Moving Forward on Energy at the CSD

The 14th Session of the CSD is addressing the issues of Energy for Sustainable Development, Industrial Development, Air Pollution and Climate Change. How does the US government feel these issues can be addressed at the CSD?

This CSD session has one overarching theme: Energy. That is why it is called the ‘Energy Cycle.' This overarching theme includes the 4 substantive issues you identified: Energy for Sustainable Development, Industrial Development, Air Pollution and Climate Change. The US Government has made an assessment of those 4 issues and concluded that each could easily have an entire cycle devoted to them alone. Furthermore, many of those areas already have extensive programmes and activities dedicated to them under the auspices of the UN. As a result, the US feels that energy should be used as a prism through which we look at a broad swath of sustainable development issues (e.g.,health, education, water, etc.). In relation to the four thematic issues of this cycle, we can talk about each within the context of energy. For example, if we address activities directed at making energy consumption more efficient, on both the supply and demand side, our efforts will in turn have positive affects for air pollution and climate change. We feel energy efficiency is an issue that should be front and centre in discussions at the CSD.

Since Johannesburg , energy security has become an increasingly important issue. How could the CSD's Energy Cycle give direction on how to address this increasingly critical issue?

The thing we need to recognize about energy is that citizens expect their governments to ensure that they have access to reliable, healthy, and affordable energy services. As a result, the issue of energy security is of great concern to governments. Energy is important because it underpins the ability to provide other basic services such as water, health, and education. This means every country will approach the issue of energy from the perspective of energy security. We need to recognize though, that the circumstances of each country are distinct. For some countries, renewable energy may be a good option. Others, however, may not have renewable options, and will need to look to more conventional energy sources. National circumstances will drive countries to seek appropriate energy mixes. The goal of the US for the CSD is to find a way to identify the best ways for countries to provide clean, healthy and affordable energy service to their citizens.

The US has been very supportive of DESA's matrix approach. How could this mechanism be strengthened for future cycles?

I am glad you raised the issue of the role of the Secretariat. We have been very impressed with the Secretariat's ability to take on board the guidance of governments, who have wanted to see a CSD focused on implementation. Mechanisms such as the matrix and the partnerships database are important responses to this. With regards to the matrix, the Secretariat solicited case studies from governments and major stakeholders. When they did this, they targeted implementation. The US took this request seriously and submitted over 30 case studies to the Secretariat. We understand that many other governments have done the same. The challenge for the Secretariat now is two fold. First, the secretariat will need to find ways of effectively managing the constant stream of information and case studies that will now be flowing from governments. The second challenge for the secretariat is how to organize the information they receive in a user-friendly accessible manner, that enables governments, practioners, and other stakeholders to make use of it, adapt it, and replicate it.

In their statement to the plenary on Monday, the South African representative talked about need to address issues such as technology transfer, capacity building and financing. How could the policy year unlock the capacity building question and come up with some specific activities that could be taken?

Good question. I like it because it suggests that the policy year is not so much about policy, but about practical action and implementation. We need to be clear about what we are building capacity for. For example, if we want to promote energy efficiency, capacity building would be relevant to help develop the standards for products that conserve energy. It is about identifying the technical assistance that a particular institution might need to enhance regulatory reform or other energy governance. To me, these sound like practical steps rather than policies. I hope next year's policy session can identify practical and concrete steps; that would be a huge contribution.

Is this the holy grail of the CSD?

I hope our policy year discussions are focused on identifying the practical (implementation and outcomes), rather than the abstract (namely what types of policy interventions are needed to make an institution undertake specific actions). That is what we should be talking about in the policy year.

When we attended the ECLAC RIM in Chile , the US had arrived with money to spend on partnerships. There are of course a number of sources of finance: donor money, IFI and Private sector. What role can each of these play?

Financing is indeed a key issue! You have listed three financing sources. I would like to add a fourth; domestic financing. There are huge amounts of financial resources located in local banks and institutions in developing countries. The key is to find a way to unleash this money so that it can make productive contributions to the energy sector. There are a number of ways to do this. Often local banks view energy projects through a conservative lens, considering them to be risky. Risk guarantees, such as those backed by the US for pooled debt for example, allows money that exists in local institutions to be invested in less traditional investment opportunities. Risk guarantee can provide the help to make investments in the energy sector that might not have been otherwise possible. In addition, credit authority structures have the added benefit of helping local institutions to develop capital markets, making economic growth sustainable and possible.

ODA also has a clear role to play as well. However, when you compare the amount of financing needed to enable access to energy worldwide ($16 trillion) to the amount of money available through official development assistance you realize that ODA is magnitudes smaller. In the United States, we have had to recognize that ODA needs to strategically target activities that will act as a catalyst for broader activities. For example, our ODA cannot build power plants, but we can help develop regulatory policy frameworks that will make investing in the energy sector more attractive. ODA should help to make the right climate for investment.

Stakeholder Forum has conducted number of workshops to look at lessons and to develop recommendations on how the CSD could be strengthened. What are the key lessons learned from the first cycle and how can we take these forward?

First let me say that Stakeholder Forum did a tremendous service to the CSD process by holding those meetings. In the past 3-4 years, the CSD has set out an ambitious reform agenda. The US has found that many elements of this reform required thinking, discussion and dialogue between governments and Major Groups. Stakeholder Forum provided the ability to sort through some of those issues and to ask: What are we trying to achieve? What are our goals? What do we need to take to get to those goals forward? Let me give you an example. At the September workshop, the discussion identified the idea of champions, actors who step forward and become leaders in implementation.

Next year is 5 th anniversary of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. If you could project yourself 10 years into the future, to the 10-year anniversary, what would you hope to see had been achieved?

We have to be realistic about what the CSD can achieve. It is my hope that by focusing on concrete results and establishing norms for implementation, that by 2012 we will be reporting at CSD-20 and beyond on the capacity we have built, results that have been achieved, the metrics we use to define those results, rather than abstract concepts. Such terms could become obsolete. Instead, we will be interested with whether a local institution has the capacity to manage a stakeholder process that develops a voluntary efficiency labeling program fora set of products. This would be a huge success for CSD. Looking back, I would feel quite proud that CSD 14 launched the process to make this results oriented approach to energy efficiency possible.