The UN, New York, April 27, 2005

The Thirteenth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development was held in the UN basement April 11-22, 2005, but the final document, to be presented in July 2005 before UN/ECOSOC (the Economic and Social Council) was adopted, after an excruciating Friday night, at 12:30 am on April 23, 2005, thus fulfilling what IISD defined as “Murphy’s Law of Diplomacy” - “Negotiations will extend until all available time is consumed. and at least one delegate misses a flight”. From ECOSOC the document will then move to the UN General Assembly in September 2005 - to be crowned as “POLICY OPTIONS, PRACTICAL MEASURES AIMED AT SPEEDING IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER, SANITATION, HUMAN SETTLEMENT GOALS” as part of the goals set by the Millennium Declaration of 2000 and the Millennium Development Goals set by the UN Secretary General’s Road Map for Implementation of 2001, and then inserted in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)of 2002. We are talking here mainly of MDG 7 - Ensure Environmental Sustainability.

CSD 13 is very well summarized by Kimo and his excellent academic team of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin of IISD (www.iisd.ca/csd/csd13), whose bulletin is read religiously every day during the event, and his summary is then kept for posterity. Also, this time, we have a good official UN Press Release - ENV/DEV/848 (dated 22/04/2005 even though it obviously came out days later). We will not attempt to go over the whole procedure, but will address only the special flavor of the activities surrounding the event, that as always, was produced as a multi-stage circus that included a large variety of side events - a learning center; a multi-stakeholders fair; a ministerial high-level segment; and NGO organized activities - at the UN and outside the UN. We will nevertheless put on the web, in the future, specific country presentations, or other presentations, that though not exactly addressing the text as in the final document, have addressed points that are relevant to the ideas that brought about the creation of the CSD, and will, in our opinion, become more important as time goes on.

At CSD 11, in 2003, it was decided that during the years 2004-2017 the CSD should organize its work in two-years cycles - each comprising a review year and an “implementation policy planning year” with the clear intent to have a resultant document that is a map of policy planing for implementation. Cross cutting issues to be included are: poverty eradication; unsustainable patterns of consumption and production; the natural resource base of economic and social development; globalization; health; small island developing states (SIDS); Africa; other regional initiatives; means of implementation; institutional framework; gender equality; and education.

The first cycle 2004-2005 was water; sanitation; housing; and the cross cutting issues as above.

The second cycle 2005-2006 will be on: energy for sustainable development; industrial development; air pollution/atmosphere; climate change; and the cross cutting issues as above. The Bureau for CSD-14 was elected on Saturday, April 23, 2005 and is just for one year. Next year there will be another election for the Bureau of the second year of this second cycle. Needless to say that this cycle is most important to sustainable development as it is the “energy” cycle, and the two new Bureaus are thus of major interest to our subject. About this later on.

My first topic is a telling anecdote. For me the event started already on Thursday February 24, 2005. This was before the CSD-13 IPM (the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting) Monday February 28 - Friday March 4, 2005 (for information about the IPM see www.iisd.ca/csd/csdprep).

I received an e-mail invitation to the US Mission to the UN for “A Program in Recognition of African American Heritage Month” with James Mc.Bride, “Author of the New York Times Bestseller, “THE COLOR OF WATER”. This book has sold by now 2-3 million copies, it is must reading in many US colleges, and is probably the best thing that came along for race relations in the US, and for simple human relations anywhere. The fact that this celebration at the US mission, close to a meeting that dealt with physical water, was clearly a plain coincidence, but when I came to the above mentioned reception, I saw immediately, right there in front row, next to the chair of Ambassador Patrick F. Kennedy, the US Representative for United Nations Management and Reform, the obvious host, four chairs marked Tajikistan, with the one closest to Ambassador Kennedy marked Ambassador. I inquired about this, and was told they called in and said they were coming - but those chairs remained empty. All I can say is that my guess is that they thought, from the name, that this had to do with the CSD session on water and sanitation, and when they realized their mistake they did not show up. Tajikistan is a country very involved in water subjects and they hosted an important conference on water earlier this year. I write about this because I think they and many others should have shown up and learned a paragraph or two about veritable sustainable development.

“The Color of Water” is Mr. Mcbride’s autobiography. He is the son of a white Jewish woman born on April 1, 1921 in Poland as the daughter of an Orthodox rabbi who escaped from Russian army, snuck over the Polish border where he married a good hearted crippled woman in an arranged marriage. They arrived to these shores in a steamer, August 23, 1923 and eventually her father found his place in Suffolk, Virginia, where he was an all-around rabbi - that is performed all the functions the small community needed - organized and chaired the services, killed the cows and chicken for kosher meat, was cantor on holy days, taught Hebrew, and gave Bible and cantoring lessons to children, performed circumcisions, and opened a store where he could supply his congregants but most of his clientele were black people in the heavily segregated US south. Rachel/Ruchel from childhood was helping out in the store and was used to black people. Eventually, in 1941 she left her family, and Virginia, for New York City and married a black man with whom she had nine children. When he died, another good black man took over the family. With her second husband she had four more children - and all 13 children are not just college graduates - all except the youngest, who has only graduated college, are graduate school graduates - two medical doctors, two university professors, two medical professionals, two teachers, two office managers, one computer engineer, and one journalist/musician. Further, with her second husband Hunter L. Jordan, Sr., Rachel founded the New Brown Memorial Baptist Church. When all was done, when this woman that knew poverty and low life started to enjoy trips abroad and a better life that her children made possible for her, she, who stirred 13 people to a decent life, went back to college to complete her own interrupted studies. The McBride/Jordan family, during the years, knew hard times, even hunger, but it was their seriousness of intent that got them help from various foundations, and very important - learning and home-work were the law that Rachel and her husbands commanded most strictly.

I say that this book should also be given as obligatory reading to all those that busy themselves with meetings the like of CSD-13. Perhaps it could lead them to thoughts of how to better the lives of those that are dependent on their deeds - and specially - to stop posturing and make self defeating statements that bring them only enmity and no real help for those that could be helped otherwise.

The UN, according to the Human Development Report - 2004, talks of 137 “Developing Countries” - “countries or areas” ( the word “areas” in order to accommodate the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” that are the only ones on the list the UN considers as a non-Sovereign-State). These 137 entities are assumed to be the members of the G-77, one of the major blocks in UN negotiations. Actually, three Small-Island-States Nauru, Palau and Tonga have left the G-77 at the Buenos Aires meeting of the Framework Convention on Climate Change as they felt the G-77 leadership does not represent their interests.

The CSD purports to organize for Sustainable Development of the Developing Countries with help from the 30 countries or areas defined by the OECD which includes the countries of the European Union and the “Other States” - that is US, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan. Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is a third, but slowly disappearing block in UN alignment. Further, there is talk of the participation in development on the part of the developing countries’ governments and on South-South Cooperation.

Having noted the above, it is interesting that the CSD-13 Chairman, Ambassador Ashe of Antigua and Barbuda, stressed, in all the versions of his proposal on Draft Negotiating Text: “Recognizing the special needs of Africa; LDCs (Least Developed Countries); LLDCs (Land Locked Developing Countries); and SIDS (Small Island Developing States)”. Assuming that he really means SSA (Sub-Sahara Africa) when he says Africa, I proceeded to look what is left out in the G-77 list after subtracting the lists of these most needy of help. The mentioned countries amount to about 100. Taking out further 5 North African States and 15 States of the Group of Rio, Turkey which appears also in the OECD column, Hong Kong which is in effect part of China, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam among the richest GNP per capita, and Sri Lanka, Lebanon, and Vietnam who hardly participate at the deliberations of the CSD - we are left with some large states - China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, that could master with technical help to improve the lot of their citizens and also help other states, and further six rich oil exporters from the Gulf region. It is these remaining countries that govern the G-77 and being less dependent on positive results than the first one hundred countries, can allow themselves to play games of political posturing whose victims are indeed the people of those first one hundred. This is in a nut-shell the state of the negotiations as evidenced by what went on in the UN basement on the night between April 22-23, 2005.

The Environment News Service, reported April 26, correctly, that - four days after CSD-13 closed in New York, participants express a sense of frustration and concern that all the international discussions held since the 2002 Johannesburg Summit “might amount to very little progress”. According to this report, even Olav Kjorven, head of Energy and Environment Division of the UNDP has his misgivings. IUCN director-general, Ahim Steiner expressed concern that “progress towards solving problems of water, sanitation, and housing are too slow”. Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, Mr. Carlos Rodriguez said “Most of the people who negotiate these agreements in New York are not those who manage the environment or natural resources. They do not realize the economic cost of not taking decisions”. I would add to this that except for Chair Ashe, who tried to navigate in between positions, the leaders from the South did not seem to care enough about the subject matter, and this brings us to the saddest general observation that civil society, rather than governments, must solve the problems of lack of access to clean water, sanitation and housing, for at least one in every six people on Earth.

Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, former head of the Soviet Union, and founder of the Green Cross International, an NGO, said at several CSD related meetings that an internationally legal binding instrument is needed in order to guarantee the right to water and a mechanism for implementation. He made it clear that he does not believe in the capitalistic approach to handle drinking water. Many more speakers were ready to consider a rights-approach when dealing with clean drinking water.

In effect, strangely, the final document is not even all bad, and it could be solid basis for following up with the implementation work by partnerships that were established for this purpose. Sadly, the document was not even considered on that infamous final day; it was three paragraph that were inserted by the Arab oil states that carried the night. One statement was about “eliminating illegal settlements emerged from foreign occupation”, another about “rights of peoples under colonial and foreign occupation”, and the third about “combating” such colonial and foreign occupation. It was obvious to everyone that these were “Palestine-statements”. Had they said that they wish every Palestinian house be equipped like the settler’s houses with running water and sanitation - I could say they had a point - but shooting the feet of every poor person in the world in order to pursue policies that deflect the attention from the condition of the poor people in their own countries - is a disservice to humanity, and clearly misuse of the UN podium. Eventually, the first statement was taken out and the other two left. Beaten up and tired, the sleepy delegates did not object to this “compromise”. It is only to the credit of Australia and Canada, who announced they can not go along with the consensus that some human dignity was preserved. The US, seemingly in disgust, did not find it important anymore to make any protest after the chair suggested this “compromise” of the G-77 leadership. The US negotiator, Jonathan Margolis of the Department of State, had previously announced that the US can not accept those three sentences. He also tried to point out that this session was a clear improvement on previous CSD sessions, and the fact that the US has nearly doubled its funds earmarked for foreign aid (ODA) - from $10 billion to $19 billion, but he also remarked that the US will cooperate only with countries that show good governance. Further, I attest that he told me that he wants to see more partnerships proposed and he will try to help in all cases that they really make sense. Luxembourg, on behalf of the European jellyfish, came up with an explanation that they joined consensus, but did not consider it a precedent. A pity, because otherwise the EU does attempt to do good work.

An interesting further anecdote is what the Ambassador of one of the SIDS told me at the end of the meeting. He was happy about the brouhaha because it took away the attention of the oil countries from the reference to “climate variability and change on water resources” including a series of steps to be taken. Also, “sustainable development” was mentioned in several places including in reference to the SIDS - this as opposed to the usual preferred reference to “development” by the G-77 leadership.

I also included in my title “Waiting for Bolton” - this because I felt that the 10pm statement by the US chief negotiator was the kind of statement Mr. Bolton would have suggested. The fact that Mr. Margolis achieved only the removal of one of the three sentences means that at this stage there is still the idea that the US will accept a poisoned pill because it will go its own way when it comes to implementation. A Mr. Bolton presence at the UN may actually help reform the institution by helping the Secretary General to disband the anachronistic G-77 and stir countries to speak up their real concerns, rather then hide behind a block that does them only harm. I could have seen a US siding with Canada and Australia and refuse to accept the consensus unless the poisoned statements are removed. I bet that eventually the governments that want to do something for their people would have come around - with or without that document.

Having said this, I do not expect Mr. Bolton to be to my liking when it comes to energy. Without a drastic reform of the thinking in Washington, no US representative is expected to come around on this topic. But, regarding the composition of the Bureau for CSD-14, that was accepted also on Saturday morning, April 23, 2005, he could not made it any worse.

The Commission adopted by acclamation the following bureau for the first year of the energy cycle: Mr. Aleksei Aleksisvili, Minister of Economic Development of Georgia as the new Chairman. The Vice-Chairs are - Mr. Javad Mansour from Iran (representing the Asian group), Mr. Adrian Alfredo Fernandez Bremauntz from Mexico (representing the Latin American/Caribbean group), Mr. Yvo de Boer from the Netherlands (representing the European and others), and eventually there will be an African, but as usual there is no clear vision of Africa’s real interest in the subject.

As per what is known at this time - there is a majority on this Bureau for the oil industry. Georgia (because of pipe-line interests), Mexico and Iran are clear oil states. Interesting, the Mexican representative was introduced as President of the National Institute of Ecology. That Netherlands is the home of the Schell Oil Corporation, this does not bother me, as that is today the most advanced oil company when it comes to understanding future energy needs. Interesting to see if the African representative will be from the west or the north, which are oil regions, or from the center or the east or south were the lack of oil has led to the introduction of alternative energy systems. Iran is a specially interesting case - obviously oil, but claiming it develops nuclear energy for the time oil runs out. I once observed in the presence of the Iranian Ambassador to the UN that Iran could develop alternatives and not rely on the controversial nuclear plants, he said that Iran is interested also in the renewables.