ENB Vol. 0 No. 1 UNCED-PC III Aug 28, 1991 by lgoree in PREPCOM III - WEEK TWO NGO RPT PrepCom III Second Week Synopsis Prepared by: Johannah Bernstein Pamela Chasek Langston James Goree VI ("Kimo") Richard Jordan with specific contributions from: Zen Mackuch David Bowles Robert Knecht August 28, 1991 Introduction The following synopsis of Week 2 of the Third Substantive Session of the Preparatory Committee was prepared by Langston James Goree VI ("Kimo") of IPHAE, Johannah Bernstein of the Canadian Participatory Committee, Pam Chasek, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Richard Jordan of Global Futures Network, with contributions from numerous NGOs who have been active in the Daily NGO Strategy Sessions. The purpose of this report is to capture the evolution of both the Working Group proceedings on the UNCED agenda items for Week 2 as well as the various NGO working groups which have been formed around several key issues. This report is updated at the end of each week of Prep Com III. The synopsis of Week 1 is available through the IFC. The information contained in this report is derived from our own personal observations; reports from NGOs at the Daily Strategy Sessions; informal discussions with government delegates; as well as the daily Inter Press Service Bulletins and "Crosscurrents," the official NGO newspaper. The views contained herein reflect those of the authors only and do not reflect the views of their respective organizations. Any errors in reporting are the responsibility of the authors and we welcome any comments to that effect. General Overview of PrepCom III The PrepCom is organized into three working groups: Working Group 1 (WG1) is chaired by Bo Kjellen of Sweden, and deals with atmosphere, land resources (forests, soil loss, desertification), biodiversity and biotechnology; Working Group 2 (WG2), chaired by Bukar Shaib of Nigeria, is responsible for oceans, freshwater resources, and waste; and Working Group 3 (WG3), chaired by Bedrich Moldan of Czechoslovakia, deals with legal and institutional questions. Cross-cutting issues such as technology transfer, financial resources, poverty, and population are dealt with in the plenary, chaired by Tommy Koh of Singapore. The working groups meet in three types of meetings: (1) Formal meetings, where countries generally make for- the-record statements. These are open to NGOs. (2) Informal meetings (sometimes referred to as "formal- informals"), which are translated but not transcribed and are a bit more like negotiations. NGO access is determined by the chair. Formal informals have been open to NGOs in WG1, generally closed in WG2, and have sometimes been open in WG3. (3) Informal-informals (a terminology apparently unique to UNCED PrepCom), are conducted in English. Informal- informals range from open-ended meetings held in conference rooms, which are essentially similar to formal-informals except without translation and are sometimes open to NGOs, to small meetings held in the Chairman's office, involving only a limited number of delegations. In addition to these meetings, there are numerous, even more informal contacts between governments, which are often held in the coffee lounge and where much of the real work of the PrepCom apparently occurs. Previous PrepCom meetings requested a large number of background papers from the Secretariat, which have been presented to this PrepCom. The main work of the PrepCom, however, has revolved around two documents planned for adoption at the UNCED: Agenda 21, a programme of action for the period following UNCED, and the Earth Charter. The Secretariat has prepared "Options for Agenda 21" in the various subject areas on the UNCED agenda (atmosphere, forests, oceans, etc.). These options are contained in A/CONF.151/PC/42 and its various addenda, one addendum for each subject area on the conference agenda, and are being considered in Working Groups 1 and 2. The Earth Charter is under discussion in Working Group 3. To expedite the substantive work of PrepCom III, the PrepCom moved directly into working group meetings, with no initial plenary meeting. Due to the procedural rule that no more than two working group meetings can be held concurrently, WG1 and WG2 met the first week, and WG3 began meeting only at the beginning of the second week. The Plenary is scheduled to commence activity at the beginning of the third week. Formal meetings of the working groups have tended to consist of prepared statements on the Secretariat documents. Despite the two-meeting rule, the chairmen of the working groups have held extensive informal- informal consultations, some open-ended and some involving limited groups of delegations, to try to advance the discussions. The Plenary met briefly during the second week to approve a list of NGOs not previously accredited to the PrepCom. An underlying tension at PrepCom III has been the relation of the UNCED Secretariat and the participating states. A number of states seem suspicious of the UNCED Secretariat, which they feel has its own agenda and is playing too large a role in drafting Agenda 21 documents. They are reluctant, therefore, merely to comment on the Agenda 21 documents and allow the Secretariat to prepared revised documents; instead, they want to take an active part in negotiating and drafting the documents themselves. As a result, the chairman of each working group has attempted to prepare amalgamated documents on the basis of informal consultations with interested states. The working groups are now going through these "Friends of the Chair" documents, generally paragraph by paragraph. At the slow rate that work is progressing, it appears unlikely that the working groups will succeed in reviewing the Agenda 21 documents at this PrepCom, so it is likely that the documents will simply be referred to the next and final PrepCom meeting in New York for further discussion. A more substantive underlying issue has been the extent to which UNCED will address economic and trade issues, as opposed to traditional environmental protection issues. Developing countries, as well as developing-country NGOs, argue that the agenda and the Secretariat documents focus on environmental protection issues at the expense of the economic, debt and trade issues that they say are the root causes of environmental degradation in developing countries. More generally, developing countries object to the emphasis on environmental protection rather than development, which they view as an equal part of the UNCED agenda. Economic and development issues are being treated as cross-cutting issues, which will be handled in Plenary rather than the working group meetings. Thus, to the extent these issues are addressed directly, it will not occur until the third week of the PrepCom, when Plenary sessions begin. In addition to the governmental meetings, NGOs have held numerous meetings of their own. The NGOs hold a briefing on the previous day's events each morning at 8:30. The Secretariat gives briefings on various topics every other day at 2:00. Numerous NGO working groups meet to discuss particular substantive issues: poverty, the Earth Charter, environmental ethics, legal and institutional issues, forests, and so forth. Several meetings have also been held to discuss the parallel NGO conference in Rio, and an all day symposium on trade issues was held on 25 August. Report on Working Group Proceedings Working Group 1: Working Group 1 (WG1) met in formal session to continue discussions on biodiversity, environmentally sound management of biotechnology and desertification and drought. Atmosphere and forestry issues were discussed in informal-informal sessions. WG1 informal-informal sessions were open to NGOs, as opposed to informal-informal sessions held in WG2 and 3. Progress on the issues of desertification and biodiversity were delayed because some of the documents had not been translated into all official languages due to the unanticipated high volume of documents requiring translation. 1. Atmosphere The formal discussions held by WG1 on atmospheric issues took place during Week 1. Following their conclusion, the chairman held extensive informal consultations, which resulted in a Chairman's working paper that appeared on 22 August. Despite proposals to balance the programme areas on energy with programme areas on transport and industry, the revised Agenda 21 options continue to focus on the energy sector. The working paper deals with six programme areas: (1) promoting energy transition; (2) increasing energy efficiency; (3) promoting renewable energy resources; (4) promoting sustainable transport development; (5) promoting sustainable energy consumption patterns and life styles; and (6) addressing the uncertainties. The Working Group began informal discussion of this paper on Friday, 23 August, covering the first six paragraphs (out of 43 in all). The discussions were at a fairly technical level, but reflected underlying disagreements about the extent to which focus should be placed on fossil fuels and developed country behavior, and on financial and technology questions. Discussions of the Chairman's paper will resume on Tuesday, 27 August, although at the rate the discussions are proceeding, it appears questionable whether WG1 will be able to complete a first reading of the document, let alone resolve the disputes that have emerged in order to recommend adoption of the document. 2. Forests Discussions on Forests began Monday, 19 August, in an ad hoc sub group, chaired by Indonesia, with an exchange of views on the structure of the Forest Principles document. Debate initially focused on which document was to be used as the basis of discussion. Over the previous weekend the G77 had prepared its own statement of forest principles. This document was added to the several existent documents on forest principles prepared by Canada, the US and the UNCED Secretariat (PC/65). A procedural question was posed regarding the precedence of one set of principles over another as the basis of discussion. Although the Secretariat document was meant to be an amalgamation of the various country positions from the previous PrepComs, the G77 attempted to position their text as the basis of discussions, claiming that since it was the submission by a group of member states it had precedence over the Secretariat document. An attempt was made to blend the various documents into the preamble for the forest principles. Although many countries suggested that the Indonesian chair preside over a small group to draft the preamble, the invitation was declined. The meeting adjourned with the intention that a group would meet during the afternoon to draft the preamble. During the intervening twenty-four hours a small group calling themselves the "Friends of the Chair" met and elaborated an amalgamated document of forest principles, blending the work of the Secretariat in PC/65 with the G77 document and the principles proposed by the Canadian and US delegations. Since the biodiversity meetings of Working Group I were postponed due to the lack of availability of translated documents, the ad hoc sub group was able to continue its work. Brazil has, over the last two PrepComs, attempted to force the work of the Working Groups forward. In this instance they asked that the "Friends of the Chair" document on Forest Principles be copied and circulated as a basis of discussion by the ad hoc sub group, to "expedite our work." Their proposal was accepted and the group re-convened later to discuss this document which was roundly criticized by the G77. It seems that the "Friends of the Chair" had not included enough of the G77 countries in their group who could protect the wording of their own document. Since a negotiating advantage is given to any extant wording, the G77 felt that the weakening of their document by the incorporation of the Secretariat, US and Canadian text was unacceptable. Although most countries recognized the good work of the "Friends of the Chair," their document was discarded as an imperfect re- working of the G77 text and another "open ended" group was called on to produce an amalgamated document. In the view of many NGOs this was a diplomatic defeat for the industrialized countries who failed to bring the G77 countries into the "Friends of the Chair" discussions and thus ensure their acceptance of the "Friends of the Chair" document by the ad hoc sub group, forcing the basis of negotiation back to the G77 text. During the night another group met to prepare what has been referred to as the "consolidated version of the non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and development of all types of forests." On Wednesday afternoon the first of a full week of informal-informal meetings of the ad hoc sub group of Forests met to begin paragraph-by-paragraph debate on the consolidated version. These meetings continued on Thursday and Friday and were not finished by the end of the week. While a full review of the discussions from this informal- informal group will be available in next week's report, it should be noted that this was one of the most important fora for the real substantive negotiations over some larger issues to come up later in the PrepCom, including transfer of technology, new and additional resources and sovereign rights. While the confrontation between industrialized and developing countries will be played out in other sessions, the first "skirmishes" are occurring here. Sessions of the informal-informal group on Forest Principles met every day last week, moving paragraph by paragraph through the consolidated document. The Malaysian delegation was especially provocative in their attacks on the industrialized countries. The Guyanian chair of this group, Mr. Lyburd, has played a masterful role, escorting the countries through their diplomatic impasses and moving discussion along toward a "bracketed" consensus. This group is doing a preliminary reading, reformulating text and leaving about eighty percent in brackets, meaning that the text is still in negotiations and will be resolved in later sessions of the ad hoc sub group on forests, Working Group 1 or privately between governments during the inter-sessional period. It has been pointed out by many of the NGOs and several of the official delegations that the debate seems poorly informed (especially in regard to progressive government positions on forests that have been taken in other fora, such as TFAP, ITTO, etc.) and bogged down by rhetoric more appropriate for the Second Committee of the United Nations in New York. NGOs have formed a group that is actively accompanying the point- by-point debate of the "Consolidated Document." At present this informal-informal group is the only one that has been consistently open to NGOs, who have no right to speak. A small group of NGOs sits in the back of the room, passing notes to the delegates, proposing textual changes and providing technical expertise when needed. While many NGOs would like a greater role in the discussions, these debates are considered negotiations between governments and thus closed to NGOs and intergovernmental interventions. 3. Land Resources The Chairman's summary and proposals for action (CRP 12), which lists land resources options for Agenda 21, was issued on 21 August. No formal or informal sessions were held on this topic for the remainder of the week. 4. Desertification Discussion of this agenda item, which was postponed from Week 1 since the Secretariat documents were not translated into all official languages, was held on 22 August. Several African countries indicated in their interventions that the problem of desertification, which has been exacerbated by repeated droughts, has stunted the development efforts of their continent. Many African delegates were highly critical of PC/42/add.2 on the basis that it is "grossly inarticulated" and "inadequately focused." In addition, many African countries expressed their concern that the issue of poverty be appropriately addressed within the context of this debate. Furthermore, they urged that the allocation and flow of resources in desertification control must bear in mind the need to address biomass and energy problems, modifying lifestyles, and, where needed, introducing protection of species and fragile ecosystems. The African delegations also wanted special attention on temperate deserts, where the rate of water loss in the soils is lower than in tropical deserts. They also urged that a more integrated approach be taken. The German delegation, in its intervention, mentioned that the problem of desertification has deteriorated since the 1977 Nairobi Plan of Action was adopted, due in part to inappropriate land use and the overuse of agricultural and pastoral lands. UNEP noted in its intervention the shortcomings in the Plan of Action. Denmark suggested that continents exchange information on dry land programs, noting that the PC documents should have identified options available to countries threatened by desertification. The US intervention identified national environment and development programs and multilateral agencies and donor countries as being instrumental in solving desertification problems. WG1 thus concluded its general consideration of desertification. 5. Biodiversity WG1's discussion of biodiversity began on Tuesday, 20 August and was completed the following evening. The session began with a report from Amb. Sanchez, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Biodiversity, on the INC's last meeting in Madrid from 24 June - 3 July. The key contentious points in the discussion of documents PC/42/ add.4, the Options for Agenda 21, appeared to be access to genetic resources and technology, money for implementation and biotechnology. Many interventions from developing countries focused on the question of ownership and use of biological resources. They maintain that biological resources are a part of their respective countries' national heritage over which they retain full sovereignty. On the other hand, many developed countries maintained that biological resources are a heritage of mankind, warranting legally binding global regulation. In particular, Edward Kufuor of Ghana, representing the G-77, criticized industrialized countries for setting double standards. "The paper proposes a code of conduct that can't be enforced, yet developing countries that have two-thirds of the world's biological resources are asked to consent to a legally-binding agreement on conservation." Other concerns raised referred to technology transfer. Developed countries stated that the focus on technology transfer may impose unduly onerous obligations on private companies; instead market forces should be allowed to prevail. The EC, represented by the Netherlands, proposed the formation of ecological networks and called for the creation of sufficient protected areas to conserve the maximum possible number of species and ecosystems. This proposal was met with criticism from certain developing countries as bringing too narrow a conservationist perspective to bear on the problem. Several countries, including Botswana, Brazil and Colombia, stressed the need to consider the socio-economic ramifications of dealing with biodiversity, since "we cannot continue to deal with these issues in isolation." Along these lines, the Philippines intervention made the point that supporting indigenous cultures supports biodiversity. WG1 thus concluded its general consideration of biodiversity. The Chairperson is in the process of preparing his summary. Once completed, informal/informal consultations will commence. 6. Biotechnology WG1 began its discussions of biotechnology on Wednesday evening, 21 August and concluded the next day. A number of developing countries and NGOs expressed their concern about the potential hazards of biotechnology and stated their opposition to the export of untested genetically-manipulated organisms to the South. Developing countries also sought to merge the discussions of biotechnology and biodiversity, criticizing the Secretariat for discussing them separately. Several Southern NGOs, including the Third World Network, the Four Directions Council and the Global Futures Network, maintained that the proposals for Agenda 21 relating to biotechnology do not refer adequately to the hazards of biotechnology. The US sought to allay the fears of developing countries by stating that the danger that genetically-altered organisms pose has been exaggerated. The US also commented that the Secretariat document, PC/42/add.5, demonstrated "an inappropriate and overly intense focus on risk" of the products of genetic engineering. This safety issue was also addressed by several European countries who urged the development and implementation of a bio- safety code of conduct and rules on safeguards. Another contentious issue raised by the US dealt with intellectual property rights and the US's insistence that such rights be respected in any future instrument on biotechnology. This point concerned many southern countries and NGOs who believe that existing international patent rules neglect the rights of local communities to the genetic wealth they have helped preserve. Working Group 2 1. Oceans As the second week began, various interested delegations (New Zealand, USSR, US, Australia, UK and Malaysia, on one side and Japan, Iceland, Norway and Denmark on the other) were asked to draft new text for the Agenda 21 document according to the revised format agreed upon the previous week. No significant progress was made, as both sides held firm. The Secretariat then drew up a follow-up to PC/42/add.6, called Annex 1, which merely put the reference to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and whales in square brackets. This was discussed at an informal session on Wednesday, 21 August and, effectively, countries did not agree on it. So the Secretariat agreed to draw up another document, L.18, which contained countries' proposals in square brackets. On cetaceans, document L.18 contains three proposals: 1. New Zealand's proposal affirms a 10-year moratorium until 1995/6; urges UNCED to pressure the IWC to get governments to act on small cetaceans and welcomes the report the IWC sent UNCED on small cetaceans; and calls for a conference to protect all cetaceans in 1995. 2. Denmark's proposal suggests regional rather than national activities and urges the sustainable management of stocks of whales, so that countries can continue to kill those populations still perceived as large. 3. A third proposal supports the IWC's position on large whales; and recommends that small cetaceans protection should be done by countries and appropriate international bodies. Other contentious issues include the Antarctic issue, the inter- relationship between integrated coastal zone management, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) management, and ecosystem management; the extent to which new international measures (or instruments) are needed to address land-based sources of marine pollution; and the role of UNCED in relation to the 1982 Law of the Sea convention. Informal meetings of WG2 to consider the revised text, L.18, were due to begin on 27 August. 2. Freshwater An informal drafting group met at the beginning of the week to revise document PC/42/add.7 on freshwater. A revised document, providing guidance to the Dublin Conference and to the Secretariat for PrepCom IV, was drafted by the EC. The document explicitly recognizes weaknesses in PC/42/add.7 and requests that the Secretariat address these weaknesses in advance of PrepCom IV for consideration at that time. Informal consultations were held on Friday, 23 August. It quickly became apparent that the drafting group documents would not have a smooth passage. The Tunisian delegation (which had not participated in the drafting group) stated, on behalf of 28 developing countries, that unless each programme area had a section on means of implementation, clearly identifying the need for new and additional financial resources and the transfer of technology, the entire document would have to be in brackets. The Malaysian delegation proposed several additions, referring to "potential" water sources (i.e., Antarctica), which was resisted each time by the German delegation. By the end of the day, only slightly more than half of the text had been covered, with more of it in brackets. WG2 will resume discussion of the text during Week 3. 3. Wastes WG2 proceedings on waste began on 19 August with discussion of the Secretariat document PC/42/add.9. The topic of waste is divided into four categories: (1) transboundary movement of hazardous waste; (2) the management of radioactive waste; (3) environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals; and (4) solid wastes and sewage-related issues. A. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste One of the most contentious issues raised focused on the need to strengthen international safeguards, such as the Basel and Bamako Conventions. Developing countries, supported by the European Community, are calling for a complete ban on the movement of such waste, citing the effectiveness of the Bamako Convention. While there was less discussion of the Bamako Convention at this PrepCom than during PrepCom II, several African countries cited Bamako as proof of the need to take control of the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. They have called for formal ratification and adherence to each of its propositions. All interventions referred to the Basel Convention, mostly urging governments to sign and ratify it, although some called for its reform suggesting that the threshold of "environmentally sound management" of hazardous waste still poses potentially significant negative effects on developing countries which lack the finances to enforce the Convention. Developing countries identified a number of concerns in this regard: * the need for more disclosure on the character of waste being moved; * the need to improve monitoring transboundary movement of hazardous waste; * research on the health effects in developing countries; * pressure on poor countries to accept dumping on their territory in exchange for aid; * a system of financial liability to ensure compensation for countries damaged by the export of polluting substances. The primary opponent to the call for a complete ban on the transboundary movement of such waste was the US, which has resisted attempts by developing and European countries to strengthen international safeguards. The US maintains that transboundary movement and dumping is a private matter between individual states, subject only to bilateral agreement. Malaysia's intervention demonstrated a curious show of support for NGO activity, calling for the NGO network on the Bamako Convention to be strengthened. This point seemed incongruous given the threats by the Malaysian Prime Minister to withdraw from UNCED because of what he felt was undue targeting of Malaysia by international environmental NGOs. Most delegations noted the importance of the forthcoming UNEP meeting of government-designated experts to consider draft elements of an international strategy and action programme, including technical guidelines, for environmentally-sound management of hazardous wastes. Several commented that this meeting should produce important inputs for Agenda 21. The representative for UNEP said that the documents now being prepared for the meeting will take into account the results of PrepCom III. The outcome of the experts' meeting will go to PrepCom IV. B. The Management of Radioactive Waste One of the most important issues that arose out of radioactive waste proceedings dealt with the appropriateness of the UNCED forum for discussion of this topic, given the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Countries such as Japan, the US, Argentina, Great Britain, France and Finland maintained that the more appropriate venue for this discussion is the IAEA and, therefore, any PrepCom discussions of this topic would be premature. Iceland urged UNCED to call for a ban on dumping of radioactive waste on land and sea and urged for the development of international controls in this area. There were a number of NGO interventions, including the World Uranium Hearing which addressed the problem of contamination and faulty waste sites in addition to questioning the ability of the IAEA to deal with both the promotion of nuclear energy as well as its safe use, storage and disposal. The International Peace Bureau addressed the issue of military waste. Oren Lyons of the Haudenosaunee, a six-nation confederation, addressed the grave consequences to indigenous people from their exposure to radioactive waste stored on their lands. The International Indigenous Commission, in its intervention, described the practice of the US government in encouraging indigenous people to accept nuclear waste on their land in return for monetary compensation. Malaysia, contrary to its opposition to international regulation of forests, called for a binding code of practice from the IAEA, noting the ineffectiveness of voluntary codes of practice in general. An informal drafting group met to consider a short paper drafted by the Secretariat identifying the safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes as a programme area. The group quickly became polarized, when it became apparent that the US would accept only the most innocuous of wording (preferring that the issue not be addressed at all in Agenda 21), while developing countries, together with the Nordics, insisted that the issue was a critical one for Agenda 21. The most contentious proposal was over the issue of dumping low-level radioactive wastes at sea. The draft wording called for governments to invite the London Dumping Convention to consider replacing the current voluntary moratorium by a legally-binding ban. At the end of the day, softened wording in brackets (governments encouraging the London Dumping Convention to expedite work to complete the studies to consider replacing the voluntary moratorium with a ban) was unacceptable to everyone -- not strong enough for some and too strong for the US, Japan and the EC countries. The Chairperson proposed that delegations consult with capitals over the weekend to see if a compromise could be reached next week. C. Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals Issues raised during the debate on the environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals included financial assistance and technical cooperation for capacity building; the importance of labeling in languages understood by consumers; a clearer distinction between large and small producers; reliance on chemicals in agricultural production; assessment of chemical risk; effective education, communication and awareness programs; the importance of links with other issues, including agriculture, health and fresh water; the principle of prior informed consent and the need to make it legally binding. Among the problems raised in this section are the lack of any sunset program for persistent, bio-cumulative chemicals. The US opposes such a measure on the grounds that its domestic legislation cannot accommodate such a proposal. Further, there has been no mention of ecosystems analysis to measure the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals. Finally, no initiative has yet been proposed which would include the establishment of inventories so that countries may take stock of existing supplies of toxic chemicals in the hopes of arranging for their long-term management and disposal. D. Solid Wastes and Sewage-Related Issues Following the opening day of interventions on solid waste issues, the Secretariat assembled an addendum containing proposals for consideration in subsequent informal consultations around document PC/42/add.10. A lengthy meeting, called for the purpose of revising this document, took place on Friday, 23 August. The Netherlands, with the approval of Canada and the EC countries, proposed source separation of household wastes, developing markets for recyclables and promoting the use of recyclable materials, particularly in packaging, consistent with the work of its National Packaging Protocol. The UK called for the development of "Centres of Excellence" for training in waste management, building upon appropriate national institutions and encouraging international cooperation through institutional links. Colombia and Barbados called for the application of appropriate technologies, including cleaner production technologies, which could result in waste minimization. Finally, all countries supported the proposal that by the year 2000 industrialized countries and by the year 2020 developing countries should implement programmes to stabilize per capita waste flows to disposal sites. Working Group 3 WG3 got underway on Monday, 19 August. This working group is dealing with legal and institutional issues, including an evaluation of existing legal instruments, the Earth Charter and matters referred to it by WG1 and 2. 1. Evaluation of Environmental Instruments Discussions on the evaluation of environmental instruments focussed on the review of existing environmental instruments and the criteria for their evaluation. Several delegations identified both additional criteria to assess the effectiveness of these instruments as well as a number of agreements and/or instruments that were left out of the Secretariat's document, PC/77. Most of the interventions were fairly technical in nature, identifying the criteria for evaluation of existing agreements. Some of the NGO interventions made rather more substantive contributions to the debate, such as the Four Directions Council, which identified an important group of instruments that had not been considered in this process, namely those instruments pertaining to human rights and labor standards. The Four Directions Council also noted that the major problem facing UNCED in this area is not the inadequacy of existing standards, but rather the ineffective implementation and application of existing standards. CAPE 92 made an intervention identifying a number of criteria for evaluation, including participation of developing countries and NGOs. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chairperson said that he would prepare a summary document and make it available to the working group early next week. 2. The Earth Charter The discussion of the Earth Charter began on 20 August with reference to Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration (a nation's sovereign right to exploit its natural resources). The US made continual reference to the need for market mechanisms to attain sustainable development. The Malaysian delegation, wanting to bring development issues into the debate, suggested that the "Earth Charter" might be better titled the "Rio Document on Environment and Development." China stressed that the Earth Charter should have a strong moral content and that it should foster a common understanding among the international community on environment and development. Singapore's intervention dealt with the interrelationship of poverty and environmental degradation. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Sudano-Sahelian countries, brought up the need for fair and equitable income distribution. New Zealand brought forward a holistic world view, based on the harmony of humanity and nature and emanating from the Maori point of view. Malaysia pointed out the special responsibility of transnational corporations and industry to carry out earth protection. Brazil stated that language such as "global commons" tends to compromise national sovereignty over resources. The Green Forum identified the main cause of poverty as the powerlessness of people. It also stated that a concept of interdependence does not work when there is no equality of bargain power. It also described the concept of social equity as necessary for people's participation. The World Council of Churches identified the twelve key principles they felt should be articulated in an Earth Charter: responsibility towards the earth as a whole; the indivisibility of ecological and social justice; access to education; the rights of future generations; participation of individuals and groups in decision making; a transnational approach to environmental issues and disputes; the principle of precautionary/preventative action; the "polluter pays" principle; protection of biodiversity; the carrying capacity of the earth; the impact of militarization on environment and development; and consumption. Following general statements on the Earth Charter, the Working Group moved into an informal-informal session on 20 August to consider a Secretariat compendium of the various proposals. The Secretariat document, however, reflected only the Canadian and Peruvian drafts, not the oral suggestions made in the formal working group session and many states objected, expressing a desire to be able to submit written suggestions. The informal meeting therefore adjourned without any substantive discussion. On the basis of written proposals, the Secretariat prepared a revised compendium, which was discussed at an informal meeting on 23 August. Substantive discussion again proved elusive, since a number of governments objected that the Secretariat paper did not exactly reflect their suggestions. The Secretariat is therefore preparing yet another revised draft, which will be considered this coming week. 3. Institutions During the discussion of institutions, several delegations including Kenya called for a strengthening of UNEP, while others favored strengthening ECOSOC. The US proposed reviving the defunct Environmental Coordination Body (ECB) to provide better coordination within the UN. Peru's intervention consisted of a reading, in its entirety, of its proposal, PC/81, outlining "themes and variations" for a new mechanism or institution involving the participation of business, transnational corporations and NGOs in the process of environment and sustainable development. The Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the EC, mentioned the linkage between environment and development, and a strengthened UNEP, running the gamut from developing international environmental law to promoting regional cooperation. Other delegations, such as Brazil, favored ECOSOC as the coordinating body within the UN for environment and development. Sweden urged the reorientation of UNDP, regional development banks and the World Bank to promote environmentally sound development and suggested that UNEP be the body to develop "soft law." Sweden also proposed creation of some type of international development council and a possible International Commission on Global Governance as a preparation for a World Summit on Global Governance in 1995. In reaction to these statements, Malaysia thought it best to look at UNEP's role after UNCED. Any type of strengthened organization must have an "early warning system" and tap national and regional capacities. A sustainable development commission, in Malaysia's view is "premature and disturbing as ecological factors may prove a basis for intervention within states." In no way did Malaysia want to consider a commission on global governance. There were a number of excellent NGO interventions on institutional arrangements. CAPE suggested in particular: * the strengthening of UNEP to oversee environment and development issues within UNCED and as well, to create and monitor norms and standards; * making compliance under international agreements a top priority; * independent review of how well obligations are being met; * creation of an auditing body to audit UN institutions with an impact on environment and development; * environmental impact assessment for all UN institutions as a tool to gauge compliance; * recognition of resource transfers to developing countries; * guarantee of public participation to all international decision-making regarding environment and development matters; * establishment of an ombudsperson to hear complaints regarding each UN agency having an impact on environment and development. Greenpeace International called for the establishment of a new international energy agency. The World Association for World Federalism referred to the Hague Declaration which calls for a World Environmental Authority with binding majority decision-making as well as the Stockholm Initiative on Global Security and Governance. They also called for the implementation of financial mechanisms based on special levies and compulsory jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice, among other issues. The Four Directions Council identified four critical linkages to be addressed in order to restructure international economic instruments: 1. repayment of international debts; 2. capital flight and brain drains; 3. fair commodity pricing 4. proprietary interests of developing countries in their traditional knowledge base. In general, states did not make the more radical proposals for institutional reform contained in such documents as the Hague Declaration, nor was expression given to proposals to place environmental matters within the mandate of the Security or Trusteeship Council. Instead, most states are taking a wait-and- see attitude, pending the discussions on Agenda 21 and the more general project underway on UN institutional reform. The overwhelming majority of delegations making interventions opposed the creation of new institutions and supported increased cooperation and coordination between existing ones. Plenary The first session of Plenary at PrepCom III was convened on Thursday, 22 August to consider the accreditation of 93 NGOs included in document L.28/add.4 who had applied for accreditation before 12 July. It was predicted by Chairman Tommy Koh that another list of NGOs for accreditation would be available the following week. Both the Chair and the Nordic countries recognized the role of NGOs, indigenous peoples and their more equitable balance between developing and developed countries. In light of the failed putsch in the Soviet Union, the head of the Soviet delegation incorporated into his statement of support for NGOs the greater need for more democracy in the preparatory process. His emotional statement, which also thanked everyone for their support over the last three days, was met with an uncommon, prolonged round of applause by the assembled diplomats, participants and observers. NGO Activity Several NGO Strategy Sub-Groups have formed to address specific issues and to mobilize NGOs for more effective lobbying around these key issues. These sub-groups meet daily to analyze formal and informal working group proceedings and to identify key areas for NGO lobbying. They report daily to the Daily NGO Strategy Forum with the objective of identifying those areas where NGOs can lobby their respective delegations. The sub-groups and their respective conveners are: 1. Forests: Fran Spivy-Weber 2. Biodiversity: Simone Bilderbeek 3. Oceans: Art Van Hurst 4. Institutional and Legal Issues: Bill Pace 5. Wastes: Jonas Olsson 6. Poverty: Ana Toni 7. Human Settlements: Han Van Putten 8, Earth Charter : Elin Enge and Angela Harkavy 9. Climate Change: Dan Bodansky