The UN Commission on Sustainable Development

1. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development Contesting Claims of (Il)-legitimacy and (In)-effectiveness Södertörn University College 25 September 2008 Sylvia Karlsson sylvia.karlsson@tse.fi Finland Futures Research Centre Turku School of Economics Finland

2. Outline • Introducing the CSD • Locating CSD among global norms and institutions • Effectiveness and legitimacy as analytical criteria • CSD post Rio • CSD post Johannesburg • CSD 14/15 • Conclusion and the future of CSD?

3. Introducing the CSD The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) Created by General Assembly in 1992 at the request of UNCED (the Earth Summit in Rio) after heavy opposition from e.g. UK, US, Sweden Set up as a functional Commission of ECOSOC with 53 Member States and rotating membership Meets two weeks every year (in New York in April-May)

4. Introducing the CSD • Functions include: • monitor progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and activities related to integrating environment and development goals throughout the UN system • review progress in the implementation of the commitments of Agenda 21 including provision of financial resources and technology • receive and analyze relevant input from competent NGOs, including scientists and the private sector • provide appropriate recommendations to ECOSOC and GA on e.g. the need for new cooperative arrange- ments related to sustainable development (sd)

5. Norms and institutions Norms are developed in different types of institutions and come in various shapes and forms along the soft-hard continuum The CSD can be called a: • a semi-universal institution (but in reality universal) bringing the baggage of ECOSOC weakness and General Assembly 2nd committee style negotiations • which generates an outcome in the form of non-legal soft law (and later some other diffuse stuff)

6. Analytical criteria I: Mechanisms of norm effectiveness Influencing the motivation to comply Mechanism changing material incentives (rationalism, logic of consequences, actor interests not assumed to change) hard sanctions (-) soft sanctions (?) systems of reward (-) changing identities or preferences (constructivism, logic of appropriateness, actor interests are assumed to be changeable) webs of dialogue (++) legitimacy pull (+?) Influencing the ability to comply capacity of intervention technical and human capacity building (-) political capacity building (?)

7. Analytical criteria II: Components of legitimacy Source of legitimacy Components Source based legitimacy expertise (+-?) tradition (+-) discourse (+-) host organization (+) Input legitimacy (process based) governmental participation (+) non-governmental participation (+) transparency (+) accountability (-) Output legitimacy (substance based) effectiveness (+-) equity (?)

8. CSD post Rio (1993-2001) • Major achievements: • Recommended a legally binding status for PIC (1994) • Established an Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (1997) which led to the UN Forum on Forests (2000) • Set a date for governments to produce their NSDSs • Put three new themes on the sd agenda; energy, transport and tourism (1997) • Institutionalised multistakeholder dialogues (1998) • Included sd in the UN Consumer Guidelines (1999) • Supported the Washington Declaration on the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based Activities (1999) • Elicits (some) reporting from countries and IGOs • Encourages system-wide coordination (first years)

9. CSD post Rio (1993-2001) • Reported problems: • Overburdened agenda, lack of prioritising • Limited funding for secretariat etc. • ”Development plays second fiddle” • Limited or no use of submitted reports (which are too general anyway) • ”When one is living in a glass house one does not throw stones” • No links to the follow-up of other conferences • Symbolic multistakeholder dialogues (no real listening) • Weak involvement of IFIs and weak monitoring of financial and tech transfer committments

10. CSD post Rio

11. CSD post Johannesburg (2003-2017) In Johannesburg in 2002 format changed, now two year cycles on specific themes; Review Year followed by a Policy Year Regional dimension strengthened More major group dialouges New elements in partnership fair, sharing and learning centre Two and a half cycles have run so far. Mixed outcome.

12. CSD 14/15 Themes: energy for sustainable development industrial development atmosphere/air pollution climate change Cross-cutting themes (same every year): poverty eradication, changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, health, SIDS, Africa, institutional framework, gender equality, education and more...

13. CSD 14/15 • A day at the CSD: • Morning briefing by delegation (or your major group) • Picking up the daily programme, ENB etc. • 10-13 Statements, dialogues or negotiations (or partnership fair, learning center, partnership presentations) • 15 minutes for lunch • 13.15-14.45 Side-events (or networking, interviewing or lobbying) • 15-18 (same as before lunch) • 18.15-19.45 Side-events • Dinner (if you are lucky)

14. CSD 14/15

15. Conclusions effectiveness Very mixed picture on effectiveness: • effective in giving some new issues an institutional space and the beginning of a normative framework • partially effective in strengthening sd in the UN System and strengthening inter-agency coordination • largely in-effective in reviewing implementation and eliciting ’compliance’ at national level (although this is debated)

16. Conclusions legitimacy Legitimacy points from: • United Nations setting • Strong multi-stakeholder involvement • Focus on partnerships (for some) Illegitimacy points from: • Dominance of the environment agenda (for some) • Weak monitoring (specially of financial commitments and tech transfer) • Being a talkshop with little influence (for some) • Lack of CSD 15 outcome • CSD 16 Chair election

17. The future A show case of strengthening global deliberative democracy or a complete waste of time and resources? Eternal reform discussions...so the future is open

18. Beyond Words…?

19. Thank you! sylvia.karlsson@tse.fi