past May, there was no feedback from any of the delegates to the statements made by the Major Groups; in fact the session ended early. Both the Secretariat and the Major Groups were eager to avoid that scenario.
During the lunch break, I attended the briefing given by the US delegation on their aspirations at CSD. The US delegation is familiar with ICLEI and its work, and during the session often mentioned the need for others to collaborate with ICLEI. In their remarks during the opening of CSD-15, the US spoke of the need for implementation, which resonated well with the Major Group delegates who attended the US briefing. The days ahead will determine if the US can galvanize other delegations to push for concrete actions in the final text.
In the afternoon, discussions took on a regional focus, where the Chairman’s draft negotiating document was reviewed from regional perspectives.
If one is eager to follow the deliberations through official daily reports, I recommend ‘Outreach Issues’ and the ‘Earth Negotiations Bulletin’. This year, the two NGO newspapers that are prepared and disseminated at CSD have been combined into one. Called ‘Outreach Issues’, it is a daily synopsis of deliberations at COP, prepared by the Stakeholder Forum and the Sustainable Development Issues Network. It touches upon the discussions and progress being made from an NGO perspective, openly analyzing and sometimes critiquing the process. It is a must-read for all delegates at CSD-15, and I will at times share with you some of its features. (I will inquire if it is available online). And the Earth Negotiations Bulletin is a detailed account of all the major sessions at CSD, from a non-partisan point of view. To access that publication, please link to www.iisd.ca/csd/csding15/
I spent a lovely evening walking the streets of New York with Jan-Gustav Strandenaes of the Sustainable Development Issues Network. A veteran of many CSDs and an expert on international UN processes, he has increased my understanding – and respect – for the UN system immeasurably, and has been patient with my many questions on how local authorities can have an impact.
Arrival: 29 April 2007
ICLEI once again is here in New York partaking in the 15th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development – advocating for action at the policy level, demonstrating the feasibility of timetables and targets, and managing the delegation of local government leaders from around the world here to convey that message.
I took advantage of an early arrival in New York to pre-register on that day, Sunday. Note to file – encourage ALL participants to register the day before any major UN conference! I shaved off 2 ½ hours from my registration time compared to the year before when I attended CSD-14.
Sunday afternoon a meeting took place between the Chair of the Commission and the coordinators of the Major Groups – ICLEI being detained from the beginning of the meeting due to having to wait for the UN dogs to come to that particular building to sniff my bag…
When I joined, the Vice Chair of CSD was addressing the group, Mr. Alain Edouard Traore. He committed to being as inclusionary as possible during his tenure as Chair, and shared that as a representative of a poor country in West Africa, he was particularly interested and supportive of the positions taken by Major Groups. Given the lack of opportunities afforded local governments during the IPM held in February, his commitment to transparency and accessibility was well received.
The Vice Chair expressed his appreciation for the ongoing work of the Major Groups, and pointed out that 1,200 Major Group delegates have registered for CSD.
He then reviewed the specific opportunities for Major Group engagement; notably the formal interventions on Monday, 30 April and Friday,11 May; the High-Level Dialogue with Ministers on 10 May, and the two High-Level Ministerial Roundtables on 9 May. ICLEI will be taking advantage of all these opportunities in the days ahead, and ensuring that local government representation is at all these opportunities. As well, it was clarified that all sessions are open for interventions from the Major Groups, except for the high-level ministerial discussions that take place during the second week.
The evening was then spent enjoying the lovely spring late afternoon, settling into the hotel (pictured below), and preparing the three-minute statement made by Local Authorities.
I took advantage of an early arrival in New York to pre-register on that day, Sunday. Note to file – encourage ALL participants to register the day before any major UN conference! I shaved off 2 ½ hours from my registration time compared to the year before when I attended CSD-14.
Sunday afternoon a meeting took place between the Chair of the Commission and the coordinators of the Major Groups – ICLEI being detained from the beginning of the meeting due to having to wait for the UN dogs to come to that particular building to sniff my bag…
When I joined, the Vice Chair of CSD was addressing the group, Mr. Alain Edouard Traore. He committed to being as inclusionary as possible during his tenure as Chair, and shared that as a representative of a poor country in West Africa, he was particularly interested and supportive of the positions taken by Major Groups. Given the lack of opportunities afforded local governments during the IPM held in February, his commitment to transparency and accessibility was well received.
The Vice Chair expressed his appreciation for the ongoing work of the Major Groups, and pointed out that 1,200 Major Group delegates have registered for CSD.
He then reviewed the specific opportunities for Major Group engagement; notably the formal interventions on Monday, 30 April and Friday,11 May; the High-Level Dialogue with Ministers on 10 May, and the two High-Level Ministerial Roundtables on 9 May. ICLEI will be taking advantage of all these opportunities in the days ahead, and ensuring that local government representation is at all these opportunities. As well, it was clarified that all sessions are open for interventions from the Major Groups, except for the high-level ministerial discussions that take place during the second week.
The evening was then spent enjoying the lovely spring late afternoon, settling into the hotel (pictured below), and preparing the three-minute statement made by Local Authorities.
