Welcome to SDIN Forums Login | Register | Faq  

SDIN Forums   Sustainable Development Issues Network Search     Photos Forums Home

Search

08-03-2007, 5:47 PM Dagmar Joined on 06-11-2007 Posts 4 STOCKHOLM FOLLOW-UP: Comments on the RECOMMENDATIONS PAPER NOTE: To post your comments, please press the *REPLY* button, on the right of this message. This recommendations paper aims to provide general input for the Marrakech Process Steering Committee, which is currently drafting a new paper to follow-up on Background Paper 1 (BP 1) that was prepared for the conference, and which should be ready sometime in September 2007. We are seeking your input to strengthen the more detailed NGO recommendations and ideas contained in this paper for the Marrakech Process. This recommendations paper is complementary to the 2-page position paper that was distributed at Stockholm. In order for the Marrakech Process Steering Committee to receive these documents in time to take them into account in the redrafting of BP 1, here is the timeline we would like to follow: - August 15: Deadline for comments and suggested amendments to the three papers; - August 17 or 18: Delivery of the three papers to the Steering Committee. If you are new to this forum, please give a short description of who you are, your organization and what country you are from, and your interest in the Marrakech Process and sustainable production and consumption. You can "introduce yourself" at http://sdissues.net/CS/forums/53/ShowForum.aspx. Thanks!    Report

08-14-2007, 1:22 PM Gail Karlsson Joined on 01-10-2007 Posts 3 Re: STOCKHOLM FOLLOW-UP: Comments on the RECOMMENDATIONS PAPER I am directing most of my comments to the Key Recommendations paper because it is the one that most directly addresses questions about how NGOs can best use the Marrakech process as a basis and platform for advocacy and substantive initiatives. Clearly, no one process is going to achieve the kinds of fundamental changes in public values, visions, and economic and political structures contemplated in the Context paper. It is a huge undertaking. So what can be gained by working within this particular UN process? UN activities and meetings give NGOs opportunities to meet with representatives from governments, businesses and international agencies in order to promote sustainable development policies and present specific initiatives or recommendations for action. Sometimes they are even listened to, and are able to magnify their influence by gaining support from interested governments and other participating organizations. My impression from the Stockholm meeting was that there are, in fact, governments, businesses and organizations willing to collaborate with NGOs to promote a shift to more sustainable production and consumption patterns, and that the UN system could help provide valuable opportunities for that sort of collaboration. However, the whole discussion about a ‘framework of programmes’ and a 10-year time period starting sometime in the future seems very vague and difficult to work with. It is not designed to draw people in, and does not make it seem like something is going to happen any time soon. It might be better strategically to ask the Marrakech Process Steering Committee to focus more on the language about “support for regional and national initiatives” and ask how the UN agencies and the Task Forces can help facilitate collaborations among stakeholders to undertake SCP-related initiatives right now. So, in terms of drafting – I think the first recommendation, which talks about identifying and clarifying the specific programmes to be included in the UN 10-Year Framework, is too weak and should be rephrased to put more emphasis on what the Marrakech Process can do to support regional and national SCP initiatives right away. One of the statements in the Comments on the Background Paper is that “NGOs want to work with the Marrakech process in their own countries and regions to raise the profile of SCP …” That is something that can begin immediately, and does not require waiting until CSD 18, or another 10 years after that. The UN system can play an important facilitating role. But not by just coming up with a new list of possible options governments might want to take and presenting that to the CSD. As has been pointed out, there are plenty of recommendations and commitments already in Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Action, and other agreements. What we need is progress on implementing them. I think the number 1 recommendation in the NGO paper should be much stronger in suggesting what the Marrakech Process needs to do to fulfill its mandate. There is no reason for NGOs to accept an administrative determination that the focus of the Marrakech Process should be on compiling a framework document listing possible actions that could be taken far in the future – a document that government representatives at the CSD may or may not even discuss. If substantive work is done over the next few years to facilitate and support SCP initiatives, then that could be presented to the CSD in the form of examples and inspirational ideas. Participants in the Marrakesh Process could then show what they have accomplished, and use that as a basis for making recommendations for ongoing initiatives over the following 10 years. If the NGO’s Summary page starts with a strong recommendation that the Steering Committee should focus on the mandate to support regional and national initiatives and facilitate actions to shift towards sustainable production and consumption, then the rest of the recommendations make more sense as specific steps that could be taken to move that work forward. Otherwise the Marrakech Process just seems like a very bureaucratic business, and not one likely to attract participants who are eager for results in response to the urgent need for substantial and rapid change.    Report

08-15-2007, 6:34 PM Emmanuel_Prinet_OEI Joined on 08-14-2007 Posts 3 Re: STOCKHOLM FOLLOW-UP: Comments on the RECOMMENDATIONS PAPER Hi Gail, Those are extremely useful comments, and I very much agree with what you say.  Asking the Steering Committee to talk more about "support for regional and national initiatives" is probably a great idea because, as you say, that's what the Marrarkech Process is supposed to be about, and there's confusion about what a "framework of programmes" really means and what it would look like. I'll reword the first recommendation along those lines tomorrow (Thursday, Aug. 16). Regarding your point "There is no reason for NGOs to accept an adminstrative determination that the focus on the Marrakech Process should be on compiling a framework document listing possible actions that could be taken far in the future", are you suggesting that the "Framework of Programmes" is supposed to be a compilation of policies that countries could implement?  I think it has more to do with "support of regional and national initiatives" which, in other words, aims to answer the question: "What kind of support do you, countries and regions, need to help you implement SCP patterns?"  Policy may certainly be one form of support, but I would argue there is plenty to work from already with Agenda 21 and the JPOI, and a myriad of other resources.  Above and beyond policy support, I could see countries asking for, to use Jeffrey Barber's examples, technical support, research, financial support, a database of initiatives and of good practices [which is an example you mention in the second-to-last paragraph], monitoring and evaluation, etc.  So this then begs the following question: "Who would provide this support?"  In this regard, countries and regions may need support from various UN agencies such UNEP, UN DESA, UNDP, as well as from the World Bank, industry groups, NGOs, etc.  So, yes, this process does appear (and most likely is) very bureaucratic, so I think where NGOs could be particularly helpful with respect to the Steering Committee is if they think through the various types of support countries and other actors (such as NGOs!) may need in order to speed up the transition towards SCP patterns in their country. Kind regards, Emmanuel Prinet, One Earth Initiative    Report

08-16-2007, 1:23 AM Sylvia Joined on 08-06-2007 Posts 7 Re: STOCKHOLM FOLLOW-UP: Comments on the RECOMMENDATIONS PAPER So far the paper misses to say the obvious: The emperor is naked! Who else if not is in the position to say this aloud? I agree with Gail and like to add: We also have to highlight that the 2021 perspective is not acceptable. The Marrakech Process is build to prepare the floor for the CSD cycle to come in 2010/11. Thus it should provide a strong cornerstone; it should create visions and so forth. Instead the background paper falls back behind the requirements formulated in other UN bodies already, e.g. from the IPCC. We can assume, at Rio +20 the recommendations will be downsized anyway. But avoiding all potential conflicts and clear words right now already - hoping to reflect the potential compromise - means giving up any chance to reach sustainable consumption and production in due time. We know change has to be made by 2015. To have the Marrakech document talking about 2010 sounds like a cynical joke. Another aspect we have to uncover as naked is the extremely weak language. There is now substance in suggesting to governments they “may wish” to think about “voluntary targets”. Instead the task should be to ask the governments to govern. Furthermore, the targets should be set in relation to the environmental (and social) situation. To reduce the impact on the environment and make the living situation for people more livable is the overarching objective of SCP. Thus also the targets have to relate to this final purpose. They can easily be taken e.g. from the IPCC recommendations of the Millennium goals etc. The policies and “targets” listed so far are little steps into this direction and thus instruments to reach the objectives. The background paper has to make explicit how (much) these instruments will contribute to the achievement of the objective. This hopefully can avoid that another decade is wasted with constantly recommending picking the low-hanging fruits. The meaningful measures have to be promoted now. To give an idea where to look for some more substance: among others the European Environmental Agency e.g. has started to make us aware what makes a difference and what is peanut.    Report

SDIN Forums » All Stakeholder... » Marrakech Proce... » Re: STOCKHOLM FOLLOW-UP: Comments on the RECOMMENDATIONS PAPER

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Create a New Account |- Forgot Password CSD 16/17 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Africa |- NGO background paper for CSD 16 |- Agriculture |- Rural Development |- Land |- Desertification |- Drought |- Africa All Stakeholders |- Introduce yourself! |- Marrakech Process |- Evaluating CSD-15 |- NGO views and comments on CSD-13 |- Evaluating CSD-14 |- Sustainable Production and Consumption |- The function and future of SDIN |- The function and future of CSD |- Sustainability and the MDGs |- Fresh Water Policy CSD 15 - Energy, air, climate & industry |- A New Paradigm: NGO Policy Statement |- Defining "sustainable energy" |- Shifting energy subsidies |- Nuclear power |- Clean coal |- Biofuels |- Countries on the right track |- Improving the CSD-15 process |- Cooperation among Major Groups NGO & Major Group Caucuses |- SPAC Caucus Forum |- Sustainable Communities Caucus |- Fresh Water Caucus |- Peace Caucus Cross-cutting issues |- NGO participation at CSD |- Improving the CSD process