1
2ND PREPARATORY COMMITTEE MEETING UN CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Intervention on the Institutional Framework for
Sustainable Development by Switzerland
delivered by Anik Kohli, Senior Policy Adviser, Section Global Affairs,
International Affairs Division, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
Allow me to touch upon several of the questions that were presented to us.
With regard to questions 1 and 2: We think that probably the most significant
challenge the institutional framework for sustainable development is facing is its
high fragmentation. There are numerous institutions – with overlapping mandates
and different legal standing – and there is a lack of coordination, cooperation and
coherence in the system. In view of limited resources, the improvement of the
institutional framework is crucial for better deliveries on all levels.
With regard to question 5: It is important to distinguish between two aspects of
the discussion: On the one hand, governance of sustainable development in a
horizontal manner, and on the other hand, governance in each pillar of
sustainability. We need improvements in both of these aspects in order to better
promote sustainable development at the international, regional, national and subnational
levels.
While we recognize the importance of sound governance in each of the three
pillars, we welcome the considerable attention that has already been given to
strengthening International Environmental Governance.
We fully agree with the finding contained in paragraph 84 of the synthesis report
that the UNCSD will provide an opportunity for agreement on an ambitious and
effective International Environmental Governance reform package in the context
of strengthening the institutional framework for sustainable development.
In order to be ready to take such a decision, a full analysis of the financial,
structural and legal implications and comparative advantages of the options
identified in the Nairobi-Helsinki Outcome needs to be undertaken as foreseen in
the decision of the UNEP Governing Council. In doing so, countries should be
given the opportunity to refine and elaborate the different options. The result of
2
the analysis should be available in a timely manner and feed into the 2nd
Intersessiona l Meeting.
Mr. Chairman, how to improve governance of sustainable development needs to
be discussed much more extensively and also in this regard, the UNCSD is the
right place to come up with concrete deliverables. From our point of view, any
solution should build on existing institutions and capitalize on positive
experiences gained and lessons learned in the UN-System.
For example, we can learn from “Delivering as One” as the answer on how the
UN family can provide development assistance in a more coordinated way.
Likewise, the synergies process in the area of chemicals and waste management
where a cluster approach between the conventions and institutions leads to a
better and more effective response to the challenges related to the sound
management of chemicals and waste.
With regard to question 3: We need to find ways so that the CSD can better fulfill
its role as a multi-stakeholder forum for new and innovative initiatives.
Switzerland is also open to consider proposals for fundamental reforms of the
CSD as there is lack of accountability and convening power. For example, a
state-driven peer review process could be established which allows to assess
actions undertaken for implementing sustainable development at the national
level. It should be designed so that it is cooperative in nature and ensures equal
treatment for every country assessed.
In conclusion, all endeavors for the fostering of the institutional framework of
sustainable development have to make sure that sustainable development
makes it back to the top of the political agenda and the UN-System is better
placed to deliver more authoritative and effective answers to the manifold
challenges we face.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
