THE FUTURE OF THE CSD

It is more than unclear what exactly is going to happen with the CSD after the Johannesburg Summit. The weak position of the CSD in the UN structure, the effectiveness of the Commission and the future working programme are topics, which need to be addressed during the preparatory process. It has become clear that the CSD is too weak to make a notable contribution to true sustainable development. Many are advocating to substantially strengthen the CSD or include its agenda into an enhanced work programme of the UNEP or even convert both into a single UN Environmental Organisation.

To go on with business as usual doesn't seem to be the right solution as many urgent problems and challenges can obviously not be solved under the current circumstances. It is certainly one of the outstanding contributions not only from the NGO community but also from the UN itself to introduce dialogue forms and processes like the CSD at the international level. However, those who view the UN as an organisation that can make global values and institutions more democratic and participatory all too often overlook the fact, that the UN is itself a highly undemocratic organisation, in which it is still government representatives (especially from industrialised countries) who decide about the future course of the world. Everywhere there is talk about global governance and the important role of the civil society, but within the UN, those actors are only allowed as observers except within the CSD. So how can this "crisis of the CSD", as some are rashly calling it, be solved?

Some ideas include that for effective work, the number of issues discussed at the single sessions need to be reduced, while at the same time providing space for new and urgent topics, which are not or not sufficiently discussed within other bodies. This may also mean rather achieving no agreement than furthering the tendecy to use agreed language without any impact. Most NGOs agree that the multi stakeholder elements of the CSD process need to be stregthened, providing new opportunities for external stakeholders to bring new proposals into the multi stakeholder dialogues.

In spite of the admitted awkwardness of the CSD process, it seems that the direct integration of all affected persons into the discussions and solutions is more than noteworthy as in this way it is possible to newly distribute and to take on responsibilities. Therefore, it seems potentially fatal to talk about a crisis of the CSD even if there is obviously an emerging need for a reform.

There are quite a number of interesting questions connected to those reforms, which can't only be solved at the international level - with a reform of the UN for example - but which have to be answered nationally. To what extent are for example governments willing to let their citizens and the so-called civil society participate in decision-making processes? Such an involvement can not only be demanded on the international level if within national countries there is no such opportunity for nongovernmental actors to play an active role in the decision-making process.