B r i e f i n g TWN P a p e r 13 T h i r d W o r l d N e t w o r k www.twnside.org.sg October 2003 “Partnerships” that Raise More Questions than Answers by Saradha Ramaswamy Iyer The World Summit on Sustainable Development's (WSSD's) Type II partnerships were supposed to complement the implementation of internationally agreed commitments. But they have yet to live up to their hype. The new criteria and guidelines for their operation need much more time to settle in place. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is only beginning to come to grips with its new role in this area. The UN system and it's agencies continue to show strong commitment to partnership. However, the business sector seems to be having second thoughts while other stakeholders remain skeptical. More significantly, there has been no corresponding commitment of resources to see the announced initiatives through. 1. Introduction Furthermore, in the run-up to the WSSD, there was widespread recognition that governments by The World Summit on Sustainable Development themselves cannot deliver implementation and (WSSD) was not supposed to re-negotiate the road therefore Johannesburg should play a role in map for sustainability drawn up by the Rio catalysing strong partnerships between Summit in 1992. Instead the hope was that it governments and other actors such as civil society would take account of emerging trends, integrate groups, businesses and inter-governmental fully the social, economic and environmental organisations. pillars of sustainable development and strengthen the implementation of Agenda 21 and WSSD 2. Two types of outcomes outcomes. Based on the above reasoning and early in the The biggest challenge for the WSSD was to find preparatory process, it was determined by the concrete, practical and meaningful ways to Secretariat that there would be two types of address this problem, in open official outcomes from the WSSD, Type I and Type II. acknowledgement that there is a crisis of implementation of the Rio outcomes. In assessing Type I outcomes are the documents negotiated by and reviewing the Rio Summit it was clear that UN Member States. These now include the specific commitments were not followed up with Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable resource allocations and implementation actions. Development and the Plan of Implementation of There was simply no political will. the WSSD. TWN THIRD WORLD NETWORK is a network of groups and individuals involved in bringing about a greater articulation of the needs, aspirations and rights of the people in the Third World and in promoting a fair distribution of world resources and forms of development which are humane and are in harmony with nature. Address: 121-S Jalan Utama, 10450 Penang, MALAYSIA Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159 Fax: 60-4-2264505 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.twnside.org.sg Type II outcomes, on the other hand, are the Later, an explanatory note from the Chairman of voluntary commitments to specific targets or the WSSD Preparatory Committee, Emil Salim of objectives for the implementation of sustainable Indonesia, gave further details saying that only development made by individual governments, partnerships/initiatives that are international in non-governmental actors or by partnerships of scope and reach (i.e., global, regional or sub- governmental and/or non-governmental actors. regional) and those aimed at supporting practical Type IIs were not negotiated in the formal WSSD implementation of Agenda 21 and sustainable preparatory process and do not require consensus development activities in developing countries, in agreement between all UN Member States. particular the least developing countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with From the beginning many civil society groups, economies in transition, would be eligible for including NGOs, indigenous peoples, women’s announcement during the official partnership organisations and trade unions, questioned the events at the Summit. Only those partnerships that move to give official blessing to Type II are new and are developed specifically in the partnerships at a Summit level, especially when context of the WSSD and its goals would feature it became clear that a major goal was to get big at the official events. business on board. There was no framework or rules to evaluate and During informal meetings held during PrepCom monitor Type IIs. At the same time, the last 10 III many questions were raised about the exact years have proven that self-regulation and scope and modalities of Type IIs and their voluntary codes of conduct have failed to ensure relationship to Type Is. In response to the concerns good corporate governance and behaviour. raised by non-governmental organisations and a Moreover, since the private sector has more few delegations a ‘Vice-Chairs’ Summary of the resources and thus influence and power, any Informal Meetings on Partnerships/Initiatives’ ‘partnership’ would inherently be an unequal one. was released in April 2002. This paper clarified Given that the sustainable development record of the following: business belies its rhetoric in most cases, Type IIs l Partnerships are not intended to substitute the could be a Pandora’s Box. strong commitments by governments in Type I outcomes, rather they should contribute to Thus, while cooperation and alliances for translating those political commitments into sustainable development among different actors, action. government and non-government, are abundant l Partnerships are of a voluntary self-organising and can be successful, Type IIs introduce the nature with parameters for their organisation to element of endorsement without accountability. remain as flexible and simple as possible. There were fears that such a development would 4. The Debate further undermine weakening inter-governmental commitments. In the WSSD context, the US for The issue of partnerships became a hotly debated example was openly favouring Type II above Type item on the WSSD’s agenda. Various views were I, and strongly promoted that the UN Commission expressed in the course of the preparatory process on Sustainable Development refocus its work on and at the Summit itself. Type IIs. The UN through its Special Envoy Jan Pronk 3. Type IIs at the WSSD suggested that not everything needs to be negotiated or implemented at the global level. He At the end of PrepCom II in New York in January- proposed that only willing participants united by February 2002, the Secretariat first compiled and shared goals should form consultative groups on published a paper entitled ‘Proposals for sectors without the political constraints of Partnerships/Initiatives to strengthen the requiring full consensus. implementation of Agenda 21’ and suggested that interested parties identify partners and specify The US, one of the biggest proponents, highlighted clear targets, time-tables, monitoring the potential role of the Commission on arrangements, coordination and implementation Sustainable Development in evaluating and mechanisms, and arrangements for systematic replicating partnerships, identifying lessons and predictable funding and for technology learned and facilitating more partnerships. The EU transfer. insisted there be a clear link to sustainable development objectives and that ownerships be Relevant UN agencies had prepared Framework among all partners. Other governments called for Papers to facilitate discussion, provide focus and simple clear guidelines, flexible criteria and catalyse action in the WEHAB areas. There were clarification on funding for partnerships. The G77 presentations by experts and commentaries by at that point was afraid the partnership issue panels of resource persons followed by comments would dominate the debate to the detriment of from delegates. The general feeling among the inter-governmental process and preferred a attendees was that these discussions were wait-and-see attitude. substantive, well moderated and useful. Summaries of these sessions have now been The UNDP outlined five principles for building adopted by the meeting’s main committee and are effective partnerships namely trust, transparency posted on the UN website. However, there was and access to information, shared responsibility, frustration that these discussions occurred as a goal-oriented result-driven objectives and the parallel process with the inter-governmental need to reflect local priorities and help create an negotiations and thus have little or no impact on enabling environment for effective action. UNEP the Type I outcome which is supposed to be the emphasised the need for monitoring and substantive framework for Type IIs. evaluating partnerships. It is interesting that the discussions threw up many Many NGOs recognised that the notion was not areas of actions that are needed by national new and that there were already many examples governments and international institutions, of successful partnerships at the local, national, especially the inter-governmental ones. It regional and even global levels. While showing a reinforced the reality that many gaps left by great deal of interest in partnerships for governments cannot be substituted by Type IIs. implementation, they cautioned that partnerships should not replace government obligations, that Partnerships to Tackle Poverty and they should in fact complement and supplement Environmental Problems: A Critique the fulfilment of governmental commitments. Some groups stressed the need for wide During the Summit process itself