A WOMEN'S PLACE IS IN DECISION MAKING:
GENDER, GOVERNANCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21.
By Zonny Woods, Action Canada for Population and Development

INDICATOR: Number of women in decision making

WHAT AGENDA 21 SAID ABOUT WOMEN IN DECISION MAKING
Chapter 24 of Agenda 21 acknowledged the importance of the involvement of women in decision making for the successful implementation of Agenda 21. Before and after 1992, many other United Nations (UN) documents had stressed the same point, including the 1985 Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women (FLS). Chapter 24 of Agenda 21 called for national governments to not only implement the Nairobi FLS but to pay particular attention to women's participation in national ecosystem management and control of environment degradation; and increase the proportion of women decision makers, planners, technical advisers, managers and extension workers in environment and development fields. Specifically Chapter 24 called for governments to take "Measures to review policies and establish plans to increase the proportion of women involved as decision makers, planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers in the design, development and implementation of policies and programmes for sustainable development." At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995), the importance of the involvement of women in decision-making was once again reiterated by the international community, setting a goal of 30 percent of women in national decision making positions. In 1995 Canada formulated a national plan for the advancement of women, both within its own borders and globally titled: Setting the Stage for the Next Century: The Federal Plan for Gender Equality (1995-2000). The Federal Plan is both a statement of commitments and a framework for the Future, linked to the twelve critical areas outlined in the Platform for Action (PFA) from Beijing conference, and included a section on the ?incorporation of women's perspectives in governance.

CANADA IN 2002
In 2002, women constitute only 20.6% of Canadian members of Parliament. Women's representation in politics in Canada has been increasing since the 1980s, when women represented only five percent of federal members of Parliament. In 1998 women comprised 19.9%, of the elected members in the federal House of Commons. As of April 1999, there were nine female Cabinet Ministers. In April 2002, that number is down to two.

Beyond the numbers of women in elected office, it is a bit more difficult to monitor the number of women involved in other levels of decision-making. Since Rio, Canadian women have made some advances in numbers and influence in political, economic and social decision-making, however, these advances have been hampered by massive cuts to social services and equality seeking women's groups. At all levels, it has become increasingly difficult for Canadian women's groups to respond to new policy initiatives and make their voices heard given their limited financial and human resources. While the Canadian government often engages in consultation processes with civil society, women are increasingly absent from these activities as a result of the limited resources available for them to engage in this work.

The Government has stated that "Canada is committed to including women's perspectives on achieving sustainable development." In fact, Canada's ability to enact and enforce environmental and health protection laws are restricted by two forces: international trade agreements and the increasing "cost-recovery" system of turning health research and quality control over to private business with financial interests in the outcomes.

Women remain under-represented in decision-making positions, especially at senior levels in the public and private sectors. In addition there is a low participation rate of women in science and technology and women remain a minority among professionals working in such fields as the natural sciences, engineering and mathematics.

Globally, according to the Interparliamentary Union, Canada ranks 30 out of 189 countries. Sweden is at the top, with 42.7 percent of women in parliament. According to a report by the Women's Environment and Development Organization:

"Governments have pledged, in a number of international agreements, to ensure that women's empowerment and gender equity is made a priority. The UN has designated 30 percent as the 'critical mass' required to maintain the impetus to truly equal, 50/50, representation. Some countries have reported progress, but measurable data on governmental efforts to increase the proportion of women in decision-making on sustainable development is quite limited. The general lack of gender-disaggregated data does not allow for adequate assessments".

Women's increased participation in decision making will require a better understanding, at all levels, of the barriers that hinder their participation. Gender analysis and the collection of appropriate indicators are important tools that can provide the accurate information, highlight barriers and assist in proposing policy alternatives for overcoming barriers to the participation of women. The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is useful when assessing the degree by which men and women are able to participate in economic and political life. It measures, for example: seats in parliament held by women; the proportion of women in management; technical and professional workers and a women's share of earned income.

Women cannot become involved in decision-making in equal proportions to men when they remain primarily responsible for child-rearing, when they are economically disadvantaged by their care giving role, and when they have fewer economic resources to run for office. It is not just a matter of changing attitudes, it is a matter of changing underlying structures which keep women poor.

TARGETS AND STRATEGIES FOR 2012
Canada and the international community have set targets for the involvement of women in decision making. The political participation and representation of women is essential to achieve the ends of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the WSSD in Johannesburg.

During the negotiations leading up to the WSSD, Canada has played an important role in promoting the incorporation of gender and a rights-based approach throughout the document. This is significant given the that the current political trend, led by the United States, the Holy See and Sudan, is to roll back international commitments to gender equality from the UN Conferences of the 1990s. It is important that Canada continues to demonstrate leadership in this area.

While the underrepresentation of women in decision making is the result of many complex factors there are a number of strategies that can be adopted to "correct the balance" In 1991 the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Finances recommended that incentives be provided via the election expenses reimbursement system to encourage parties to elect more women . Adopting this recommendation would certainly be a step in the right direction.

STRENGTHENING MAJOR GROUPS: YOUTH
By Clarisse Kehler Siebert and Lindsay Cole, Youth Summit Team

"Youth comprise nearly 30 percent of the world's population. The involvement of today's youth in environment and development decision-making and in the implementation of prgrammes is critical to the long-term success of Agenda 21." Agenda 21, 25.1

INDICATOR
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, Canada agreed to a series of commitments relating to United Nations Major Groups. Chapter 25 of Agenda 21 is concerned with the Major Group of children and youth. This chapter deals with children and youth issues of that time, including employment, equitable access to education, capacity-building for participation in decision-making processes and others. For the youth participants involved in the Rio conference, this was an important victory in international sustainable development initiatives. It was a formal opening created for the input of youth perspectives into the complex world of international politics. For this reason, youth engagement in decision-making will be used as the indicator to measure the strengthening of "youth" as a major group. This will be measured by assessing federal departments' commitments to:

· promote youth engagement
· create youth consultation strategies on legislative, policy and programming issues, and
· have task forces or committees on sustainable development and youth members on sustainable development-related advisory committees

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992
It is no coincidence that Chapter 25 made youth inclusion in decision-making a primary focus. In Canada as in other countries, mechanisms for youth inclusion were virtually non-existent at the time. On matters of sustainable development, this was recognized as particularly paradoxical, as youth should have a vested interest in sustainable development. The "without compromising the needs of future generations" clause of the Brundtland Report's definition of sustainable development is particularly poignant for the Major Group comprised of youth.

CURRENT STATE OF THE INDICATOR
Canada has outwardly promoted ideas of incorporating youth into policy- and decision-making processes at both the national and international levels. One of the most recent examples was at the 21st session of the United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council where Canada lead the way in passing a decision on youth engagement in decision-making in UNEP. There is some concern, however, that while youth are being consulted and given opportunity to participate, space has not been created to engage in decision-making processes, and many departments have yet to bring youth perspectives into their policy and decision-making work. Table 1 below defines the distinction between "participation" and "engagement".

To assess the current state of youth engagement in decision- and policy-making, in November 2001, members of the Canadian Youth Summit Team investigated the main departments within the federal government. Two departments in particular presented positive results. Environment Canada (EC) houses the National Youth Round Table on the Environment. The group of approximately 15 young people from across Canada is selected by EC staff each year, to meet several times each year to comment on EC programs and work plan, as well as develop their own action items. EC also includes an official youth delegate on their delegations to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and has a full-time staff person dedicated to youth outreach programs.

The Canadian Centre on Foreign Policy division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) has as one of its funding criteria, that all projects involve youth. DFAIT is pushing to develop a youth component in every department.

In preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Canadian WSSD Secretariat has been instrumental in supporting the Canadian youth preparatory process through funding, and asking a youth to sit on the Reference Group mandated to prepare Canada's National Report for WSSD. This is a good indication that youth engagement - - in some departments - is improving. Other departments that have strong ties to Canada's ability to progress towards sustainability - notably industry and finance - have shown very little commitment to youth engagement in their decision-making processes.

TARGET FOR 2012
The 1992 Rio UN Conference on Environment and Development established infrastructure and made commitments on sustainable development issues through Agenda 21 and the Rio Declarations. A focus of WSSD must be the implementation of these commitments. To implement Rio commitments specific to youth, Canada must take incremental steps to establish youth engagement strategies in all federal Departments by the year 2012. Strategies and mechanisms for youth engagement should be mandated at the provincial and territorial levels, and at the municipal level through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and provincial/territorial departments of municipal affairs.

NECESSARY ACTIONS
The following are some suggestions from the Canadian youth community on how they might better be engaged in decision- and policy-making processes domestically:
· Each department should create a youth engagement strategy and implementation plan. This strategy could include: establishment of Youth Round Tables similar to that of Environment Canada, inclusion of youth on delegations sent to bilateral and multilateral meetings, description of how youth perspectives on policy issues will be gathered and used. Meaningful employment opportunities for young people in the civil service as well as internship opportunities could be described in this strategy and implementation plan as well for a more complete picture of departmental youth engagement. Each department should create permanent, competitively waged positions for young people where they will develop outreach, education and engagement programs designed to link their peers to specific departmental activities.

· The Canadian government should establish a central, coordinating body to engage youth in national policy and decision-making work. A great potential home for this body would be in the Privy Council Office. This body would be responsible for soliciting and reporting on youth perspectives on key policy issues of concern to the youth community, as well as perspectives on policy work currently underway in the Federal government. A focus should be on long-term engagement and capacity- and relationship-building rather than time and issue specific short-term 'consultations.'

· A space should be created for youth input into the work of the Commissioner on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is particularly important in the context of the upcoming WSSD. The CESD is responsible for holding the federal government responsible for their sustainable development commitments, and youth need to be at this table making sure our perspectives are heard.

· The office of the Secretary of State for Children and Youth Affairs needs to be expanded. It should be staffed with young people, and have sub-departments to address particular issues of concern to youth, like sustainable development. The mandate, resources and capacity of this department must be expanded in order to truly reflect the values of Canadian youth.

· The mechanisms by which the Senator on Youth Affairs outreaches to the youth community needs to be improved. This person is an important information conduit between the youth of Canada and the Prime Minister, and the role is not currently effective.

· More resources for youth initiative must be made available by the federal government, to promote capacity building of youth organizations.

· The new websites for youth being developed by the federal government need to be improved. These sites should allow for substantive contribution of youth on policy issues and other issues of concern. The government must then be held accountable to youth using the site to act on their concerns and report back on their activities.

TIMELINE
§ Prime Minister to commit to attend WSSD - post Prep Comm III (April 2002)
§ Announcement of a youth engagement strategy at WSSD - August 2002
§ Youth engagement to be built into next departmental Sustainable Development strategies (2004), with broad consultation of the youth community
§ Establishment of FCM/ICLEI partnerships - ongoing
§ Longer term (2004,2005) provincial efforts to engage youth
§ 2007 review of what has happened and report back to the international community at WSSD + 5

CANADA IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
Compared to other countries, Canada is progressive in terms of including youth in sustainable development processes. At CSD 10, serving as the third Preparatory Committee for WSSD, Canada was one of six countries to have a youth on their official delegation. There are still several other countries that do better than us regarding actual engagement. In countries with state Youth Councils, such as Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, the substantive contributions youth are able to make in relation to government positions is much greater. Further, Canada's good record is limited to environment. Other areas like trade, international development, finance, education and industry, all integral to achieving sustainable development, have a long way to go.

STRENGTHENING MAJOR GROUPS-ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
By Karen Wristen, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee

INDICATOR
Agenda 21 contains numerous objectives for strengthening aboriginal communities and their ability to participate in land and resource development decisions. Most of these objectives by far defy quantitative assessment, either because of their nature or because of the absence of records relative to the objective. I have chosen the following commitment as an indicator, because our progress on this one will leverage our ability to meet the balance of objectives for aboriginal communities:

Establishment of a process to empower indigenous people and their communities through measures that include:
· Adoption or strengthening of appropriate policies and/or legal instruments at the national level;
· Recognition that the lands of indigenous people and their communities should be protected from activities that are environmentally unsound or that the indigenous people concerned consider to be socially and culturally inappropriate.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992
While it is difficult to generalize about this indicator, given the diverse relationships between the federal government and Canada's aboriginal peoples, it is fair to say that in 1992, there was little apparent recognition of the principles set out above. Most decision-making concerning the fate of Crown lands subject to aboriginal title claims was undertaken by the federal, Territorial or provincial governments, often with little or no consultation with aboriginal people. Reserve lands were similarly administered, with critical decisions concerning the use and disposition of lands often being made without complete understanding of the facts or the long-term interests of the aboriginal population in question. Environmental assessment did not formally recognize the need for consultation at the political level on development decisions.

STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002
Some progress has been made on these issues and is worthy of note. For example, the Arctic Environmental Strategy, initiated in 1991 by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, has proved hugely successful in addressing pressing issues of toxic contaminants. The AES may well be credited with the leading role Canada played in the successful conclusion of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The Strategy fully involved five aboriginal peoples; it was well funded and its goals were clearly laid out. It worked co-operatively with circumpolar partners. While it remains to be seen whether or not that success can be brought to ground through the implementation of the Stockholm Convention, it is clear that the partnership approach developed on the contaminants issue as part of the Strategy itself is a model worth replication.

Progress has also been achieved on the treaty-making front, though progress is slow and complicated by the provincial interests at stake. Substantial guidance and direction has been given by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1991, confirming, for example, the existence of aboriginal title in British Columbia and the duty to consult meaningfully before taking decisions that may affect aboriginal title.

We remain far short of effective recognition that aboriginal lands should be protected from development that is environmentally unsound or socio-economically undesirable, however. In order to achieve this, it would be necessary to have in place the following:
· Processes to permit effective participation of aboriginal people in land use decisions
· Funding to ensure participation can be meaningful
· Plans and policies to govern the making of land use decisions
· Baseline data to permit effective assessment of development proposals
· Monitoring and enforcement programmes to ensure compliance with permit conditions

Commitments of this nature are constitutionally enshrined in some treaties; yet the government of Canada is far behind in its ability to deliver on them. For example:

· there are no approved land use plans in the Yukon or NWT, or in parts of Nunavut;
· such plans as exist do not contain protected areas or zoning to control development;
· the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Programme, part of the Gwich'in and Sahtu comprehensive land claims agreements, is fully five years behind schedule and to date has not even developed indicators for monitoring;
· the development assessment process under the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement is years behind schedule and there are no legislated provisions for intervenor funding as part of environmental assessment for the NWT and Nunavut;
· the free entry mineral rights disposition for federal lands in Yukon, NWT and Nunavut continues in place leading to land and resource use conflicts.

The situation is far more complex in the non-treaty lands of British Columbia and Alberta, where land use decisions are made by the provincial governments. Recognition of even the basic duty of meaningful consultation has been painfully slow to come. The provinces continue to refuse to acknowledge the existence of aboriginal title attached to any particular territory, insisting that acknowledgment will only be achieved by the conclusion of a treaty or by order of a court. This means that land use decisions continue to be made against the wishes of First Nations and often in derogation of their constitutionally protected rights.

DESIRABLE STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2012
It is probably unrealistic, given the involvement of the provinces and the progress of the Treaty Process to date, to expect that within 10 years the federal government will be able to achieve the conclusion of legal instruments resolving the outstanding land claims and sovereignty claims in Canada. Therefore, it is suggested that the most effective way for the federal government to achieve the objectives of Agenda 21, without compromising further its constitutional obligations to Canada's aboriginal peoples, would be to concentrate resources on attaining agreements in principle and joint management agreements that permit effective aboriginal veto over land use decisions in their territories pending the conclusion of final agreements and treaties.

RECOMMENDED COURSES OF ACTION
· Maintain and increase funding to treaty and joint-management processes;
· Work with any of a number of successful models of co-management to establish effective decision-making bodies to govern lands subject to aboriginal title or claims of sovereignty;
· Focus resources on the development of policy and higher-level plans to govern regional development;
· Fund the research, monitoring and enforcement necessary to ensure that development does not further degrade the environment; and
· Capacity building to ensure Aboriginal people have the tools required to effectively participate in land use decision-making.

THE VITALITY OF CANADA'S VOLUNTARY SECTOR/NGOS
Jointly prepared by: Stephane Bordeleau, Société Parkinson du Québec, Grace Burns, ALS Society; Lara Ellis, Canadian Nature Federation; Marlo Raynolds, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development; Paula Speevak-Sladowski, Volunteer Canada; Bernard Voyer, Taoist Tai Chi Society.

The Canadian voluntary sector is comprised of 77,000 registered charities, 100,000 legally incorporated non-profits and an estimated 886,000 grass-roots organizations across the country. Created and governed by caring citizens, they are vastly different in both size and structure and include large multi-service agencies with unionized staff, small collectives, community organizations with highly specialized professionals, and ad-hoc groups of like- minded people. Some have a national, provincial, or regional scope, while most have local community mandates.

According to the 2000 National Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating, of Canadians over 15 years of age, 27% volunteer their time (a total of 6.5 million people) 91% make donations (a total of 22 million people), and eight out of ten Canadians participate in at least one organization. Close to two million Canadians have paid employment in the voluntary sector and more and more colleges and universities are offering specialized programs for voluntary sector leaders, managers and practitioners.

Dynamic and diverse, the voluntary sector in Canada collectively provides services and programs to all ages aimed at improving the quality of life of its citizens in:

Many organizations within these sub-sectors fall within provincial jurisdiction in terms of funding, legislation, and professional regulatory bodies. While there are long-standing coalitions, networks, and associations within these sub-sectors, we are only now beginning to see the emergence of broader voluntary sector coalitions, chambers, councils, and civic forums. This movement to build cohesion in the broader voluntary sector is motivated by a collective will to have greater input into public policy, build the capacity of the sector, raise the profile of the sector, and promote collaboration and partnerships within the sector.

On December 5, 2001, the Government of Canada signed an Accord with the Canadian Voluntary Sector recognizing the complementary roles the public and voluntary sector play in building civil society. The Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy have conducted research and are championing Corporate Social Responsibility and promoting corporate and voluntary sector relationships. More than ever, the voluntary sector is being acknowledged for the critical role it plays in promoting sustainable communities along with its public and private partners.

VOLUNTEERISM AS A MEASURE OF CIVIL SOCIETY
The rate of volunteering is one measure of civil society and considered by some as a key indicator of the overall vitality of the voluntary sector. This indicator was selected because the data is current and available and not because it has widespread acceptance as the definitive measure of the strength of the voluntary sector. Various levels of government as well as the academic community have recognized the value of research on the voluntary sector. Several important research projects are now underway and cover areas such as funding mechanisms, human resource practices, the scope of the voluntary sector, typography of voluntary organizations, social justice and grantmaking, and voluntary sector collaboration.

Over the years, there have been some interesting shifts in the rate and type of volunteering that Canadians do. In 1997, 31% of Canadians volunteered an average of 149 hours per year yet in 2000, only 27% volunteered but they contributed an average of 163 hours. Less people volunteering more time is also reflected in the worrisome statistic that 6.3% of volunteers contribute 78% of the volunteer hours.

VOLUNTEER RATE

CHALLENGES OF USING VOLUNTEER RATE AS AN INDICATOR
First, there is some disagreement about what is counted as both formal and informal volunteering particularly in rural settings, and cultural communities. Second, while the number of people volunteering has dropped, the level of giving and participating (i.e. membership, affiliation, monetary donations - not shown in above table) has increased. So even though the volunteer rate has declined, it would seem that the overall level of citizen engagement is increasing.

To bring about systemic change, some Canadian and international NGOs believe that the two streams of voluntary sector activity - direct service to alleviate suffering and advocacy to influence public policy - need to work more effectively together. The complexities of the Canadian federated state system as well as the organization and cohesion of the broader voluntary sector being in early development create unique challenges to relationship between government and the voluntary sector.

TRENDS AND STRATEGIES TOWARDS REACHING THE 2012 TARGET
In response to the changing nature of work (e.g. fewer permanent jobs and services; more contracts and projects) the sector is challenged to create short-term volunteer assignments rather than long-term volunteer positions. Mobilizing workplace-supported volunteers and collaborating with the private sector on their corporate social responsibility initiatives is a growing trend for the voluntary sector and one that has the potential to positively impact the volunteer rate. Voluntary organizations are also faced with a growing number of mandatory community service programs (e.g. high-school programs, court-ordered service, social assistance / "workfare" programs) and there is a need to explore the philosophical and practical implications of this type of participation.

HOW DOES THE CANADIAN VOLUNTARY SECTOR CONTRIBUTE TO SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY?
The authors of this report are students of the McGill-McConnell Program (Master of Management for National Voluntary Sector Leaders). The "Global Sustainability" group has produced a report on a number of voluntary sector case studies of different models of collaboration developed to increase sustainability. It also identifies other indicators of voluntary sector vitality. The report will become available on the web.

Sources:
National Survey on Volunteering (Statistics Canada, 1987), National Survey on Giving Volunteering and Participating (Statistics Canada, The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Volunteer Canada, Human Resource Development Canada, and Heritage Canada 1997, 2000), A Portrait of Canadian Charities (National Voluntary Organizations 1994), The State of Voluntary Sector Research in Canada (Canadian Centre for Philanthropy 2000), Attitudes of Canadians on Charities (Muttart Foundation 2001), Canadian Centre for Philanthropy Web-site (www.nonprofitscan.org February 2002).

LOCAL AUTHORITIES
By Nola-Kate Seymoar, International Centre for Sustainable Cities

INDICATOR: Implementation of Local Agenda 21 (LA21)

RATIONALE FOR INDICATOR
According to Secretary General, Nitin Dessai there are three areas of focus for the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD): implementation, partnerships and rebuilding political commitments. While implementation of Agenda 21 on a national level has fallen short of expectations, in Canada, successes have been achieved at the local level. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 stipulates that "by 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for their communities." The International Council for Local Environmental Improvements (ICLEI) was the original author of Chapter 28 and serves, along with partners representing elected officials, as the focal point for gathering international data on progress at the local government level. ICLEI has published the results of two international surveys of progress on Local Agenda 21 (LA21), in 1997 and in 2002. ICLEI defined LA21 as "a participatory, multi-stakeholder process to achieve the goals of Agenda 21 at the local level through the preparation and implementation of a long term strategic plan that addresses priority local sustainable development concerns."

Local Agenda 21 processes are characterized as including the following milestones that are to be achieved through a participatory process:
1. Establishment of a multi-stakeholder group to oversee the LA21 process.
2. Completion of a local sustainability audit
3. Completion of a sustainability community vision, based on the audit and an assessment of community priorities
4. Implementation of an LA21 action plan, identifying clear goals, priorities, measurable targets, roles and responsibilities, funding sources and work activities
5. Establishment of community based monitoring of progress using local indicators.

WHERE CANADA WAS AT IN 1992
Local government was part of the Canadian delegation in Rio, and Canada benefited from the fact that ICLEI was headquartered in Toronto. As the concept of LA21 was born at Rio, no cities had yet formally adopted such a plan, but there was a clear expectation that Canada would make significant progress on this chapter.

WHERE WE ARE AT IN 2002
According to ICLEI's recent survey Canada has 14 cities that are well along in implementing LA21. Of these, two - Hamilton/Wentworth, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) have received world wide recognition for their long term strategies. Canada however, is far behind most European countries. In order to explain Canada's poor showing on this indicator it is important to consider whether it is a definitional problem or truly represents a lack of action. In the author's opinion it is both.

The GVRD, for example, has a well developed Livable Region Strategic Plan that encompasses all of the LA21 measures and represents 22 local authorities, not just one. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) started a climate change action program called the 20% club that later merged with ICLEI's world wide "Cities for Climate Protection" campaign and became known as Partners for Climate Protection (PCP). 91 Cities, representing about 60% of Canada's population, are active participants in the program. One third of the membership represents mostly small and rural communities. This program is based on multi-stakeholder participatory processes and FCM/ICLEI are pushing the communities to broaden their involvement and embrace a larger LA21 or LA21- type approach. In Manitoba, close to 80 Community Round Tables along with a strong provincial Round Table were developed with the support of the Provincial Government. Their efforts have been shifting in focus over the past few years from economic development to environmental and social well-being. The roundtables have a broad mandate and use multi-stakeholder participatory processes. It appears therefore that the ICLEI survey results identified local authorities that knew of LA21 and saw how their actions fit with the definitions, but may have missed the kind of activity represented by the community round tables or the PCP participants. This fact however - the lack of identification by Canadian municipalities with a major part of Agenda 21 remains a significant problem.

According to the analysis of the "Second International LA21 Survey report", there is a strong correlation between national support for LA21 and the number of communities participating. This is regardless of the formal structure of national, provincial/state, and local governments. After Rio, in Canada, the federal Green Plan provided energy, focus and resources to implement Agenda 21. While the change in government in the mid nineties shut down the Green Plan, the Minister of Environment under the new government championed LA21 processes in her city of Hamilton/Wentworth. The results show. Hamilton/Wentworth won the prestigious Dubai Award for best practices in Human Settlements in 2000.

At a national level, the federal government has long avoided direct involvement with municipalities, leaving that to the provinces under whose authority they lie. Over the last three years FCM has accelerated its programming role to support municipal efforts to address climate change. CMHC saw its mandate as too limited to provide effective leadership - either at Habitat II or in implementing Rio. ICLEI, while based in Toronto, was focused on its international mandate. The International Center for Sustainable Cities was among the federally supported independent bodies introduced in response to the Earth Summit but that lost its funding when broad cut backs were made in the mid nineties. ICSC turned to contracts for foreign aid projects to continue its work internationally. Thus there was a national vacuum around the issue of domestic delivery of Local Agenda 21. The activities that did occur - and as noted above there were many, were not identified as LA21 and did not benefit from the synergy that comes from shared experiences.

There is evidence that this situation is changing. FCM have received funds (Green Municipal Funds) and are administering them to support sustainable community development including green infrastructure projects. They see the need for communities to have broad sustainable development plans in order to maximize the impact of those funds, and will be supporting the development of community energy plans, local action plans and sustainable community plans. The Prime Minister has established a Liberal task force to recommend actions on urban issues. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) surveyed the "urban tsunami" and recommended that Canada establish a Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI) aimed at building teams of Canadians from the public, private and civil sectors that could address urban problems and capture markets for urban expertise and technology at home and abroad. Five government departments cooperated in developing the international SCI and Industry Canada launched it in three cities in 1998. A review of its success has led to recommendations to expand it to a larger number of foreign cities in the future. The NRTEE has established an urban task force and is actively examining ecological/fiscal reforms. Several NGOs focused on urban issues have undertaken joint projects, and Smart Growth is emerging as a movement in Canada.

TARGETS FOR 2012
Given that the majority of Canadians live in urban areas, it would be reasonable to set as a target that 80% of the population be covered by local authorities that have undertaken formal LA21 processes, if they have not already done so, moving beyond the setting of the agenda and into action. LA21 needs to be adapted to small, medium and larger cities but the process is common. It is reasonable to build on the existing programs and expand their scope.

STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS TO GET THERE
Given the importance of a national campaign and the need for champions of the LA21 process, it is recommended that a combination of forces be mobilized.

· The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy has expertise and interest in multi-stakeholder consensus building processes. A key step to establishing a viable LA21 is the creation of such a body to oversee the local programs. The NRTEE is well placed to serve as the organizing focal point for the creation of Community Sustainability Councils (CSCs) to serve in this capacity.
· FCM is well placed to expand the PCP program and use the influence of the Green Municipal Funds and other funds to help communities, through their CSC's or equivalent bodies, to define and implement their sustainable development strategic plans.
· ICLEI is well placed to provide the content, coaching and capacity building for this LA21 process.
· In order to strengthen the role of Canadian NGOs in this field, all three groups, NRTEE, FCM and ICLEI should be encouraged to work with Canadian urban organizations to deliver the necessary training and capacity building domestically. These include but are not limited to the International Centre for Sustainable Cities, the Canadian Urban Institute, and Groupe interuniversitaire de Montreal.
· A federal initiative similar to the international SCI needs to be designed to address and support domestic activities related to sustainable communities. It should have the financial authority and ability to provide grants and seed money to both the local CSC's and to initiatives outside of the CSC's which are in keeping with the objectives of local agenda 21.
· Financing is necessary to provide the human resources for the groups identified above to deliver a program, and seed money is also needed to initiate actions once plans have been made. Funds similar to the Neighborhood Grants programs operating in Seattle have been shown to be highly cost effective.

GLOBAL CONTEXT
According to the ICLEI survey there are at least 6,416 local governments in 113 countries involved in LA21 activities, a significant increase from the 1,812 that were active in 1997. With only 14 cities identified, Canada is far behind, although as indicated above, many communities may be undertaking similar activities under another name or framework. The USA reported 87, Germany 2042, and Italy 429, whereas Estonia has 29 and Mongolia has 22. Developed countries have more than three times the number of LA21's compared to 1997. Regionally Europe leads the world with 5,292 municipalities involved.

Internationally, through the work of the International Centre for Sustainable Cities, FCM, the Canadian Urban Institute, Agra Team, Groupe interuniversitaire de Montreal and many others supported by CIDA and other donor funds, local government capacity building activities in developing countries feature strategic planning for sustainable development and multi-stakeholder and public participatory processes. Ironically we may be better at facilitating LA21 processes in other countries than we are at home.

Despite having been the home of the conference which established the UN Centre for Human Settlements in 1976, Canada is no longer active in support of Habitat, the United Nations Programme for Human Settlements.

If as many of us believe - local action is the key to implementation of Agenda 21, and the next century will see a major demographic shift to urban areas, the challenge for Canada is to refocus its efforts nationally to bring national support behind the achievement of sustainable development at the community level. At the same time Canada could reassume her world leadership in the field, support Habitat, and use the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Habitat to host a tri-sectoral summit on urban sustainability in Vancouver in 2006.

SUSTAINABLE WORKPLACES
By David Bennett, Canadian Labour Congress

In Agenda 2l, arising out of Rio in l992, the notion of sustainable development was articulated and given a global presence in environmental thinking. In subsequent years, sustainability was further articulated and given three poles or pillars: a sustainable environment, a sustainable economy and sustainable communities or a sustainable society. But the notion of sustainable workplaces and the health of workers was nowhere on the radar screen. This was in one respect not surprising since workers as a group are invariably the last to be considered in environmental health deliberations, e.g. over the health effects of chemical pesticides. But in other respects the failure is quite astonishing, since it ought to be self-evident that most environmental problems are focussed on workplaces, such as resource inputs and utilization, energy use and, above all, environmental pollution. So the omission stands in need of explanation.

In Agenda 21, there was a short, later chapter on cleaner technology but no attempt to focus on the workplace as the source and the potential resolution of a host of major environmental problems. In the subsequent work of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, there was some international movement on risk reduction as a part of Agenda 21, Ch. 19: The Environmentally Sound Management of Chemicals. The labour movement was also a party to an international standard for the right to know about chemical hazards, arising out of Ch. 19, Part B, The Globally Harmonized System for Chemical Classification and Labelling. This consensus standard, which covers a wide range of products including industrial chemicals, pesticides, consumer goods and pharmaceuticals, is now being implemented by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The provision, if properly implemented, will bring the worker and community right to know to a wide range of less developed countries world-wide. This is a great advance, in many ways modelled on Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) but far less well-known than it ought to be.

But in all this, there was little attention to Pollution Prevention, which is an essential part of sustainable development.

INDICATOR: The implementation of Pollution Prevention.

Pollution Prevention is defined by the Government of Canada as:
The use of processes, practices, materials, products or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste, and reduce overall risk to human health or the environment.

While there are several different formulations, this definition is as good as any. But federal government action since l995, when this definition was made official, has been minimal, even disingenuous. Pollution Prevention was the avowed aim of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA, l999) but the requirements for Pollution Prevention Planning are slight and so far inconsequential. One reason for this is that Pollution Prevention deals with processes within workplaces when the matter of what goes on inside workplaces is largely under provincial jurisdiction. Thus Pollution Prevention is something very difficult for the federal government to do effectively.

LOOKING BACK
The CEPA (1999) has Pollution Prevention as its avowed aim. Yet, because the approach of CEPA is to address individual substances or classes of substance rather than looking at toxic substances holistically within workplaces, Environment Canada's programme is not convincing. So far it has proposed mandatory Pollution Prevention planning for a very small number of substances, e.g. dichloromethane, on Schedule l of CEPA. Schedule l is itself a short list of 52 substances. Thus the approach cannot address the dozens or hundreds of toxic substances used in a typical workplace. Since most of these workplaces fall under provincial jurisdiction, the Pollution Prevention planning requirements are feeble or circumspect. Federal inspectors are unable to enter these workplaces to verify the effectiveness of Pollution Prevention plans.

The limited evidence available shows that Pollution Prevention activities as defined by the government are minimal. Of 2,190 facilities reporting pollution emissions under the National Pollutants Release Inventory (CEPA-NPRI) at most 9.6% reported activities that would genuinely count as Pollution Prevention, while only about 3% engaged in any form of materials/ product reformulation or chemical substitution.
This means that voluntary measures have only limited success. This in spite of efforts of national bodies to promote voluntary initiatives. The independent Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention does valiant work on a shoestring. The federal government's National Office of Pollution Prevention tries to do good work but is bullied by big business which contends (quite wrongly) that Pollution Prevention is bad for the economy. Several provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia have produced comprehensive guides to Pollution Prevention. But without legislation and the adoption of the precautionary approach to chemical management and control, these efforts do not amount to much in practice. The stranglehold of free trade agreements and the place in them of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) would make it difficult for governments to implement Pollution Prevention - if they even tried.

CANADA IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
At the international level, the recent Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) which has been signed by Canada, requires the phasing out of several of the dozen pollutants so far covered - a very limited number. But it is a start, the banning of chemicals being one obvious Pollution Prevention strategy.

Otherwise, it has been left to the labour and environmental movements to push the issue of Pollution Prevention, on the grounds that it protects workers, the environment and local communities equally. The Canadian Labour Congress produced its National Pollution Prevention Strategy in l997 and the issue has been taken up by several unions in both the private and public sectors. The Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP) has done good work on Pollution Prevention in its Citizens' Guide. Other environmental organizations have adopted Pollution Prevention and used it in their strategies, for instance over water quality and the public reporting of Pollution Prevention measures undertaken by polluting industries.
The record over sustainable production is even worse. It has been left to bodies outside Canada to develop the idea of sustainable production of goods and services, such as the Lowell Centre for Sustainable Production. The most culpable agencies here are Industry Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The agencies have opposed all forms of chemical regulation and precautionary approaches (though they pay lip service to them) on the grounds that these are bad for the economy. They have also misconstrued the scientific grounds for government intervention, insisting on risk assessments before any action can be taken. This again reflects a business position on what critics, in a slight understatement, have called corporate junk science. The fact is that Pollution Prevention initiatives in workplaces do not require risk assessment as a precondition of action, Pollution Prevention being one essential element in sustainable production. The stance taken by these government agencies in fact stifles innovation and competition, condemning Canada to a stagnating rustbelt economy and a poisoned population at the same time.

The Canadian labour movement has well-articulated policies on Green Job Creation and Just Transition for workers during environmental change. Since the federal and some provincial governments are determined that there will be no such environmental change, e.g. over the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, such policies have been hard to implement at the national level. In workplaces and in the recent moves towards sustainable communities, these ventures are having more success.

TARGETS AND STRATEGIES FOR 2012
What then must happen if we are to achieve significant progress on sustainable production in the next decade? First, we have to have effective legislation which mandates Pollution Prevention in workplaces rather than addressing individual substances. For workplaces under federal jurisdiction, Part lX of CEPA (federal undertakings) could easily be used.

Second, we need the precautionary approach to be firmly entrenched in national policy, not merely the feeble proposals now being circulated. Third, we have to eliminate those parts of free trade agreements which rule out the precautionary approach in favour of risk assessment, particularly those parts dealing with health and environmental hazards, together with Chapter 11 of NAFTA (Investment).

We also need to build on our successes in environmental policy - including the work environment - such as WHMIS and the NPRI.

Finally, we need to see tangible progress in the move towards sustainable communities, of which production systems are only a part. The direct dialogue which is emerging between the federal government - particularly the Finance Department - and the big municipalities is one such avenue of progress. Another is in the moves that have been made to create municipal investment funds to improve the environmental infrastructure and to address climate change measures in such areas as mass transit and energy efficiency.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY By Lisa Princic, Canadian Business for Social Responsibility INDICATOR Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable Development are relatively new terms in the business world gaining considerable momentum in the last five years. Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR), the Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission and other CSR experts have determined that accountability is an important component of CSR. Social and environmental (sustainability) reporting is one method by which organizations can be held accountable to their stakeholders. There can be many different reasons for a company to produce sustainability reports including enhanced reputation, reduced risk and strengthened brand and profile. Another possible motivator for producing reports is the increased interest and commitment to transparency and accountability. One indicator that can be used for tracking CSR progress in Canada is the number of companies that publicly disclose environmental and social reports on their operations or include sustainability sections as a portion of their annual report. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 1992 Research in an independent study found that in 1992, 18 Canadian companies published detailed environmental, social or sustainability reports. This was approximately double the number from the previous year. During this period, companies were mainly producing single-issue reports such as environmental reports or ones with limited integration such as Environmental Health and Safety Reports. STATE OF THE INDICATOR IN 2002 In 2001, 57 Canadian companies produced public sustainability reports. Although the increase in number of public reports has been dramatic at 300%, the total number of companies issuing public reports is still minute. It is interesting to note that while the number of reports increased very little, the scope of these reports expanded as the definition of CSR continued to broaden. There has been a movement towards more comprehensive triple bottom line performance (social, environmental and financial) reporting in recent years. There have been, and continue to be, initiatives to develop globally applicable guidelines for reporting on the economic, environmental, and social performance of corporations, governments and NGOs. As there are currently in excess of 150 international voluntary codes, Canadian companies struggle to select or develop the "right" code. One such code is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), established in late 1997. A goal of the GRI is to make sustainability reporting as routine and credible as financial reporting in terms of comparability, rigour and verifiability. In an in-depth evaluation on sustainability reports from 35 companies from 1999-2000, the total 'quality' scores ranges from 28 to 96 out of a total score of 156. This survey assessed the quality and comprehensiveness of sustainability information provided in these corporate reports only. It is important to note that very few of these reviewed reports had independent external verification. This wide range in quality of reporting is not surprising given the plethora of voluntary codes and the absence of a standardized reporting format. The lack of a broader commitment to public CSR reporting indicates that corporate Canada is still struggling with developing clear indicators, benchmarks and reporting standards. WHERE THE INDICATOR SHOULD BE IN 2012 Reporting targets and goals need to move from the aspirational to the practical and tactical. Canada needs a standardized set of indicators which are seen to be credible by business, NGOs and government and which can be tracked, monitored and reported on in a systematic and reliable way. These indicators should be compatible with acceptable international standards. ACTIONS REQUIRED TO GET THERE BY 2012 Although the business community is resistant and suspicious of increased regulation and government intervention, without substantial changes on these fronts we will see changes continue to happen but only on the margins. The recent report, The New Balance Sheet - Corporate Profits and Responsibility in the 21st Century, calls for regulations to create a set of CSR guidelines requiring mandatory social and environmental reporting by corporations. In addition, pension funds would be required to disclose whether their investment policies take into account these guidelines. Other recommendations from this report include: · amending corporate laws to encourage private companies of a certain size to provide annual disclosures, · implementing the above requirements in 1 - 3 years, · requiring disclosure list of all serious criminal or regulatory convictions in annual reports and · obliging large public and private companies to produce annual social audits. FITTING INTO THE GLOBAL CONTEXT In a global survey, Canada ranks in the mid range on sustainability. Canada had 26% of its top 100 companies producing sustainability reports, thus ranking behind Germany (at 36%), Sweden (34%), UK (32%), Norway (31%), USA (30%) and Denmark (29%). Canada had a higher percentage than The Netherlands (25%), Belgium (16%), Australia (15%), Finland (15%) and France (4%). Several European countries have made a systematic effort to increase corporate environmental reporting through specific government requirements and actions. Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands have all mandated a specified form of environmental reporting for many companies. In the UK, the government has motivated many companies to publish environmental reports by amending their pension fund regulations. The new regulations require pension funds to report publicly how they consider environmental and social factors in their investment decisions. This has led them to request environmental and social information from companies in which they invest. The Canadian government seems to be lagging in comparison to other jurisdictions in terms of having a strategic focus or demonstrated commitment to CSR according to a CBSR report. Due to its high standard of living, Canada is well positioned to become a leader in CSR. Canada can contribute to CSR by sharing best practices with less developed countries by hosting conferences with the end product of sharing its lessons learned to date. MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY OF FARMING By Linda Geggie, LifeCycles Project Society Giving a definition of sustainable farming is much like asking three blind men to describe an elephant. It depends on what end you are looking at. In order to determine the "sustainability" of farming we must look at its inter-related dimensions. A sustainable farming and food system must consider and strive for: · the livelihood of farmers and the vibrancy of rural communities · agricultural production systems that are restorative to the physical environment and maintain a productive and dependable land base · the ability to feed local populations first and provide them with long-term food security In order to measure progress towards the sustainability of farming in Canada, and the strength of farmers, it is of key importance to understand farming as a web of economic, health, environmental and social relationships. Appropriate objectives set by communities, national governments and international agreements in regards to the promotion of sustainable farming must consider activities that strengthen, and do not jeopardize or act in contradiction to, any one of these important elements. "The number one concern of farmers and allied major groups is to get food security, rural development and sustainable livelihoods onto the agenda". While Canada has taken many distinct actions (such as the creation of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project, Canada's Action Plan for Food Security , and the initiation of the Canadian Rural Partnership Program ), it has failed to adequately address an overarching trend and activity that is perhaps the greatest threat to the sustainability of farming. This threat is corporate concentration through vertical and horizontal integration of the agri-food sector. If we do not address corporate concentration and control of the food sector, and the industrialization and globalization of agriculture then we are not adequately addressing the social, economic and environmental concerns of Canadian farmers and Canadian communities. INDICATOR Used in conjunction with other environmental, social and health based indicators, the percentage share of large agribusiness operations of farming activity in Canada may be a tool in measuring an increase or decrease towards greater sustainability of farming in Canada. The relationship of farm size and numbers to such things as: farming practices; diversification of economy; agricultural production based employment; and the health of rural and farming communities; makes it a holistic and appealing indicator. Independent family farms tend to be more responsible to local environment and community concerns, spend closer to home, ship less distance, employ more people, and have less negative environmental impacts on soil, water and air. "An agricultural structure that was increasingly corporate and non family owned tend(s) to lead to population decline, lower incomes, fewer community services, less participation in democratic processes, less retail trade, environmental pollution, more unemployment and an emerging rigid class structure." Most agribusiness firms, particularly large ones, when measured against the goals of sustainability are not making significant contributions, mainly due to their centralized nature. The implications of centralization, industrialization and globalization of agriculture are that smaller independent farmers are unable to compete in the market place. There is the loss of farms, greater unemployment in agricultural production sector, decline in rural communities, greater tendencies to methods of farming reliant on higher levels of chemical inputs and energy usage and an increasing infatuation with biotechnology which jeopardizes our physical environment, and the rights of farmers and indigenous communities across the world. It is also doing little to make food healthier or more accessible to all Canadians . The merits of "economies of scale" fall apart when we consider more than just the bottom line, and look at greater social and environmental costs. LOOKING BACK If we review the changes in the number and size of farms over the past decade in Canada, we see an alarming and accelerating trend . Larger farms (based on gross farm receipts) represent a rapidly increasing share of all farms in Canada. The number of large farms (>$100,000 in gross farm receipts) increased by 11% between 1991 and 1996, and by a further 16% between 1996 and 1999, for a total change of 27%. The result is that large farms now represent 40% of total farms (compared to 27% in 1991). On the other hand small farms (<$50,000 gross farm receipts) declined by 6% between 1991 and 1996, and a further 22% between 1996 and 1999. This means a total decrease in the number of smaller farms by 28%, so that smaller farms now represent only 33% of all farms in Canada. In addition, by breaking down the percentage changes between the two periods we can see acceleration in the trend over the past decade. GLOBAL CONTEXT Over the past decade, the worldwide value of corporate mergers and acquisitions increased from US$462 billion in 1990 to over US$3.5 trillion in 2000, roughly 12% of total world economic output. This concentration of corporate power has affected most sectors of the global economy at the same time as disparities between the rich and poor have grown sharply: according to the United Nations Development Programme, the richest 1% of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57%. An example of this in Canada is that, two companies, IBP and Cargill, dominate the beef packing sector with 74% of Canadian capacity. Four companies (DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Novartis, and Dow) control 69% of the North American seed corn market and 47% of the soybean seed market. On one hand Canada is participating in the World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Codex Alimentarius, and North American Free Trade Agreement, which have contributed to the effects of this concentration process. While at the same time Canada has committed to Agenda 21 that states that National governments should promote pricing mechanisms, trade policies, fiscal incentives and other policy instruments that positively affect individual farmer's decisions about an efficient and sustainable use of natural resources, and take full account of the impact of these decisions on household hood security, farm incomes, employment and the environment. So while Canada is taking measures in some areas, it is turning a blind eye towards the vertical and horizontal integration of agribusiness that may be most dangerous to the sustainability of farmers and farming. We must decide what row to hoe, and Governments must stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. TARGETS AND STRATEGIES FOR 2012 It is imperative that we see a reversal of these trends in the next 10 years. If Canada and Canadians are serious about the sustainability of farms and farmers both in Canada and around the world, then we must see a dramatic shift in policies and global trade regimes. We must ensure that independent farms and farming families survive. A target that we could set that would ensure this, and reveal a strong independent farming sector would be to have smaller independent farms holding at least 50% share of the production market in Canada. WHAT STRATEGIES CAN COMMUNITIES AND GOVERNMENTS TAKE? Some suggestions are to : · Argue that international bodies cannot address world food security without addressing corporate ownership, control and consolidation, and call for strengthening the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's economic division to monitor the impacts of multinational corporations and new technologies on world food security. · Support the Seattle Declaration of Via Campesina. · Support co-op development. · Support organic production and certification and verification bodies. · Provide information, and monitoring in terms of business practices. · Consumer activism - Consumers have historically acted singly and in groups to effect changes in agribusiness practices through such things as selective purchasing or ethical investment. · Change the characteristics of and regulations governing the corporation such as creating legal changes to the status of the corporation, shareholder control, and restricting mergers and acquisitions (Canada has only one significant legal instrument in place, the Competition Act). · Make tax revisions · Increase liability for corporations and broaden their ownership base. · Choose and support alternative enterprise forms. · Redesign economic concepts to support sustainability.