The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention an increasing sense of unease amongst some parliamentarians in Europe and Canada with respect to clause 127 in the Summit Declaration announced in Johannesburg on 4 September, 2002, and to make a specific recommendation for your consideration.

  The unease amongst European and Canadian parliamentarians is due to the decision assigning to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) the task of continuing to implement the substance of the Rio and Johannesburg declarations. Clause 127 reads: "The Commission on Sustainable Development should continue to be the high-level commission on sustainable development within the United Nations system and serve as a forum for consideration of issues related to integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development. Although the role, functions and mandate of the Commission as set out in relevant parts of Agenda 21 and adopted in General Assembly resolution 47/191 continue to be relevant, the Commission needs to be strengthened, taking into account the role of relevant institutions and organizations. An enhanced role of the Commission should include reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships." The unease is caused by these factors:

1.  The decision contained in clause 127 was apparently made last May in Bali by governments, without consultation with NGOs, parliamentarians and other interested parties. The Bali decision had the effect of foreclosing debate on the consequences of this decision at the subsequently held summit in Johannesburg. This is most regrettable.

2.  The decision was taken without an in-depth assessment of the UNCSD performance since Rio. Had a consultation taken place, UN authorities would have learnt of the dissatisfaction with the UNCSD's performance in its implementation of sustainable development as proposed in 1987 by the UN World Commission on the Environment and Development. The yearly meetings called by the UNCSD in New York resulted in negligible results at best, reinforcing the faith amongst the converted, but failing to make inroads within the ranks of decision-makers in charge of economic and social agendas. As to the role played by ECOSOC so far, it is hard to assess it because it is unknown.

  There are unanswered questions arising from the current situation, the most fundamental being:

(i)  Should the UNCSD continue to report to ECOSOC?

(ii)  Is the UNCSD the appropriate organization for the implementation of sustainable development within the UN family?

(iii)  Or, more bluntly, should the UNCSD continue to perform its role and if not, who should?

Other questions are:

(iv)  Why has the UNCSD been incapable of advancing the cause of sustainable development, as defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the integration of the environment and economics), amongst finance ministers and other major players within governments' centres of power?

(v)  Can the UNCSD's performance and impact be expanded to include important organizations such as the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank? In this context, it is worth noting the OECD and the Council of Europe have performed a greater role than the UNCSD in advancing and promoting the application of sustainable development amongst governments.

  The net effect of clause 127, assigning again to the UNCSD the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg declaration, means another ten years of uncertain performance. It is encouraging, though, to note that section 135 directs you, through the UN System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination, "to further promote system-wide inter-agency cooperation and coordination on sustainable development, to take appropriate measures to facilitate exchange of information, and to continue to keep the Economic and Social Council and the Commission informed of actions being taken to implement Agenda 21." The question then arises as to how this section will be implemented in order to achieve results between now and the next summit. In sections 135 to 137, UNEP, UN-Habitat, UNDP and UNCTAD are asked to "strengthen their contribution to sustainable development programmes and the implementations of Agenda 21 at all levels." Which one of these is going to bear overall responsibility? And if not, what sort of coordinating mechanism would be established? Will this significant directive be accompanied by necessary funding? As you know, the planet's life support system is under severe stress: the oceans are overfished, forests are overcut, fresh water is becoming a scarce commodity, air quality is deteriorating, population is increasing by over 90 million persons per year. Against this background, the question arises as to whether the global community can, and should, wait until 2012 for an adequate implementation of sustainable development.

  As parliamentarians, we appreciate very much the financial difficulties the UN organization is facing and congratulate you for your skilful leadership in difficult financial times. At the same time we have some concerns to share with you:

—  The UNEP is still a programme and not a full-fledged agency. This despite the fact that environmental protection and sustainable development issues, including climate change, increasingly command public attention. As a result, UNEP has a lesser status within the UN family compared to specialized agencies such as WMO, WHO, ILO, UNESCO, UNDP, etc.

—  If UNEP is not deemed the organization suited for an effective implementation of Rio and Johannesburg, then an alternative must be found to meet the expectations raised so far. The implementation policy proposed by clause 127 will very likely lead to virtual stagnation for the next decade. Such outcome—we hope you will agree—must be avoided. It would perhaps be desirable to revive the debate on international environmental governance.

  Item No 3 of the parliamentary resolution, here attached, was approved by European Union and Canadian parliamentarians when they met in Johannesburg on 30 August, 2002. It conveys, in shorthand, the concerns expressed in this letter. Far from being perfect and complete, the resolution aims at conveying to you an urgent concern and awareness of a serious problem requiring attention, if we are to prevent loss of momentum in the next 10 years. Discussions amongst interested parliamentarians on both sides of the Atlantic will intensify, be it at the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the Canadian Parliament and other parliamentary venues. But discussions are inadequate. It is our hope you will find it possible to examine the implementation and organizational problem we are bringing to your attention and give our representations attention and consideration.

  When we drafted the attached resolution in Johannesburg, we knew it was too late for the Summit, but not too late to influence the course of events in the future. If too late for Johannesburg—we thought—it is certainly not too late for a Johannesburg +5 meeting as there was a Rio +5. The task of implementing sustainable development and the choice of an appropriate UN body to do so will continue to challenge interested governments. As parliamentarians, we also have a task, namely to press our respective governments accordingly. It is in this spirit we are addressing this letter to you.

  Before concluding, we would like to convey to you our deep gratitude and appreciation for your continuous efforts in defending peace and preventing war. Please accept our expression of deep respect and admiration for your outstanding role.

Wolfgang Behrendt, MdB
Vice-President—Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
German Bundestag
Charles Caccia, MP
Chair—Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Parliament of Canada
Alexander de Roo, MEP
Vice-Chair—Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Parliament of Europe
Anneli Hulthen, MEP
Vice-Chair—Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Parliament of Europe
Karen Kraft Sloan, MP
Vice Chair—Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Parliament of Canada
Clifford Lincoln, MP
Chair—Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Parliament of Canada

5 December 2002