We see great potential for transparent, non-hierarchical, effective partnerships between diverse
stakeholders using the commons approach as evidenced by GLISPA. Thank you, Ambassador for
your intervention.
As you may remember, in the lead-up to and at the Rio+10 Johannesburg summit, NGOs were
quite skeptical of the ?type 2? partnerships. We were deeply concerned about the lack of clearly
required criteria. We still are.
The present theory and practice of partnerships at the CSD leaves considerable room for
improvement. With insufficient criteria for goals, timetables and accounting; insufficient
assurance of equivalent capacity among organizational partners; and insufficient provisions for
reporting to and monitoring by the CSD and other stakeholders, there is the ongoing danger that a
partnership could be used to leverage power and special interest rather than serve a sustainable
world for all.
We call for the following refinement of partnerships? biennial reports to increase their
effectiveness and capacity to build on one another?s efforts:
1. The Introduction to the Chairs Draft Summary Part 1, states in point 1: Sustainable
development allows humanity to protect and improve life in all its forms and expressions. It
recognizes the right of all people to improve their quality of life and live in a healthy
environment. The biennial reports by partnerships should clearly demonstrate how they are in
compliance with the all-inclusive values expressed in this statement.
2. Partnerships should respect, the global commons, the natural and social wealth needed for life
and ensure that it is protected for future generations so that they too can prosper. Biennial reports
should clearly show how partnerships have the shared goal to protect, preserve and replenish the
global commons.
3. Based on the shared values and goals just mentioned, registered partnerships should be
required to hold national and regional sessions throughout the year to address lessons learned and
best practices. The synergy between partnerships resulting from these sessions would be
taken into account in the report of the Commission during the review year, as mandated by the
Criteria and Guidelines as outlined by the CSD 11, point 23 e.
We also call for further clarification of what is meant by specific contribution by partnerships as
mentioned under 22 i.
Clear definition should be required for
? The goals, timetables and accounting on how these have, or have not been kept to;
? Specific description of the partners and their individual representatives;
? Description of sources and amounts of financing, and who has access to the partnership?s
funds; and
? A revised schedule for how the partnership reports to the CSD; and
? Expanded opportunity for the CSD governments and major groups to monitor, evaluate
and report their analyses of specific partnership projects.
? I look forward to an spontaneous, interactive interchange with Governments. Thank you.
