ENB Vol. 0 No. 2 UNCED-PC III Sep 3, 1991 by lgoree in PREPCOM III - WEEK THREE NGO RPT PrepCom III Third Week Synopsis An NGO report prepared by: Johannah Bernstein Pamela Chasek Langston James Goree VI ("Kimo") Richard Jordan Janette McMahan with specific contributions from: Johan Holmberg Han van Putten Robert Knecht Russel Barsh September 3, 1991 Introduction The following synopsis of Week 3 of the Third Substantive Session of the Preparatory Committee was prepared by Langston James Goree VI ("Kimo") of IPHAE (ax:kimo), Johannah Bernstein of the Canadian Participatory Committee (web:cpcu), Pam Chasek, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Janette McMahan, an intern with the International Council of Voluntary Agencies 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 Plenary and the Working Groups' proceedings on the UNCED agenda items for Week 3. This report is updated at the end of each week of Prep Com III. The synopses of Weeks 1 and 2 (as well as this report) are available through the International Facilitating Committee and on the Association for Progressive Communications computer networks (Econet, GreenNet, Alternex, etc.) in the conference. 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. Editorial Commentary on PrepCom III During the third week of PrepCom III, the stresses of an overburdened agenda and gaps between North and South caused frustrations and tensions to mount. Diminished expectations of success, not only of PrepCom III, but the expected final results of the UNCED process, have created an unsettling atmosphere. Tension has been manifested on three distinct levels: between governments, between the governments and the Secretariat, and between governments, the Secretariat and NGOs. The tensions between governments have taken the form of the North-South debate. UNCED has transformed itself into an arena for North- South economic issues, resembling the debate over the New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s. The Secretariat, as well as many participants and observers, appeared to be quite surprised by this turn of events. The prevalence of the North-South debate can be attributed to both the end of the Cold War's domination of international affairs and the fact that UNCED addresses development. Conflicts also became more pronounced between those countries promoting an emphasis on environmental protection and the G-77 emphasis on financial and trade issues and technology transfer. The G-77 stressed that their primary objective at UNCED was to raise their living standards, that the Earth Charter has an ecological bias, that many of the key issues for the G-77 have not been addressed adequately, including toxic wastes, desertification, and biotechnology, and that the Prepcom needs to get development back into the UNCED process. The general unwillingness to confront the real issues dividing North and South manifested itself in an emphasis on procedural wrangling in many of the meetings. A seeming stalemate on technology transfer and financial resources has also added to the inter-governmental tensions. Developing countries want environmentally sound technology transfer at preferential and non-commercial rates. With regard to financial resources, the sticking point pertains to the perceived need by developing countries for new additional financial resources and the resistance by countries, such as the US, to provide these resources. The differing progress in the work on sectoral issues has added to the resentment of some Southern delegations, who argue that the North's issues have gotten the primary attention, while less time has been devoted to sectoral issues of greater concern to the South, including desertification, land resources and biotechnology. The tensions between the Secretariat and the governments have manifested on several fronts. The first of these is the conflict between the Secretariat and the governments over who is running the process. A number of people have commented that the Secretariat is the servant of the process, not the master, and that the Secretariat is a civil servant and must be civil and subservient to the wishes of the governments. After all, the Secretariat is a creation of the governments. In the case of UNCED, however, the Secretariat seems to want to be the master of the governments, and that has resulted in a great deal of resentment. One way that this conflict has been manifested is in the perceived sacrifice by the Secretariat of democracy for expediency in the preparatory process. Comments have been made by many participants that the structure of the UNCED preparatory process was established before agreement was reached on the content of the conference. As the preparatory process advances, it is more apparent that the substantive issues being addressed by UNCED are far more numerous and complicated than anyone had expected. Thus, the parameters governing the preparatory process, which were set by delegations and expected to be carried out by an overworked Secretariat during limited PrepCom meeting time, are now breaking down. It is becoming obvious that democracy in the negotiating process is being sacrificed by the Chairs' perception of the need for expediency. One sign of the sacrifice of democracy for expediency has manifested itself in the frustration of a number of small delegations. There is clearly a bias in favor of countries with large delegations and a staff of technical experts. The small delegations have been unable to participate in the substantive discussions for a number of reasons, including the size of their delegation, the fact that many documents have not been translated into all the official languages and a lack of translators at the informal-informal sessions. Thus, they have found that they have not always been able to participate in the negotiation of text in the informal-informal sessions, and that documents have been presented to working groups by informal sessions with unbracketed text that do not truly reflect their input. Furthermore, due to the lack of time available to have second readings of these texts, there is no further opportunity to negotiate at this PrepCom session. The existing tight schedule imposed by the Secretariat was further constrained by a number of decisions made at the insistence of some of the smaller delegations. For example, early in the week, the Plenary decided that only one informal-informal meeting could be held concurrently with the maximum of two formal and formal-informal meetings, in order to ease the strain on small delegations, who found it extremely difficult to keep up with the multitude of meetings held throughout the day. The time available for negotiations was further reduced when evening meetings, which were scheduled virtually every night, would have to end by 9:30 at the insistence of Tunisia (supported by the G- 77). This decision proved crucial on Friday night when Working Group I was forced to adjourn before it had been able to complete its work. Thus, as the week came to a close, pressure on both the Secretariat and the governments mounted to complete the ever- increasing workload in a more constrained time period. Another set of tensions between the governments and the Secretariat is based on the belief by many developing countries that UNCED is more concerned with environment (a "Northern" issue) than development. The fact that many of the cross-cutting development issues were not discussed until the Plenary began meeting only this week served to add salt to the already festering wound. There is now a movement within the G-77 to reschedule Plenary for the beginning of PrepCom IV to better address the crosscutting development issues which were neglected during this PrepCom. Finally, there is growing tension between NGOs and both the Secretariat and the governments over access to informal sessions. Throughout the last three weeks inconsistent access of NGOs to informal sessions has proven to be problematic. Not only does the policy of each working group differ from the next but policies within working groups seem to change daily. Informal- informal sessions of WG1 varied in their hospitality to NGO observers, while those of WG2 have consistently been closed. WG3 informal-informal sessions on the Earth Charter were closed to NGOs until a number of delegations made statements on behalf of NGOs which led to an agreement by the Working Group to allow NGOs to sit in on the informal sessions. Though NGOs recognize the fact that they are not allowed to make interventions in these sessions and that the proceedings are "off the record," there is general agreement that the governments' calls for greater transparency and democracy in the UNCED process should be extended to NGOs. Unless some of these tensions among and between governments, the Secretariat and the NGOs are resolved during the intersessional period, it is unlikely that much progress will be made during PrepCom IV in New York, thus severely harming the chances for success in Rio. Plenary The Plenary opened on Monday, 26 August, with speeches by Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar and the UNCED Secretary-General Maurice Strong. In his remarks, de Cuellar emphasized the need to halt environmental degradation and reduce the risk of war, one of the major causes of environmental degradation. In addition to addressing the substantive issues of Agenda 21, human settlements, poverty, sustainability, health and education and technology transfer, the Plenary also accredited two additional lists, bringing the total to 355. 1. Agenda 21 After agreement on the agenda, the first issue addressed by the Plenary was Agenda 21. In the initial statements on Agenda 21, governments generally agreed that Agenda 21 should be: one of the major outputs of UNCED, an integral package with the Earth Charter and a plan of action, which should include global goals, specific objectives and targets, costs, capacity building and technology transfer requirements, human resource development, and institutional and economic implications. Stress was also placed by some delegations on the role of women in environment and development, and on the need for a mechanism to monitor the implementation of Agenda 21. Remaining issues include: whether the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 should be a single document and, if not, what should be the dividing line between them; what should be the monitoring mechanism; and how should cross-sectoral issues, such as poverty, be addressed. The US cautioned against unrealistic goals and time schedules for too distant a future. The representative of the G-77 stated that they did not come to the conference to negotiate away "our permanent sovereignty over our natural resources." Several delegations mentioned the need to revamp the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) so that it can be the major funding mechanism for Agenda 21. Some members of the G-77 countered that the means of implementing the programmes, including costing and financing, should be included in each substantive area of Agenda 21. As the informal sessions began on Thursday, discussions focused on a proposed G-77 decision on Agenda 21, which called on the Secretariat to integrate fully into the Agenda 21 programme areas consideration of poverty, trade, structural adjustment, external indebtedness and the role of transnational corporations. The draft decision also said that each programme area should clearly differentiate between actions required to be taken by developed and developing countries, and should include a section on "Means of Implementation," including financing and cost evaluations, scientific and technological means, human resource development, and capacity-building. Informal discussions will continue during Week 4. 2. Human Settlements Discussion on the issue of human settlements (document PC/43) began with the introduction of draft decision PC/L.39 on women in environment and development, proposed by Canada, Finland, Germany, Ghana (G-77), the Netherlands (EC), New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the US. The draft decision proposed that "key elements relating to women's critical economic, social and environmental contributions to sustainable development be addressed as a distinct cross-cutting issue in addition to being mainstreamed in all the substantive work and documentation, particularly Agenda 21, the Earth Charter and the conventions." During the interventions that followed, a large number of governments stressed the importance they attached to this subject both from the points of view of environment and development. Several countries requested that attention be given to rural as well as urban settlements. In their statements, the EC and the G-77 endorsed the right to adequate shelter, and calls were made to improve conditions in cities. Efforts to define deadlines for the provision of safe drinking water and land were opposed by the US as unrealistic. After the Plenary finished its discussions, the coordinator for human settlements, Ambassador Enrique Penalosa of Colombia (Secretary-General of the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver) drafted a resolution to be discussed in an informal session. The draft (CRP/12) contains a summary of the suggestions and proposals which had been made in the Plenary and asks the Secretariat to take these, as well as the suggestions made in the Secretariat's background paper (PC/45) on human settlements into account when preparing "a distinct programme of Agenda 21." Because of the shortage of time, no attempt was made during the informal session to discuss the various suggestions, indicate priorities or develop them into costed programmes. This will have to be done during the next stages of the preparatory process. 3. Financial Resources The Plenary session on financial resources, held on Tuesday and Wednesday, illustrated the great divide between the developing and the industrialized countries with the former calling for "new and additional financial resources" as a precondition for sustainable development and protection of the environment, but with the latter saying, in essence, that better use has to be made of what is already available. The Secretariat paper on financial resources (PC/51) identified a number of potential mechanisms for transferring resources including: debt relief, debt-for-nature swaps, special drawing rights in the IMF, and a tax on use of the global commons (e.g., a carbon tax). In their general statements, the EC acknowledged that new and additional financial support must be given to developing countries, while the US emphasized that better use be made of existing assistance programs and that the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) should serve as the primary mechanism for assistance. The US rejected proposals to increase funding for developing nations stressing that private sector participation was the key to environmentally sound development. The US also disagreed with arguments that countries should be aided by the UN target of 0.7% of gross national budgets to overseas assistance. The US maintains that it is dynamic, market-based economies, within the context of appropriate government regulation, that generate sustained growth necessary for sound economic development. The G-77 repeated its general calls for new and additional financial resources, without conditionality and through mandatory contributions, and for more democratic decision making on financial transfers. The informal discussions on financial resources reached an impasse almost from the outset over whether to consider a G-77 or Australian draft decision. The G-77 proposal (L.41), submitted by Ghana and China, called for a general fund (the Green Fund) separate from the GEF, transparent and democratic governance of funding mechanisms, compensatory payments by developed to developing countries, and a supportive international economic environment that promotes economic growth and development, including through better terms of trade. They also proposed that there should be a separate fund for each convention and, in addition, a separate general fund to cover activities not included in the conventions. In contrast, Australia's proposal, document L.43 (on behalf of the CANZ group), was procedural in nature, laying out the general structure of debate on financial resources for Prepcom IV. The informal session became heated as the EC said it did not have instructions regarding many of the issues raised by the G-77 draft, while the G-77 argued that it had been prepared to discuss the sectoral issues of concern to the North, so it was only fair that the North discuss the financial issues of concern to the South. On Thursday night, the informal discussions on financial resources broke down when the US and others cited the G-77's call for adjourning all meetings at 9:30 pm and called to adjourn the day's discussions. Friday's discussions did not make much progress at bridging the gap between North and South. Discussions are scheduled to continue next week. 4. Poverty, Sustainability, Health and Education The Plenary discussion on this cluster of issues began on Thursday, 29 August, with comments on the relevant Secretariat documents (PC/45,46,54 and 55). UNIFEM intervened stressing the need for a human-centered approach to solving environmental problems. She commented on the current marginalization of women and the need for women to be more involved in decision making in the Agenda 21 programmes. Other intergovernmental agencies that made interventions included the IUCN and WHO. Ghana, on behalf of the G-77, said that the Secretariat's report (PC/45) on poverty and environmental degradation had one great shortcoming: it focused on national policies as the principal cause of poverty in developing countries. The report ignored important external causes of poverty, such as the commodity price slump, the net outflow of money from developing to developed countries, the loss of market access and unfair competition. The Netherlands, on behalf of the EC, spoke about the need to give a high priority to the provision of clean water, sanitation and adequate shelter. He also mentioned the important role that NGOs can play in environmental education efforts, the need for adequate land tenure policies and the need to address the issue of migration due to environmental degradation. Malaysia stated that since the problem of poverty is so enormous, countries cannot solve poverty with domestic sources alone. They need aid from external sources, particularly developed countries. Both Sweden and the US stated that the eradication of poverty is a prerequisite for sustainable development. Martin Khor of the Third World Network commented that poor people are dying faster than dolphins. The Green Forum offered an alternative model of development stressing community involvement and control. 5. Transfer of Technology The issue of transfer of technology (documents PC/52 and PC/53) was addressed in Plenary on Friday, 30 August. Ghana, on behalf of the G-77 cautioned against the dumping of inappropriate and outmoded technology on the South. The transfer of inappropriate technology to the South has had a negative impact on the environment. He also stressed the need to identify equitable ways of transferring technology. The US, on the other hand, stressed the importance of free market mechanisms, human resource development and local capacity building and stated that the primary responsibility for technology transfer rests on the national level. The Netherlands, on behalf of the EC, stated that technology cooperation should be tailor-made to a specific country or region's capabilities and needs. The EC also said that there is a need to help developing countries to develop their own technologies and that the role of NGOs in capacity building should be stressed. The EC added that the issue of intellectual property rights is being addressed in other fora and should not be addressed by UNCED. The Philippines, on behalf of the ASEAN nations, said that a crucial factor in the effort to reduce global environmental degradation was the inadequacy of human capability to assess and acquire environmentally sound technology. ASEAN called for the finalization of the code of conduct for transnational corporations. China supported the proposal to establish a mechanism of technology transfer on preferential or non-commercial terms. China called for an immediate transfer of technology by the public sector as well as a shortening of expired periods for patents for environmentally sound technology. China also called for supplying governments should establish and international fund to facilitate technology transfer. The funds could be generated from tax exemptions or reductions or special customs arrangements. The UNCTC has prepared a two-part study which examines 14 potential mechanisms to facilitate technology transfer. Its intervention focused on the following: 1. The bulk of the world's technology is not environmentally sound. To this end, what is needed is an increased commitment by transnational corporations (TNCs) to carry out research and development in this area. 2. TNCs are the repository for most sources of environmentally sound technology, however, others do exist and should be appropriately recognized, for example, indigenous communities as well as the research and development capabilities of small firms in the areas of biotechnology and agriculture. Cesar Sakh Sara of the International Tribal Commission for Five- Hundred Years, said that the transfer of technology did not have to be imposed on people. Indigenous technology, which has served well in the past, continues to be viable. The Plenary thus concluded its formal discussions on the transfer of technology and informal discussions are due to take place during Week 4. Report on Working Group Proceedings Working Group 1: 1. Atmosphere During Week 3, WG1 concluded an initial consideration of the first four programme areas contained in the revised Agenda 21 document (WG.I/L.25), but did not have time to consider the last two proposed programme areas -- promoting sustainable energy consumption patterns and lifestyles, and addressing the uncertainties. The status of even the first four programme areas is unclear, since the Chairman, in urging against the inclusion of brackets around language about which delegations expressed concern, emphasized that the entire text remains bracketed and is subject to amendment at Prepcom IV. WG1 also adopted a decision concerning climate change, ozone depletion and transboundary air pollution (WG.I/L.21/Rev.1). The decision on climate change was non-substantive, in order not to preempt the work of the INC/FCCC. It requests the Secretariat to make the Prepcom documents available to the INC and to follow the INC's work, informing the INC of the interconnections between climate change and other environment and development issues. The ozone depletion decision expresses general satisfaction with the ongoing work under the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, urges all states to become parties to the Convention and Protocol and to support further expansion of the Global Observing System Network of the WMO, and urges industries to contribute fully towards the ongoing efforts under the Montreal Protocol. A proposal to call on the Montreal Protocol parties to expedite the control schedules was rejected as prejudging the results of ongoing scientific assessments; eastern European countries, in particular, seem concerned about the feasibility of accelerating the phaseout of CFCs. The transboundary air pollution decision focused on improved research and cooperative programmes for monitoring, sharing of information and abatement. 2. Forests On Monday, 26 August, informal-informal meetings of Working Group 1 discussions continued between governments on the consolidated Forest Principles document. These meetings of the Forest Contact Group, were held in three sessions throughout the week, concluding the next day in the afternoon with a document that was to be sent back to WG1 for further discussions, probably at PrepCom IV. At the decision of the chairman, Ambassador Liburd, NGOs were able to observe these meetings. The highlights of the first ten days of discussions regarding forests were made available in a report from the Chairman, WG.I/CRP.13. This document summarized the principle points raised in the forest debate at this PrepCom with comments on the documentation that had been prepared by the Secretariat (PC/42/Add.3, PC/64 and PC/65) and the relationship between a Forest Principles document and the Agenda 21 proposed programme areas related to forests. It also related the discussions by WG1 of PC/42/Add.3 which will used by the Secretariat to expand and develop in more detail the Agenda 21 proposals during the inter- sessional period, taking into account the Authoritative Statement of Principles on Forests. The informal-informal on forests dealt with this Authoritative Statement, arduously considering each of the points contained in the consolidated document prepared the week before by a "Friends of the Chair" group. This document had blended the several unilateral attempts at drafting of forest principles with the Secretariat document (PC/65) and the G-77 text elaborated the week before. Even though the progress seemed incremental many delegates and NGOs noted that if as much headway had been made in informal discussions of other issues this PrepCom would have been much more productive. Since these meetings are closed to the press and normally closed to NGOs the content of the negotiations cannot be reported here. In general the discussions moved through a Forest Principles preamble and principles/elements including the uses of forests, a reaffirmation of Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration (which says that states have the right to rationally exploit their own resources), the popular participation of local communities in forest policies, the global roles of forests, the economic and energy aspects of forests, the international policies and programmes that deal with forests, scientific research, additional financial resources and unilateral bans on timber. The eventual result of these meetings was document CRP.14, presented on 28 August by Amb. Liburd at an informal meeting of Working Group 1. Immediately, problems arose over this document. During the preparation of the restructured draft paper the Secretariat had attempted to organize the paragraphs into a logical structure of principles; preamble, economic and financial, technical inputs and management and public awareness and participation. Several countries objected to this reorganization and even the fact that the Secretariat's section headings had been left out of brackets. Although it had been said during the informal-informal debates that the preceding weeks' proceedings were only a first reading of the document, there was no time to work through it again during the informal meeting of WG1. Some countries, especially those with small delegations, felt that due to the number of meetings being held at the same time they were not able to participate in the informal-informals and thus had no role in "negotiations" to date. Some said that these could not have been considered negotiating sessions but only discussions and that the no portion of the draft of the consolidated forest principles document could be presented out of brackets (negotiated and agreed to text.) On Friday, 30 August, the final chairman's report and the draft version of the Forest Principles was to be presented to Working Group I. When the G-77 adjourned the meeting at 9:30 that evening, forests had not yet been discussed and was passed over to the next session, Monday 2 September. The chairman decided that no further discussions would be held on the Forests Principles document at this session of the PrepCom and that all bracketed text (whether that meant portions or the entire text) would be taken to the New York PrepCom next March along with all of the Agenda 21 proposals pertaining to forests. It remains unclear how the proposed programme areas in Agenda 21 can be prioritized by the Secretariat (based on the Forest Principles) and costed-out during the inter-sessional period in time for discussion in March without a definitive statement on Forest Principles. NGOs met in a Forest Group that held sessions before many of the informal-informal sessions of the Contact Group. They worked point-by-point through the consolidated text being considered by the diplomats, producing new text which was informally passed to many delegates for consideration during the informal-informal discussions. There are many portions of text that have emerged out of brackets in the revised draft that had their origin in these meetings. These NGOs have formed a task group to continue their discussions on forests between now and PrepCom IV. 3. Land Resources On 30 August the Chairman of WG1 submitted a draft decision on land resources for consideration by the working group. The draft decision noted broad agreement on the programme areas contained in document WG1/CRP.12/rev.1 as well as the subjects of basis of action, objectives and activities within the programme areas. The decision proposed reverting these issues and the final consideration of land resources in the general context of Agenda 21 at PrepCom IV. Due to a lack of time during its informal session on Friday night, WG1 postponed discussion of this draft decision until Monday, 2 September. 4. Desertification and Drought WG1 addressed the issue of desertification in an informal session on Thursday night and Friday morning, 29-30 August. The chair stated that he would have liked to give more attention to this issue, however, Document PC/62 was issued late and time was short. A number of African countries were particularly perturbed about the lack of time given to desertification on WG1's agenda and expressed their concerns. The Chair promised that desertification will be given priority treatment at PrepCom IV. Several countries, including Tunisia, Norway, the US, Germany and Kenya, submitted written proposals for amending proposed programme areas on desertification as expressed in document WG.I/L.29. The proposed programme areas include: * Strengthening the knowledge base and developing information and monitoring system of fragile ecosystems and the economic and social aspects of these systems; * Intensifying afforestation and reforestation activities, combatting land degradation, support of the management of biotic resources; * Developing and strengthening programmes for integrated development actions and alternative livelihood systems in areas prone to desertification; * Encourage and support popular participation and environmental education; * Design programmes to cope with environmental refugees; * Eradication of poverty; * Integrating anti-desertification programmes into national development programmes and/or national environmental action plans; * Developing and improving an integrated approach to planning and management of land resources already desertified or subject to desertification; The chair submitted his draft decision on desertification and drought on Friday. In addition to requesting that the Secretariat present revised proposals for action on the subjects of desertification and drought the decision requested that additional comments on these programme areas be submitted in writing to the Secretariat before 15 September 1991. Due to time constraints during the informal meeting of WG1 on Friday night, no discussion of this draft proposal took place. The discussion was rescheduled for Monday, 2 September. 5. Biodiversity and Biotechnology Informal-informal consultations of the draft decisions proposed by the Chair for the conservation of biological diversity (WG.I/L.37) and on the environmentally sound management of biotechnology (WG.I/L.38) were held on Friday night, 30 August. With respect to these two decisions, the contentious points raised by the delegations were essentially the same. These include: 1. The proposed options for Agenda 21 had not been considered in detail beyond the initial consideration of PC/42/add.4 and add.5 and, thus, the decision and the forwarding of the documents to the INC-BIOD must recognize the status of these documents. 2. The problem of separating the issue of biological diversity and biotechnology (raised by Mexico and supported by a number of developing countries). 3. What procedure should be adopted for providing an opportunity to delegations to have their concerns reflected in the draft options for Agenda 21 that would be the basis of negotiations at PrepCom IV. During the deliberations on these two decisions, the Chair tried to steer the working group away from considering substance. He emphasized that the task was to ensure that the decisions for each of the issues properly reflected the results of the discussions at PrepCom III and the working group's thoughts about what direction the deliberations should take at PrepCom IV. A proposal by the UK for the biological diversity decision was circulated but discussion was postponed due to time constraints. This proposal reads: Further requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, without preempting or duplicating the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, to follow the work of that Committee, and to keep it informed of the interconnections between relevant aspects of biotechnology and other environment and development issues as they emerge from the UNCED process, in particular their elaboration in Agenda 21. A paragraph was introduced in both draft decision requesting governments to submit additional proposals/comments by 7 October. This date was a compromise suggested by Canada (one week after the INC-BIOD meeting in Nairobi, yet not too late for the Secretariat to process the information in preparation for PrepCom IV. Working Group 2 1. Oceans There were no further substantive discussions on the oceans agenda item. The only real question was the status of the revised Agenda 21 paper (WG.II/L.18). This is now a 38-page single-spaced document, containing numerous bracketed paragraphs. The revised paper produced by the Secretariat included the Malaysian proposal regarding Antarctica as well as the New Zealand proposal on whaling (rather than merely appending these proposals to the document as had been suggested at the informal- informal the previous week). This raised objections by several signatories to the Antarctic Treaty who did not wish to give the Malaysian Antarctic proposals the status of being included in the document itself. There was insufficient time in the formal-informal meeting to consider the substantive paragraphs of the revised document. Instead, the entire session was devoted to the proposed programme areas listed in the table of contents. Agreement could not be reached even on the proposed programme area titles, and the text was left bracketed. The mistrust by many states of the Secretariat manifested itself when the Chair proposed to prepare a rationalized and simplified document during the intersessional period. This was opposed by many states that do not want the Secretariat and Chair to tamper with the existing text, which, flawed as it is, is still the product of inter-governmental negotiations. 2. Freshwater The draft decision tabled by the Chair during Thursday's informal session recommended that widespread water tariffs be introduced to help in conservation efforts. This was rejected by developing countries, who argued that it would redirect water resources towards those who can afford to pay and would force the poor to use more impure water. Instead, they argued that revenue should be generated by a tax on transnational corporations that engage in polluting activities. Developing countries argued that the concept of water tariffs should be addressed only until developing countries are able to implement proper distribution systems and until the economic conditions of the rural poor are improved. Some developed countries also campaigned for the removal of the systems of subsidies which they say make the cost of providing fresh water to communities artificially low. The draft decisions which may be modified before being adopted by the Plenary will then be discussed at the Dublin Conference on freshwater resources in January. Informal discussions also focused on the relationship between UNCED and the Dublin Conference. It was agreed that the Dublin Conference would be asked for expert advice on such matters as target dates and timing for objectives. 3. Wastes During Week 3, informal consultations were held on the four substantive areas, including the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, the Management of Radioactive Waste, Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals, and Solid Wastes and Sewage-Related Issues. Since NGOs were not permitted to attend these sessions, no report is available at this time. During the week, discussion took place on document WG.II/L.19, the draft decision on Agenda 21 options on the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and three addenda covering the other waste areas. A more complete report on this subject area will be available in the final synopsis. Working Group 3 1. Evaluation of Environmental Instruments Working Group III met in informal consultations this week to discuss the survey of existing agreements and instruments and criteria for their evaluation. At the conclusion of their discussions, the Working Group requested the Secretariat to compile the necessary background information for the sectors identified in the revised list of agreements and instruments, preferably before the UNEP ad hoc meeting of senior government environmental law experts scheduled to be held in Rio at the end of October. This will give both governments and concerned international organizations an opportunity to make preliminary comments. Comments and additional information received by 15 November will be reflected in a synthesis report to be prepared by the Secretariat before PrepCom IV. The Working Group also requested the Secretariat to compile the necessary background information in accordance with the agreed criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of existing agreements and instruments on the basis of a revised list of such agreements and instruments. 2. The Earth Charter During Week 3, the Secretariat compiled, to the satisfaction of the Working Group, proposed principles for the Earth Charter (WG.III/L.8). The consolidated draft includes 145 proposals, grouped into 17 general headings. The Working Group began to go through the proposals one at a time, and it seemed that it was settling into a comparatively productive mode of work. But after only several hours of discussion over a period of two days, in which the first two headings were covered, the Working Group got bogged down in a procedural argument. The G-77 shifted discussion away from Document L.8, to their draft decision (WG.III/L.6), titled the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, because they wanted a greater degree of focus on their particular concerns, which they did not feel were sufficiently addressed in L.8. The G-77 draft includes statements on the sovereignty of countries to utilize their natural resources, the right of development, the right of individuals to freedom from hunger, disease and poverty, the responsibility of Northern countries for current environmental problems, and the need for financial and technology transfers. Because of this dispute, further discussion of the consolidated draft proved impossible. Instead, the Working Group adopted a decision to consider and take appropriate action at Prepcom IV on the G-77 text, but to take as the basis for discussion at Prepcom IV all of the documents submitted, including the Peruvian and Canadian drafts, the G-77 draft, and the compilation of proposals contained in L.8. By the end of PrepCom III a new version of Document L.8 will be issued. Discussions about the Earth Charter, however, have been formally completed for this session. 3. Institutional Reform There was no further substantive discussion of institutional matters during Week 3. The Working Group adopted a decision requesting the Secretariat to prepare a compilation of institutional proposals for consideration at Prepcom IV. One point of contention related to the inclusion of NGO interventions in the Secretariat's compilation. India was opposed to any such inclusion. Canada mentioned that in fact a precedent had been set in the Oceans proceedings whereby the Secretariat had been asked to prepare its compendium based on interventions made by delegations and others. The US urged that NGO reports not be commingled with government reports and instead they should be compiled in a separate section. 4. Dispute Settlement A considerable amount of WG3's time was devoted to a proposal by the Hexagonale countries (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Yugoslavia) calling for an assessment by the Secretariat of dispute settlement mechanisms. Brazil, in particular, opposed the proposal, ostensibly on the grounds that dispute settlement was negative and the Prepcom should have a more positive focus. (In fact, Brazil's opposition to the Hexagonale proposal was apparently due to ongoing environmental disputes between Brazil and both Paraguay and Guyana.) Some other delegations expressed concern about adding an agenda item on this subject, while the EC and US strongly supported the proposal. A compromise was finally reached under which the subject will be discussed at Prepcom IV, but not under a separate agenda item.