PrepCom IV: The Final Stop on the Road to Rio by Johannah Bernstein Pamela Chasek Langston James Goree VI The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development officially ended its two year's work Saturday, 4 April at 5:00 am when PrepCom Chair Tommy Koh of Singapore gaveled the final meeting of the Plenary to a close. The fourth session of the PrepCom, which began on 2 March, marked the final phase of negotiations in preparation for the Earth Summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June. Although PrepCom IV was neither an unmitigated disaster nor an overwhelming success, in actual fact, progress was indeed achieved as close to 85 percent of Agenda 21 (the 750-page framework for environment and development action in the 21st century) is in some state of agreement. It is, however, the remaining 15 percent that is deeply problematic. The most difficult and, indeed, contentious issues remain to be resolved at Rio: the statement of forest principles; climate change and atmospheric issues; transfer of environmentally appropriate technology to the developing world; the institutional arrangements necessary to implement Agenda 21, and the most intractable of them all, the magnitude and means of transferring financial resources to developing countries to enable them to meet the global environmental norms that are expected to emerge after Rio. And so, what was expected to be a two-week gold-pen cum massive photo opportunity in Rio has quickly been transformed into the most critical of negotiating meetings held so far. The road to Rio began in August 1990. PrepCom I, which was held in Nairobi, worked to identify the scope of the UNCED and those issues that needed attention. At PrepCom II, held in Geneva in March 1991, the voluminous documentation provided by the Secretariat helped states to address key issues and prioritize the areas where action was needed. It was here that the first hints of the form that the Conference's products might take emerged. At PrepCom III, which took place in Geneva in August 1991, governments debated the best ways to tackle the problems and began to negotiate, for the first time, the proposed programmes and action areas. Finally, at this last PrepCom in New York, delegates met to negotiate and finalize the technical portions of Agenda 21 and negotiate the political instruments that are expected to be signed in Rio de Janeiro. At the beginning of PrepCom IV, the most contentious issues had not yet been negotiated. Since insufficient time had been allocated at PrepCom III for discussion of all of the issues, all unresolved matters were deferred to PrepCom IV's already overtaxed agenda. Thus, as the session opened in New York, delegates had before them 750 pages of text, in various stages of negotiation, that formed Agenda 21; an Earth Charter compilation text of over 136 paragraphs; a partially negotiated statement on forest principles; and impending deadlock on the question of financial resources. With five weeks of difficult negotiations ahead of them, government delegates not only faced this overtaxed agenda, but also the real possibility that little or no progress could be achieved on these difficult issues. But, against all odds, progress was achieved in New York. Yet, much work remains to be done. Thus, government officials will attempt to conclude in two weeks in Rio, what hundreds of officials have simply been unable to resolve over the past two years. What follows is an overview of the task at hand for governments at Rio, as well as an overview of what in fact was achieved at this past negotiating session in New York. THE CHALLENGE FOR RIO FINANCE: Although several attempts were made to agree on a compromise text -- and one was very nearly reached -- negotiations collapsed, principally over issues relating to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the mechanism proposed to finance Agenda 21 and other global conventions, including climate change and biodiversity. The issue will remain highly contentious and one of the most difficult to negotiate at Rio. CLIMATE CHANGE: The most important discussions regarding climate change are taking place under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC). At this point, the major outstanding issue pertains to the lack of agreement regarding the need for specific targets and timetables for CO2 emissions, with the United States continuing to oppose such measures. Within the context of the Agenda 21 chapter on Atmosphere, this has translated in the US opposing a wide range of measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption. While the INC process is separate from UNCED, INC failure will have serious implications for UNCED. The Agenda 21 chapter on atmosphere has avoided dealing with any substantive matters that would duplicate or prejudge the parallel negotiating process for the Climate Change Convention. If the INC is unable to reach agreement at the final negotiating session later this month in New York, look for the Agenda 21 chapter to change considerably in Rio. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Northern and Southern countries still remain divided over the question of transfer of environmentally appropriate technology to the South. Although most of the text was successfully negotiated in New York, the question of terms of transfer remains to be resolved in Rio. Northern countries continue to support the transfer of such technology at commercial or market rates. Southern countries argue that they lack the sufficient financial resources to obtain such technology at anything more than preferential or concessional rates. Another unresolved issue pertains to the manner in which intellectual property rights can be safeguarded without hindering access to patented technology. These questions are closely related to the discussions on finance because of the significant amount of public funds that might be involved to subsidize the acquisition of technology. CONSUMPTION: Overall, there appeared to be a lack of willingness by the North, especially the US, to deal seriously with the issue of consumption. Over-consumption in the North and the unmet consumption needs for basic goods and services in the South demand a restructuring of the use of natural capital and lifestyles. Few countries were prepared to deal with these core issues. In fact, the negotiations became mired in Faustian dealmaking when at one point it was rumored that North and South had reached a deal whereby the North would drop the issue of population growth in exchange for the South's dropping the issue of consumption. What did remain clear, however, was the continued opposition by the US delegation, on direct orders from the White House, to any language in text that could be interpreted as necessitating a diminution of the "American Way of Life". INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY: Again, Northern countries demonstrated a lack of willingness to seriously address the structural changes that must be made within the international economy to encourage sustainable development. Many believe that UNCED should initiate a process of global economic reform that will reverse the South- North outflow of resources, improve the South's terms of trade and reduce its debt burden. Issues that need to be resolved include agriculture protectionism; the use of subsidies; the setting of ODA targets and timetables; the need for environmental policies and trade policies to be more mutually supportive; and the necessary policy reforms to "release resources for supporting the transition to sustainable development" (and home and abroad) and to complement policies aimed at restraining consumption. TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS: From the perspective of many Southern countries and NGOs, the role of transnational corporations has been dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner. Instead of calling for strong national and international regulation of TNCs, countries have acquiesced to the dismantling of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations and have allowed the role of TNCs to go unchecked by the PrepCom. NGOs maintain that not only should governments be made to pledge towards a "partnership for sustainable development" but that industry, which plays as important a role in deciding or effecting sustainable development, should be brought in as well. HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY: The US has opposed language within Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter that refers to the activities of the military and corporations that could threaten health and human safety. As well, the US has remained steadfastly opposed to references to international regulation of biotechnology safety. This move runs counter to the efforts of Britain and the Netherlands to strengthen such provisions. Other unresolved areas pertain to the storage of radioactive waste near the marine environment and the international trafficking of hazardous waste. In fact, the absence of resolution on these issues was mirrored by US refusal to accept language referring to the environmental impact of military operations, the impact of military waste and the need for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing in the Earth Charter and Agenda 21. BIODIVERSITY: Agreement is still lacking around the difficult question of access and ownership of biodiversity resources in developing countries. Although the issue of biodiversity is primarily being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a framework convention on biodiversity, much of the Agenda 21 chapter is being held hostage to the outcome of these parallel negotiations. The INC will be holding one more negotiating session before Rio. The results of this session will undoubtedly influence the conclusion of the Agenda 21 negotiations in Rio. FORESTS: Many observers noted that negotiations around the forest principles document (the hopeful precursor to a future forest convention) sparked one of the most contentious debates at PrepCom IV. The standard North/South split marked many issues such as national sovereignty over forest resources and free trade in forest products. The draft text is so mired in contention, some suggest that it may not even make it to Rio. INSTITUTIONS: While the level of debate was hindered by a fundamental lack of creative and innovative ideas, negotiations on the question of institutional arrangements necessary to implement Agenda 21 has at least narrowed down to several viable options. One is a proposal for a revived ECOSOC (the Economic and Social Council), which would include monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 among its functions. The other option is a Commission on Sustainable Development, which would monitor Agenda 21 implementation and other activities related to integration of environment and development. EARTH CHARTER: Although the actual text of the Earth Charter, now called the Rio Declaration, falls short of everyone's expectations, it is the only actual consensus text going to Rio. The initial expectation on the part of UNCED Secretary-General Maurice Strong and the North was that the Earth Charter would be a relatively short statement, committing countries in soaring, visionary language to safeguard the world's natural inheritance. By contrast, developing countries insisted on a more detailed, pragmatic document that would force the North to take responsibility for environmental problems to help them continue their development safely. The Rio Declaration attempts to capture the middle ground between the North's concerns with environmental management and the South's concern with economic development. MEASURING SUCCESS The progress achieved at PrepCom IV must be viewed in the light of the context out of which UNCED and the PrepCom emerged. The United Nations negotiating process, as flawed as it may be, is the only multilateral forum at this point for dealing with these issues. The UNCED process is not about resolving individual issues, such as global warming, whaling and biotechnology safety. UNCED is about creating the framework for nations to address global issues in a comprehensive manner. To this effect, UNCED has not failed, but is on its way to creating a new world order for global cooperation on environment and development. In addition to creating a new international framework for nations to discuss and cooperate on environment and development, the UNCED preparatory process has also democratized the international political process by increasing the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While the amount of NGO influence could be greater, NGO presence throughout the preparatory process has, nevertheless, begun to serve as a check and balance on government performance in this process. Because of their wealth of practical experience, NGOs were able to contribute to the decision-making process -- an added dimension that improved the quality of decision making. No longer can governments make decisions insulated from the public masses. Indeed, increased NGO vigilance has served, in many cases, to keep governments on the right track, and in perhaps the rare case, on the higher moral ground. At PrepCom IV there were numerous examples where NGO input was directly incorporated into the working documents by governments. The UK and Denmark promoted the NGO preamble for the Earth Charter; recommendations from the NGO working groups were incorporated into the poverty chapter of Agenda 21, the Forest Principles document, institutions; and on indigenous people and women's issues. Although many governments still remain unconvinced about the usefulness of NGOs in such great numbers within the process, working relations between numerous governments and NGOs has reached an all time high with governments actively seeking the input and advice of NGOs on key issues. After two years of working closely together, it became increasingly clear that close interactions and the exchange of ideas created a very productive and positive work environment for both entities. NGOs realized that many government delegates were deeply committed but were limited by their negotiating instructions. On the other hand, governments grew to see beyond the conventional stereotype of NGOs. Finally, it must be remembered that the Earth Summit in Rio is not an end, but rather a beginning. The documents to be signed in Rio will set the international and national policy agendas into the 21st century. It is crucial that the relationships developed through the UNCED process, the progress achieved in understanding complex environmental and development issues, and the compromises made during this process serve as the basis for increased international cooperation on environment and development for years to come. This analysis is based on reports in the Earth Summit Bulletin, which was published daily by Island Press and distributed free of charge to the participants at the Fourth Session of the UNCED Preparatory Committee. The Earth Summit Bulletin and this report were prepared by Johannah Bernstein (cpcu@web. apc.org), Pamela Chasek (pchasek@igc.apc. org) and Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" (kimo@ax.apc.org). Funding has been provided by grants from the Ford Foundation, The Compton Foundation and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Island Press or our sponsors. The contents of this report may be freely used in other publications with appropriate citation. This report has been uploaded on the APC networks into the conference .