Discussing: the US at the CSD

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: The measure of success for CSD 15 must be whether our collective efforts deliver concrete results that improve lives. Our opening statement (http://www.usunnewyork
usmission.gov/07_093.htm) was different from others who spoke. We tried to highlight the need for a different way of thinking about what we’ve done, what we’re doing and what we’re going to be doing in future. CSD is unique because, unlike other bodies, it is about implementation and not just negotiation. From that standpoint we’ve already achieved some success in areas such as energy. We shouldn’t think the only goal of the CSD is to produce a text. We should take stock of where we came from, what we have accomplished and where we have to go.

Question: In the intercessional meeting, John Matuszak, the US delegate, mentioned that there were already 54 pages of existing previously agreed text on energy. If the Secretariat had produced a proper analysis, might it have helped reduce the amount of text that needs to be negotiated?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder:I’m not so critical of the Secretariat. It is simply trying to reflect what it hears from the delegations, and I think the Secretariat has been doing that faithfully. The real issue is how you change attitudes toward this kind of process. Here in New York negotiations are the métier. We (the US) are more excited about advancing implementation than having yet another opportunity to negotiate. We’re looking to convincing people that we already have enough agreements; the point is to implement them and change things.

Question: There is indeed a commitment issue from countries on implementation. The US has been very supportive of partnerships. Other countries want a balance between normative and non-normative activities.

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder:The United States is seeking to achieve a better balance, between normative and non-normative outcomes; currently the process is overbalanced toward normative activities. What we need now is implementation.

Question: A recurring point that often frustrates NGOs is that this body is a policy body, so we must attempt to do policy as well as direct implementation work at CSD. Is there a contradiction?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: I don’t see any contradiction at all. The true north of this body is normative activities through negotiations, and it has taken a great effort to turn the CSD in a different direction to focus on implementation. We shouldn’t just be guiding people and telling them what they should do. We should be bringing different stakeholders in on this process – such as the private sector and other civil society actors – and working with them to achieve real results. For example, the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles in Africa is a major accomplishment. By removing lead from gasoline on that continent, it has done more for millions of people than many negotiations.

As we’ve achieved even more emphasis on implementation, the matrix that the CSD has developed helps to give us a way of gauging what has been achieved. It’s not easy work as we are working on many areas. For example in February at the UNEP Governing Council we discussed whether we need more regulation or whether partnerships could be the answer in dealing with mercury contamination. We put forward our mercury partnerships as an example of what could be achieved. We think that UNEP’s mercury partnerships are a valuable contribution. Some people say we need a better way of measuring and gauging the value of these partnerships. Since Nairobi, we have taken that to heart and have been seeking to create a framework and develop matrixes.

The US is an incredible country – we quantify everything. Specifically we ask, what have you done, how much have you achieved and where are you going? We also look at opportunities for working with other people and groups. We are working with the World Bank and others on definitions and categories so when we take, say, an orange, we all know what we mean by an orange. We are seeking to do this in areas like water and energy; we’ve also added a featured results page to SDP.gov, the U.S. Government’s sustainable development partnership website.

Question:The US is a strong supporter of partnerships. What contribution has this support made to the issue of access to energy?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: There are plenty of examples where partnerships have made a difference. Through US government support for the Global Village Energy Partnership and related programmes, 19.1 million people received increased access to modern energy services between 2002 and 2005. Another case is the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, which succeeded in influencing 1.31 million households to adopt clean and efficient cooking and heating practices since 2003, reducing exposure to harmful indoor air pollution for 11 million people. By 2010, we hope to expand this to a further 6.6 million households in 67 countries.

Question: Looking into the future, if we were in 2012, what would be your measure of success?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: This is of course difficult. There is a statistic that there are 2 billion people without access to energy and services, but where did that number come from? I understand that it is a broad approximation, but it exists out there in the ether and it is often cited. How are we going to judge how we’re making progress against it? When we say that 19.1 million have achieved such and such in two years, how many does that leave? How can we be more precise? We need to establish a baseline figure and then measure it over time.

Question: OK, but if we look at summits since Rio as an evolution of sustainable development, what would be the indicators of success?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: I would go even further back and begin looking at the evolution since Earth Day in 1970 and Stockholm in 1972. I was at university on Earth Day in 1970, and I know of Stockholm only what I’ve read about it. But having also taught a course about the problems of air pollution in Asia, I understand that Indira Gandhi was at first reluctant to go to Stockholm because she felt that development issues were tied inextricably to environmental problems and that Stockholm’s focus should not be only on environment. What we have seen since then is a progression in which we have achieved an acceptance of the three pillars of sustainable development – economic development, environmental stewardship, and social development.

Question: Regarding this progression, some might argue that we addressed the human environment in Stockholm, the environment and development in Rio, sustainable development in Johannesburg, and that with the debate in the Security Council we are now moving to a nexus of human environmental security.

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder:We are certainly seeing an increasing number of environment and security debates. The next step is really to continue along the implementation path we’re on, because that’s how we will mitigate environmental, development and security problems.

Question:What do you think about the recent debate in the Security Council on climate and energy security? Is it an appropriate place to discuss environmental issues?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: We had no difficulty with members bringing this debate to the council. Our concern was that it not detract from the other channels in which these subjects are being addressed. The debate did not detract – no separate process was established and there was no outcome per se, so we were happy to have the discussion.

Many countries said that the debate should not have happened, and mentioned the CSD as a more relevant venue for the discussion. But while the CSD provides space for implementation and negotiation, there doesn’t seem to be the space for creative discussions except at a ministerial level.

That is an interesting point. I have spent 17 years working on climate change. We negotiated the framework convention in 18 months with no ministers involved until it was completed. But now ministers participate in every annual conference and it has been difficult to determine how to engage with them effectively at multilateral fora such as the CSD. But there has been progress and positive change on this front as well. The Framework Convention attempted to address this through roundtable efforts, which have been replicated in other places to encourage an open exchange of views and prompt a real debate among ministers. We’ve supported that, but there is often a concern among some countries that ministers be allowed to say whatever they want with no restrictions as to themes or topics.

Question: Would energy and security not have been a good topic for discussion at a Ministerial level at CSD 15?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: The CSD probably wasn’t ready for that at this stage. The UK initiative came only very recently. Obviously it has now set a precedent and given visibility to the issue, and we will likely see more of this. But it was out of sync with preparations for CSD 15.

Question: Is it not more sensible to perhaps have a global conversation before moving some of these issues into an area dealt with by the Security Council? Could we not move them into a more creative space where a delivery focused approach could be more effective, say, through a dedicated summit process by 2012 or 2015?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: I think that’s possible. But one of the things that people look for from ministers, and even more from heads of state, are results. Discussion is fine but people want to know what are they actually going to do about the issue? So, it would be a complicated task, and there would be tremendous strain on reaching some sort of agreement. Though I’m not saying it won’t happen.

Question: A summit process could be an exciting space, because it can really be an added drive toward implementation.

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: You actually see many former heads of state engaging in these types of discussions.

Question:Well they do say that when a politician retires he becomes honest.

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: They certainly become a little freer!

Question: The Sustainable Development concept itself has had a very difficult birth and was picked up by academia and pushed, eventually becoming alive and politically manifest after 5 to 7 years of discussion. You’re now saying it’s accepted, so do you believe that discussion can mature such a thing?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: Definitely. If you read the writings of Theodore Roosevelt, he defined sustainable development long before anyone else did.

Question: On Friday the IPCC report comes out. What are your expectations?

Assistant Secretary Reifsnyder: Frankly, Friday is only a piece of the IPCC report, so it will be interesting to see what people take to be the IPCC report. Throughout most of its history the piece of the IPCC report that’s formed real news has been the report of Working Group 1 on the science. However the report of Working Group 2 on impacts and adaptation has received wider attention recently and is likely to continue getting much more scrutiny. The report of Working Group 3 on mitigation options and the Synthesis Report will be interesting too. So, have had two very important pieces already with two yet to come.

The US has engaged actively and strongly supports the IPCC. I was co-chair of its task force on finance, and at one point in my life helped rescue the IPCC from oblivion. The
IPCC was running out of money, and we convinced the Global Environment Facility in its pilot phase to help get the IPCC through the second assessment. I worked closely with IPCC Chair Bert Bolin to make that happen. Indeed, sometimes the U.S. contribution tends to be too high, and – to spur further contributions from others – I have asked if people want us to have that much influence in the IPCC!

Regarding the IPCC itself, it is important to have a robust scientific basis for the decisions people will take, and it is good to see that the IPCC has become accepted wisdom on the status of climate change. It gives us the basis from which to make good policy decisions.