See more coverage of this event on the main IISD ENB website

We have launched a new website to better share our reports of global environmental negotiations.

As well as current coverage of new negotiations, you can find our original reports from this event by clicking here.


   

Preparations for the 1997 Special Session for the Purpose of an Overall Review and Appraisal of the Implementation of Agenda 21

51st GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL SESSION

INFORMAL PRESENTATIONS ON THE UNGA SPECIAL SESSION
    Daudi Ngelautwa Mwakawago, Vice-Chair of the CSD 
    Razali Ismail, President of the General Assembly 
    Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development  

51st GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL SESSION: On 22-23 October 1996, the Second Committee considered agenda item (97)(a) Implementation of the decisions and recommendations of UNCED and (b) Special session for the purpose of an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of Agenda 21. The Committee had before it the report of the Secretary-General on the state of preparations for the 1997 Special Session (A/51/420).  The report on the preparations for the Special Session notes that the GA at its fiftieth session decided to convene a Special Session for the duration of one week in June 1997 at the highest possible level of participation (resolution 50/113). The reports describes: activities underway by the CSD and its Bureau; relevant activities carried out by the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development and by organizations and bodies of the UN system; the high-level advisory board; information from governments on progress achieved at the national level; national, regional and sub-regional activities to support the preparatory process; the Rio Conventions; initiatives by major groups; public information activities; and status of contributions to the Trust Fund. The report also discusses proposals for the organizational modalities during CSD-5 and the Special Session. 

Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, introduced the report and said he wanted to focus the Committees attention on meeting the high expectations for the 1997 Special Session. He said the Committee should also fix a date for the review process, decide how the Special Session was to be structured and consider NGO participation. He said the Secretariat was working with the private sector to ensure participation and with DPI to ensure adequate media coverage. As for the end product of the Session, guidance from the Committee would prove helpful to the CSD and intersessional group. He asked whether the Committee envisaged a series of commitments, a declaration or agreed conclusions. 

The G-77/CHINA said that the eagerness of the developing countries to start protecting the environment has encountered many difficulties, in particular the lack of sufficient financial resources and transfer of environmentally sound technologies. She also said it was unacceptable that developing countries are being subjected to restrictive trade and investment policies alleged to be necessary under the banner of environmental protection. She said the review of UNCED comes at a time when enthusiasm is diminished and expressed grave concern over what has become of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. She said that the CSD must not operate solely as a technical intergovernmental monitoring body but should also serve as a consensus mobilizer.  She suggested convening informal consultations to produce a draft before the working group begins in February 1997, because those sessions should focus on substantive rather than organizational issues. She noted that the report includes proposals for CSD to promote the integration of conclusions from major international conferences in the review and said the significance and scope of such integration needs to be clarified. The 1997 review must go beyond the assessment of progress achieved in the CSD and the UN system and produce a frank and analytical appraisal of the progress made and the failures and problems encountered in the implementation of Agenda 21. There are many important processes at the local, national, sub-regional and regional levels that fall within the context of UNCED but are not led by the CSD or the UN.  She underscored the need for effective arrangements that will allow major group, including NGOs, to contribute to the preparations for deliberations during the Special Session. She urged contribution to the Trust Fund for developing country participation. She noted that at the time when UNCED is being reviewed, there is a desperate need for a stronger political will to find a new definition of development, a new attitude to achieve and a new compromise to sustain it. 

The EU, along with the associated countries, said the Special Session should look at the future role of the CSD and give political impetus and guidelines for the future of the environment and sustainable development. He invited the active involvement of major groups at all stages in the process and agreed with the reports considerations relating to CSD-5. Regarding the organization of the Special Session, he said that no attempt should be made to re-negotiate Agenda 21 and noted that the Secretariat preliminary evaluations should help countries take stances on this issue. He said it was important that the current session does not prejudge these in any way. He said the EU expects that the Session will also agree to a declaration that will give the political impetus to the next stage of the Rio process and calls for the highest political participation. He noted that the report recommends the Session be held from 7-13 June 1997, but he preferred dates near the end of June, such as 23-27 June.  CHINA said the commitments made by developed countries to transfer technology and provide financial resources remain words on paper and the trend toward covert protectionism under the pretext of environmental considerations had grown.  The Special Session should adhere to principles set forth on the Conference, such as coordination between environmental protection and economic development, common but differentiated responsibilities and special considerations for developing country conditions. 

The MARSHALL ISLANDS said the Special Session should lay the grounds for further international cooperation, national and regional initiatives and mobilization of resources for SIDS.  He expressed concern that the report had not mentioned the special situation of SIDS. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION cautioned against over-optimism, despite the progress made. Ongoing efforts are insufficient for effective handling of global and other environmental dangers and health hazards for the creation of decent living conditions.  The US said that the political role of the CSD must be confirmed among UN institutions to: serve a high-level political forum, working with the UN relevant agencies and the international financial institutions; promote the implementation of Agenda 21 at the global, regional and national levels; identify emerging issues and gaps; and ensure a common understanding of the concept of sustainable development. There is also a need to reinforce understanding about the division of roles between the CSD and UNEP. UNEP should be confirmed as the environment voice of the UN, responsible for environmental policy development, scientific analysis, monitoring and assessment.  He expressed hope that the Special Session would be used to expand the roles and function of the CSD to enable it to act as the main commission for the ECOSOC. As a main commission, the CSD should take the lead in reviewing and overseeing the integrated implementation of the results of recent UN Conferences on sustainable development and related issues. He noted that the CSD has been most successful when it has turned away from the chapter by chapter review of Agenda 21 and looked at how to add value to Agenda 21. The focus of the CSD should shift from sectoral issues to broader, cross-sectoral issues like sustainable cities, rapid population growth and high rates of consumption. He endorsed the reports call for greater attention for fully involving the private sector in CSDs activities. 

GUYANA, on behalf of CARICOM, said the particular problems of SIDS and the final report of the IPF should be given more attention. He expressed concern that the report contained no reference to the Barbados Programme of Action on SIDS. The single most important impediment has been a failure to provide for transfer of technology and to provide new and additional financial resources.  BRAZIL, on behalf of MERCOSUR (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay), said that the commitments made at Rio remained a dead letter. ODA is declining and there are few resources to support implementation of the agreements. Environment problems had been relegated to secondary status and the concept of sustainable development had been given the short shrift. The Special Session should realistically identify what had and had not been achieved since Rio. He noted that the multilateral agenda had not given proper attention to production and consumption patterns. He supported the IPF but said it was too soon to assess its progress. 

Joke Waller-Hunter, DPCSD, responded to statements and noted that many countries had stressed that Agenda 21 should not be reopened or re-negotiated. There was also an emphasis on implementation and priority setting. She noted that expectations for the Session were high. In response to a question on how the Special Session would address the Programme of Action for SIDS, she noted that the Programme had been the first important act in implementing Agenda 21. In response to a question on indicators for sustainable development, she said the CSD had adopted a programme of work on indicators and hopefully by 2000 there will be a full set of indicators available. 

On Friday, 1 November 1996, COSTA RICA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA, and COLOMBIA, on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, introduced a draft resolution on agenda item 97 (b) the Special Session for the purpose of an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of Agenda 21  (A/C.2/51/L.9). In the draft resolution, the General Assembly strongly reaffirms that the Special Session will be undertaken on the basis of and in full respect of the Rio Declaration, in particular Principle VII on common but differentiated responsibilities, and stresses that there should be no attempt to renegotiate Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles or other agreements, but that discussion should concentrate on commitments and further implementation of Agenda 21 and related post-Conference outcomes.  The General Assembly also: decides to convene the Special Session for a duration of one week from 23-27 June at the highest possible level of participation; decides that the CSD will devote the forthcoming meeting of its ad hoc open-ended intersessional working group, to be held from 24 February to 7 March 1997, to preparing for the Special Session, and will devote CSD-5, to be held 7-25 April 1997, as a negotiating meeting, to final preparations for the Special Session; requests the Secretariat to provide, not later than 15 January 1997, all relevant reports called for in General Assembly resolution 50/113 for consideration by the CSDs intersessional working group and CSD-5. 

The General Assembly also requests the Secretary-General, in his report on cross-sectoral issues of Agenda 21, to give special consideration to poverty, financial resources and mechanisms, education, science, the transfer of technology, production and consumption patterns, and trade and environment. It also recognizes the important contributions of major groups, including NGOs, at UNCED, the need for their involvement in preparations for the Special Session and the need to ensure appropriate arrangements for their contributions during the Special Session. It invites governments to participate in the proposed joint meeting of ministers of finance and ministers responsible for the environment during the high-level segment of the CSD-5.  It also requests the Secretary-General to enhance the public information programme of the UN in order to raise global awareness in a balanced manner in all countries, of both the Special Session and the follow-up of UNCED. It further requests the Secretary-General, in his report for the special session on crosssectoral issues of Agenda 21, to give special consideration to poverty, financial resources and mechanisms, education, science, the transfer of technology, production and consumption patterns, and trade and environment. 

The General Assembly adopted the resolution, which is now resolution 51/181, on 16 December 1996. It notes that the General Assembly decides to convene the special session at the highest political level of participation. The resolution also recognizes the need to ensure appropriate arrangements for major groups, taking into account the practice and experience gained at UNCED, for their substantive contributions to and active involvement in the preparatory meetings and the Special Session. The General Assembly also invites its President to propose appropriate modalities for the effective involvement of major groups. The resolution, while stressing that there should be no attempt to renegotiate Agenda 21 and other agreements, also stresses that discussions at both the preparatory meetings and the special session should focus on the fulfillment of commitments and the further implementation of Agenda 21. The General Assembly further requests the Secretary-General, in the report on cross-sectoral issues to give special consideration without prejudice to other priority issues that may be identified in the preparatory process to combating poverty and notes the additional issues of environment and sustainable development, major groups, demographic dynamics, capacitybuilding and decision-making. The resolution can be found at gopher://gopher.un.org/00/ga/docs/51/plenary/A51-605.EN2 . 

INFORMAL PRESENTATIONS ON THE UNGA SPECIAL SESSION
Daudi Ngelautwa Mwakawago, Vice-Chair of the CSD 
On Wednesday, 23 October 1996, the Second Committee heard an informal report on the CSD Bureau meeting held in Sofia, Bulgaria on 21 October 1996 from Daudi Ngelautwa Mwakawago, Vice-Chair of the CSD. He reported that the Bureau discussed extensively: the outcome of ECOSOC issues related to the CSD; the forthcoming Special Session review; preparations for CSD-5 and the Ad Hoc intersessional working group. They also considered a letter from the President of ECOSOC, which characterized the issue of poverty as the most important issue. The Bureau underscored that issue of poverty will be an important topic in the mid-term review next year. They noted that there is need for lot of preparatory work so that there will be lot of discussion and input that is action-oriented.  They agreed that since arrangements for preparation and scope of the 1997 review were already determined by the GA under Resolution 50/113, and said the outcome of the fifty-first session should focus on organizational arrangements.  Three specific matters would need to be addressed: dates of the Special Session; involvement of major groups during the Special Session; and the need for pre-sessional consultations on institutional issues that may go beyond the mandate of the CSD, including the assessment of CSD itself and its linkages to other bodies and processes in the context of the ongoing reform of the economic and social sector of the UN. 

As for preparations for CSD-5 and its Ad Hoc working group, the Bureau was briefed on status of the various documents and provided with a flow chart.  The flow chart notes the Reports of the Secretary-General: the comprehensive report (main conclusions; the thematic reports on individual chapters of Agenda 21 (prepared by IACSD task managers); the report on the main trends in sustainable development; the report on the progress in the implementation of the Rio Declaration of environment and development; country profiles; and other reports on specific issues requested by the GA. Other inputs include: Global Freshwater Assessment; Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests; Reports of other bodies (UNEP, UNCTAD, Conventions, Regional Commission, etc.); Reports of regional meetings and intersessional meetings organized by countries; and reports on activities by NGOs and Major Groups. 

The Bureau stressed that all documents must be on time. The Bureau noted that the various issues in Agenda 21 five years after Rio could be clustered the issues into three categories: those undergoing implementation, those needing further policy discussion and those still in the problem-identification stage. While a lot has been achieved they noted there are significant problems. Other issues needing attention that were not tackled in Rio were also highlighted, such as energy needs and water issues.  In terms of the programme of work, the Bureau had agreed on the Ad Hoc working group in February of next year. The main governing input will be the Secretary-Generals report, which surveys the implementation, the successes, the problems, shortcomings and new areas realized since Rio. The Bureau underscored the need to maximize the impact with a concerted outreach programme. While as many people as possible should be reached in developed world, extra effort should be made to reach out to developing countries; not just through e-mail or Internet. On how to engage the major groups, such as NGOs, so that at the Special Session there can be inputs from all. The Bureaus conviction is that sustainable development can only be achieved if the majority of the people are involved. 

INDIA asked three questions: whether the Ad Hoc CSD meeting in February will be conducted by current Bureau of CSD; when will next Bureau be elected; and will there be a Committee of the Whole to finalize any outstanding text after the last CSD session. The Vice-Chair said that perhaps the tradition should be carried on where regional groups provide the co-chairs for the various sessions. He also said that elections will be held at the April session. For documentation, the Bureau stressed that the January deadline be maintained and all deadlines should be met. INDIA expressed concern that regarding the use of co-Chairs for 1997.  CANADA asked what would be the process for determining the substance and form of the document, and if the Bureau has discussed how the document will be processed. The VICE-CHAIR said the Secretary-Generals report will be comprehensive with inputs from all sections. It will have many conclusions and proposals for action. In terms of what kind of document will emerge from the Session, the Bureau discussed the issuance of a Declaration. It should not be too long or bulky, but should be political statement that underscores what needs to be done as nations enter the next millennium. 

Joke Waller Hunter, DPCSD, noted on documentation that DPCSD is working on 38 concise reports (six to ten pages) on each of the Chapters of Agenda 21, which will address the objectives of the chapter, the institutional progress achieved and, where feasible, the quantitative progress, the unfulfilled expectations and priorities for future work. They are being prepared by task managers within UN system.  Information from the countries themselves is also being used as additional information, if provided earlier enough.  A report is also underway that identifies major trends in the last 25 years and possible policy lessons and implications from these trends. All of this will go into the comprehensive report. It will try to come up with an overall overview of what has happened in the last five years, the context of implementation. They will then address positive achievements and identify gaps, and the Barbados Conference was one of these successes. The report will also address challenges and priorities ahead. DPCSD will try to make all reports available in January before CSD intersessionals.  JAPAN echoed Indias concern about Ad Hoc working group. He asked how the Chair will be elected and if the Bureau has discussed the structure of the working group or the need for a pre-sessional meeting before the Special Session. He also asked what arrangements have been discussed on major groups involvement. 

The VICE-CHAIR noted the Bureaus view that there should be two co-chairs, one from the North and one from the South. As for structure of the intersessional working group, the 1997 preparatory process could have the first week consist of general discussion on reports, the second week could consist of discussions on the outline of document, and third week will be the opening of the fifth session of the CSD. As for major groups, he highlighted taking the lead from the Habitat II process. There are many experiences within the UN to use as an examples of mechanisms. The important thing is to reach out to them. They will be major players for providing inputs in the review process, but the Committee can advise accordingly.  As for pre-sessional meetings prior to the Special Session, the Bureau has provided for these and what could be covered in those sessions. Sweden noted that in the report of the Secretary-General for the Second Committee it is proposed that during the Special Session itself there should be, in parallel with the Plenary meetings, an Ad Hoc committee of the whole reporting to the Plenary. He asked if the Bureau discussed this. The VICE-CHAIR said they had not. The US asked if there is there an agenda for the Ad Hoc meeting in February was told the agenda has been discussed broadly and that the Ad Hoc group will do the preparatory work for CSD. 

Razali Ismail, President of the General Assembly 
The full presentation is available in RealAudio at  /unga  

On Tuesday, 22 October 1996, Razali Ismail, President of the General Assembly spoke on preparations for the Special Session. He addressed the topic of what the Session should achieve and what it should avoid. He posed the question of whether there was enough time to prepare for the Session. The review will seek to reconfirm the highest political commitments and determine how to energize commitments and encourage implementation, but the Session should do more than just finely tune declarations. It should view the international consensus in CSD and other fora as the necessary foundations to transform the critical analysis and political commitment of the past five years into real action. The UN is very good at analysis but the operational aspect becomes a problem.  He noted that the CSD has been outstanding as a task manager. Not only has it disseminated a wide amount of information, but it has encouraged the widest participation of governmental, intergovernmental and major groups in any UN process. It has pioneered the concept of maximum participation. The outcome of the Session will be much richer if it includes not just the participation of the usual participants, but also ministers of finance, trade officials, development assistance representatives, regional banks, the private sector and the scientific community. The issues in the Session should be presented in such a way that it is understood to be crucial to all players. 

CSD has the mandate to put together imaginative ideas and they have not fully used their range of powers.  He stressed the importance of the process and on providing documents early enough to identify critical areas. He noted that there will be a profusion of documents and that governments will have a lot to deal with. For some missions this will be difficult. He cautioned governments against being driven by the Secretariat and simply go with flow on their recommendations. The final product must accurately reflect the thoughts of governments to be effective. They will be the implementers. He also expressed the hope that delegates would identify early their desired outcome for the Session, as was done in Rio. He said the session has got to come to grips with the issue of implementation. 

On the issues for the Special Session, he stressed the need for a broad-based dialogue on finance and technology transfer, which has run aground since Rio. He asked if there is a way of unlocking this issue. If there is no money, why?  How can you make political commitments and not flesh them out with resources? He suggested a working approach to integrate sectoral processes and consider economic instruments. He recommended strengthened relationships with Bretton Woods and WTO, which can bring back the relevance of the UN to development. He said that delegates cannot be satisfied with coordination on the Secretariat level, but instead should seek coordination on the level of decision-making of governments.  He said the one big missing link is the role of the private sector. While there is disagreement, it must become bigger and must be addressed. There should be a legitimate item of consideration to consider the nature of government interface with the private sector as a partner.  There could be a mechanism to look at this in the CSD. 

He also recognized the importance of high-level participation. He said the outcome must reflect the complicated political issues involved and should not allow big time ministers to simplify the process and put things into the commitments that we cannot implement. He also warned against letting the concept of sustainable development be hijacked by politicians because it is politically expedient. There should be no green-washing. He recommended that the practice of sustainability be implemented at the UN. He proposed an environmental audit of the UN practices, such as an audit of procurement process and use of paper and supplies. This would highlight the practical difficulties of implementation of sustainable development and demonstrate how committed the UN is to the concept. It would provide a tangible output. 

Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development 
The full presentation is available in RealAudio at  /unga 

On Tuesday, 22 October 1996, Nitin Desai addressed Second Committee members in an informal session and suggested areas for delegations to consider regarding the Special Session. He focused on what is needed to strengthen implementation of the policy development in conferences and standing political processes. He noted several problem areas that need collective thinking. He said that UN conferences were big set piece political processes, but the follow-up does not have the same sharp focus. Although the CSD works on implementation, much of the follow-up happens in other governmental fora, such as UNEP, convention secretariats and specialized agencies. The unity in the conference has to be recaptured.   He also noted that the conferences are not entirely independent of one another, and questioned whether the UN loses political momentum when common issues are discussed in different fora. He said the whole monitoring review and process goes through multiple stages and asked what are the relevant roles when commissions, ECOSOC and the second committee all have the same discussion.

He highlighted the need to focus the intergovernmental monitoring and review process.  The real test is that agreements get implemented. A great deal involves actions by other entities that are not part of the UN, such as national governments. What needs to be done in the totality needs to be kept in mind.  If the Special Session focuses simply on what the UN is doing we will be catching only a small part of the process.  The Committee may wish to look at ways to inject into the discussion some substance,  not just process.  Desai then opened the floor for comments. An NGO representative noted that there have been joint high-level meetings between the Commission on Human Settlements and CSD and suggested convening similar high-level meetings. He also suggested an enhanced role for the Habitat Center. Desai responded that joint meetings before that have worked. UNEP and UNCTAD have experimented with this for trade and environment.