EU-International Relations, WWF European Policy Office

An NGO Perspective on Involvement in Sustainability Strategies 

I have been asked to talk about my experiences with participation in political processes for Sustainable Development Strategies and make proposals on how participation can be enhanced. Not to speak, this time, on the content or ambition of the vision or objectives of the current strategy as outlined in the Commission Communication from December 2005. I should emphasise that I am talking from my experience and perspective, not on behalf of all NGOs whose experience in participation and monitoring is vast and varied.

I have been involved in sustainable development issues over a number of years, since before the Johannesburg summit. I was involved in a multi-stakeholder task force for the revision of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, and participated in the UK delegation for WSSD and the World Summit. I was also involved with Tanzanian partners in the revision of the Poverty Reduction Strategy which due to strong involvement by civil society incorporated cross cutting issues such as environment and gender and resulted in their national strategy for sustainable development.

WWF is part of the Green 10 which has developed detailed recommendations for the SDS review, some of which are reiterated here. My comments are divided into three broad areas – consultation, monitoring, implementation, and with a footnote on the Lisbon agenda.

Participation in Development of Strategies for Sustainable Development

The size of NGOs is relevant. Consultation processes can be long and time consuming and only larger NGOs or networks/coalitions likely to be able to give the time directly. But NGO research, using their constituencies and networks on the ground, can provide valuable inputs to the development of policy or relevant revisions to policies.

Clearly consultation procedure should be two-way, interactive and iterative. One way hearing exercise is not valuable.

I would like to mention a consultation exercise that was organised by IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) and the RING network (a global alliance of research and policy specialists for promoting sustainable development) with WWF. It received the financial support of the Dutch Government and the Commission. The objective was to examine southern perspectives on the external dimensions of the current EU sustainable development strategy and identify possible ways to strengthen EU key policy instruments which shape interaction of the EU with other parts of the world. Workshops took place during 2003 and 2004 in Islamabad, Santiago, Maputo bringing together sustainability experts from research institutions and civil society and culminated in a high level round table in Brussels to present the results. It appeared that institutionally, EC and member states are not really organised to respond to, or take on board, the issues raised by the southern participants i n the consultation. These issues concerned trade and investment, the treatment of environmental issues within donor funding plans, corporate social responsibility, access to small project funding, twinning for sharing sustainable development approaches or technical expertise. A key finding was that it was very difficult in many cases for RING colleagues to gain access to speak to EC or MS delegations in their countries.

There is an important lesson to learn here – we need to explore approaches for enhancing accountability of the EU to its key partners in the South. How can we create new opportunities for southern views to be heard and reflected?

A peer review process has been mentioned as a new process for sharing amongst EU member states. The involvement of others whose own sustainable development is impacted by EU policies should surely inform our plans for the future shaping of EU sustainable development objectives.

The Cotonou agreement between EU and ACP countries is perhaps one example where the partnership principle has been taken forward. There is a joint EU-ACP parliamentary assembly to debate and make recommendations on issues and policies of shared interest and there is also an express obligation to include non-state actors. Could this be a model and how could it be strengthened?

Monitoring Roles

For any good follow-up process and enable monitoring and reporting, it is essential to have clear targets, timetables, indicators. A roadmap with milestones. It is impossible to hold anyone to account if the commitments are vague, not time bound, or buried in a library of different documentation.

A suggestion that I would like to put forward is the development of a scrutiny test for sustainability for the use of all EU funds over the period 2007-13. What will the EU do itself in its own budgetary planning and implementation (123 billion euros a year) to secure sustainable development?

In the UK, for example, the Treasury requests each government department to explain how their proposed work plans and budget requests contribute towards or impact on sustainable development. If each Commission directorate had the achievement of sustainable development in its Mission Statement and showed how their proposals and work plans contributed towards sustainable development at EU level, this would amount to a requirement to be accountable for their use of public resources in pursuit of sustainable development. This would open up the debate to a wider public and could also be used by civil society for tracking effective use of expenditure.

Given the participatory principle behind the SDS process, the opportunity for citizens and civil society to “follow the money” through budget tracking is also a valuable way of measuring progress. This is one area that has been taken up by civil society in the Tanzanian experience of PRS, encouraged by donors who are contributing direct budget support.

The role of independent advisory committees is valuable – to provide critical comments, to peer review reports of progress done by the government or authorities. These committees should be multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary, not composed solely of scientists as per one suggestion, and assured independence.

Contribution to Delivery and Implementation

At the local level in particular, there is an important opportunity for Non Governmental Organisations to work with communities and act as a catalyst for change. They can take forward the positive links between social, environmental and economic issues in a very practical and visible way, for example, in the area of urban or rural regeneration. The experience of Local Agenda 21 is an example of this but it does mean funding being made available to support this facilitation process.

There is also a role for NGOs to influence public opinion and public attitudes, in a very practical way, towards sustainable development. Footprint issues are an example of NGO action. The consumption of energy and climate change, the labelling and purchase of sustainable timber or fisheries products, information on GMOs or toxic chemicals, are all highlighted by NGOs in public campaigning. But governments and the Commission have a role to play here in terms of ensuring an appropriate legal and financial framework is in place to steer relevant consumer choices. For example, when prices of more sustainably produced alternatives are higher or when cleaner alternatives are hard to find, communicating the sustainable option becomes an uphill task. Governments and the Commission can also lead and encourage here in terms of their options for public procurement.

Communication is a critical function. It should not just be up to NGOs to communicate sustainable lifestyles and the importance of sustainable development. If governments and other authorities are setting strategies in place for SD policies then these need to be communicated. How often are energy, water, pension or health issues, for example, debated and promoted by governments or the Commission in the media with no mention of the importance of sustainable development or their own commitments to take SD forward? There is also an onus on government and authorities to communicate the issues, indicating the level of importance they attach to sustainable development.

Examples of innovative practice should be shared amongst Member States and European citizens to encourage others to follow. A web-based central point for local, national or regional practical examples could allow interested citizens, supported by civil society groups, to question or lobby their own authorities on plans already implemented by others for energy efficiency in housing, car-sharing schemes, or fiscal incentives for sustainable consumption.

Regarding Lisbon

We have been told, by the Commission, in previous consultations on the SDS this year that the Lisbon strategy falls within the SDS. It is not currently clear how this is operationalised but certainly the implementation of the SDS should become as important for authorities as the Lisbon process and the European Council should confirm this on a yearly basis by having it on the agenda.

The Strategy for Sustainable Development is clearly the longer term aim for the European project and therefore it is important that we aim for coherence of overarching objectives for sustainable development, rather than thinking of mitigation of policy impacts or flanking measures in order to reassure that Lisbon is also contributing to sustainable development goals.

One measure that might be taken is to look again at the role of Impact Assessment and whether this is well applied in terms of long term, global and inter-generational aspects. Currently it appears that current practice shows a bias towards short term competitiveness impacts rather than benefits for society as a whole, including the rest of the world.

The publication of impact assessments, and the involvement of other experts in their preparation, could facilitate the scrutiny of decision making regarding the EU approach to sustainable development. How are the results informing the decision and the published policy and how are trade-offs being made? This information would facilitate monitoring by civil society and provide more transparency to citizens.