Statement by Australia
Second Preparatory Meeting UNCSD
8 March 2011
SESSION 3: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Thank you Co-Chair
I want to make a number of comments that address elements of Questions 1 and 6.
A robust, responsive and efficient institutional framework for sustainable
development is the critical mechanism underpinning our capacity to implement the
ambitious goals that have emerged from key conferences over the last two decades.
That same framework will also be the key to the delivery of outcomes that will arise
from our deliberations at Rio+20. This is the critical issue before us – how can we
ensure a robust, responsive and efficient framework that works at a whole of system
level integrating economic, environmental and social goals in a mutually reinforcing
way.
A key element is that subset of issues that constitute IEG reform
The IEG reform process provides important lessons for the reform of the broader
institutional architecture for sustainable development.
(Q1) It demonstrates some of the significant challenges international institutions
charged with promoting sustainable development face including:
· the need for institutional coherence and coordination at a national level
· lack of cooperation and duplication of work programs across international
institutions; and
· securing adequate and predictable funding
(Q6) Further, a strengthened international environmental governance framework can
improve cross-sectoral coordination and coherence by assisting national
implementation and providing more targeted capacity development to assist
developing countries facilitate economic growth and development in a sustainable
manner.
Mr Chairman more work must be done to inform the reform path in the Rio
preparatory process. That work must provide a foundation that will allow us to
prepare an outcome on Institutional Framework for the Conference that is informed,
meaningful and ambitious.
Australia supports the need identified by UNEP Governing Council for a
comprehensive analysis of the financial, legal and structural implications and
comparative advantages of the options for broader reform, including those identified
in the Nairobi-Helsinki outcome.
The analysis must utilise the expertise of relevant UN system entities organizations,
including UNEP and relevant stakeholders and major groups
It should go beyond considering only UNEP and consider the broader UN system
and institutions which deal with both environment and sustainable development,
such as the Commission on Sustainable Development.
We urge the Bureau and Secretariat to review the options to give effect to this
analysis and work to ensure that the outcome is available in a timely manner to
contribute to our preparatory process.
