1
Statement by Kenya on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable
Development (IFSD) during the Second Preparatory Meeting of the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, March 8, 2011, New York.
Mr. Chairman
Kenya aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished
representative of Argentina on behalf of the G-77 and China.
Since the conclusion of the Stockholm conference and the Rio Earth
Summit, some successes have been achieved in the management of
global environment. However, the existing institutions have not
adequately responded to the present and emerging sustainable
development challenges. Kenya believes that the current situation can
be improved, if we take bold and decisive steps to handle the issues
before us in a comprehensive and conclusive manner. We must agree on
the options devoid of further incoherence, scattering, fragmentation,
duplication and high cost of doing business.
Kenya therefore welcomes the outcome of the Nairobi-Helsinki process as
it offers concrete and pragmatic inputs to the debates on the IFSD during
this Rio + 20 preparatory process. We further believe that deliberations on
this theme should benefit from the PREPCOM initiating a full analysis of the
financial, structural and legal implications and comparative advantages
of the options identified in the Nairobi – Helsinki outcome. The analysis
could draw from expertise of relevant UN entities, which corresponds well
with the system-wide approach that needs to be adopted in order to
elaborate on these issues. This will enable the UNCSD preparatory
committee to consider the options for broader institutional reform
identified in the Nairobi Helsinki outcome as contribution to strengthening
the IFSD.
Mr. Chairman,
2
Sustainable development should be addressed in a balanced, holistic
and integrated manner. It is important to note that of the three pillars,
environment stands out as the most incoherent and fragmented. We
need to recognize that the status quo presents specific challenges to all
countries, in particular developing countries. It is important to emphasize
that the systems as it is today, with over five hundred Multilateral
Environmental Agreements scattered across the globe, engenders policy
fragmentation and lack of coordination among the MEAs as well as the
increase the cost of doing business. This continues to render the system
less effective and efficient. Member States, in particular developing
countries, are therefore unable to access policy guidance, financial
resources and technology for mitigation and adaptation.
Mr. Chairman
I wish to briefly comment on the five options as outlined in the Nairobi –
Helsinki Outcome. On enhancing the UNEP, it is important to emphasize
that the program has the important mandate as the ‘leading global
environmental authority that sets the strategic priorities of the global
environmental agenda, and serve as an authoritative advocate for the
global environment’. However in reality, the UNEP has not been sufficiently
supported to discharge this important mandate. We also emphasize that
the incremental reforms already undertaken are insufficient to make
significant difference. Perhaps, it is time to ask ourselves what more we
must do to improve the situation.
In this regard, Kenya believes that the UNEP should be transformed into a
specialized environmental agency with an expanded mandate, and
operating on an equal footing with other UN organizations that enjoy
stable, increased and predictable funding. This specialized agency must
be headquartered in Nairobi and draw useful lessons learnt from the UNEP
since its creation 40 years ago.
Furthermore, the specialized agency/ organization would draw its addedvalue
from:
3
- Being the leading global environmental authority that sets the
strategic priorities of the global environmental agenda, and
serve as an authoritative advocate for the global
environment.
- Broad participation all stakeholders, including NGOs and the
private sector.
- Being able to provide credible, coherent and effective
leadership for environmental sustainability under the overall
framework of sustainable development and promoting the
coherent implementation of the environmental dimensions of
sustainable development within the United Nations system.
- Being to able to promote synergies and improved cooperation
between compatible multilateral environmental agreements
and other relevant multilateral environmental processes, and
identify guiding elements for realizing such synergies and
improved cooperation while respecting the autonomy of the
conferences of the parties.
The organization would in particular concentrate on actively
coordinating subjects and actors dealing with cross-cutting
challenges, such as:
- Advancing the implementation of agreed international norms
and policies, to monitor and foster compliance with
environmental principles and international agreements and
stimulate cooperative action to respond to emerging
environmental challenges.
- Providing - together with UNIDO, UNDP and others – tailormade
country specific advice on the acceleration of the
national transformation to a green and low carbon economy
for all interested countries.
- Capacity development, in particular in favor of Least
Developed Countries, by encouraging the mobilization of
partners and donors.
- Transfer of relevant technologies.
Mr. Chairman,
4
We believe there is no value addition in creating a monolithic institution to
deal with all the three pillars of sustainable development. Such a highly
bureaucratized organization could lack specialization and even fail to
give equal attention to all the pillars of the sustainable development. Will
further complicate the system and aggravate the global environmental
situation than it is today.
Finally, Kenya believes that ECOSOC and CSD needs some reforms to
enable them harmonize their mandates in tandem with existing institutions
in the area of sustainable development. This will hopefully enhance
coordination and increase accountability thereby improves service
delivery.
I thank you.
