Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
opment; and Measurable progress in the implementation of the goals and
targets of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation” (UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs 2010).
Like all UN agencies, the UNCSD is an intergovernmental forum fi rst,
designed to serve the needs of member governments. The creation of the
CSD was welcomed by the majority of UN member nations and their
constituents, but often for different reasons. Developing countries were
pleased that the CSD elevated development within the “environmental”
governance system (Doran and Van Alstine 2007). Industry, too, was
pleased to see development more central to the discussion (Bernstein
2001). NGOs, citizen groups, and more environmentally progressive
states were hopeful that the CSD would serve as a prominent rule-
making and oversight organization and elevate environmental issues to
compete with the international fi nancial institutions, which they saw as
frequent trump cards played against international and national environ-
mental and labor laws. UNEP was rumored to object strongly to the
need for a new environmental body and was especially indignant when
the CSD was assigned to act as the coordinating body for the environ-
mental efforts of the United Nations.
Despite the wishes of those who wanted the CSD to be a strong, rule-
making body with enforcement capabilities, the commission's mandate
is primarily normative. The CSD drafts principles related to the achieve-
ment of Agenda 21 and sustainable development in the language of
“shoulds” rather than “shalls” and serves more as a consensus-building
organization than an enforcement agency. On the positive side, this was
intended to encourage open discussion and adoption of agreements on
language that might go beyond what many countries would otherwise
accept. In practice, especially in recent years, it has frequently led to
lengthy discussions over subtle shades of language that often end
up watered down to a lowest common denominator that does not hold
the force of law.
Over its fi fteen years, the CSD has undergone two reviews. The fi rst
took place in 1997 at the UN General Assembly, also known as the Rio
+5 session. The news was generally disappointing, since most attendees
concluded that little notable progress had been made in the fi rst fi ve years
after adoption of Agenda 21. Criticisms were most scathing in two areas:
that fi nancial commitments fell short of Agenda 21 targets and that there
was confusion over how to measure the achievement of sustainable
development. Attendance at CSD meetings in 1997 indicated a healthy,
vibrant organization, in which most Major Groups organizations and
Search WWH ::




Custom Search