ENB:02:06
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
THE CONTACT GROUPS
FOREST PRINCIPLES: The contact group on Forest Principles met both Friday and Saturday. Delegates reported a more productive mood than at PrepCom IV, although negotiations have been halting. Work on bracketed text in the preamble section has been postponed. While most problems are being addressed in the contact group, three sub-contact groups have been formed. Delegates report that sub-contact group agreements have been lost because the Chair has allowed debate to resume on compromise text. The remaining points yet to be resolved include: reference to a future legal instrument; sovereignty over resources; funding; historical responsibility and compensation; access to genetic resources; trade in forest products; and, the roots of the forests crisis in both debt and poverty.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES: Finance discussions resumed on Friday when the G-77 presented its response to the Chair's non-paper. The G-77 requested that the developed countries comment on a series of issues including: credible assurances for new and additional funding; commitments to reach 0.7% of GNP for ODA by the year 2000; a pledging conference to be called at the next UNGA; and a monitoring mechanism for financial flows. On Saturday afternoon the Chair, Rubens Ricupero, issued a new draft of the finance chapter, which took into account the week's discussions. It differs from the original Chair's text in that it identifies economic growth, social development and poverty eradication as priorities; states that the cost of inaction will outweigh the financial costs of Agenda 21; and notes that global and local environmental issues are interrelated. In the "Activities" section it calls for countries that have committed to such targets to reach ODA levels of 0.7% GNP "as early as possible" (but not necessarily by the year 2000) and that other donor countries will agree to make "their best efforts to increase their levels of ODA". The GEF language remains basically unchanged from last Thursday. In the "Means of implementation" section it calls the Secretariat figure of $125 billion for implementation of Agenda 21 an "estimate" and states that actual costs will depend on the strategies and programmes implemented. It states that financial commitments for Agenda 21 should be made by developed countries at UNGA-48 and that financial review and monitoring will be dealt with in the chapter on institutions.
ATMOSPHERE: The Contact Group on Atmosphere has met three times to discuss the whole chapter, which was bracketed at the end of PrepCom IV. The Saudi Arabian delegation, with support from other members of the Arab group, suggested that the chapter be deleted. Other countries argued for its retention, although some suggested that it could be shortened and might focus on agreed text from existing legal instruments, such as climate change, ozone and transboundary air pollution agreements. This latter suggestion was acceptable to the Saudis. It was agreed that the Chair would redraft the chapter and the G-77 prepare the chapeau to address the Saudis' concerns.
On Saturday, an informal group met to review the Chair's new paper and the G-77's new chapeau. The chapeau states that "no state can be expected to take measures under the chapter that exceed provisions in the Climate Change Convention" and that since "economic and social development and poverty eradication are overriding priorities, measures taken under this chapter should be cost-effective and economically feasible". The general reaction of developed countries was that the chapeau provides a good basis, but that further consultations will be required to refine the text. In particular, developed countries do not feel that the Convention should restrict the scope of the chapter, and that countries should not be precluded from taking measures that exceed the legal instrument. The only contentious point in the first programme area of the draft text dealt with the reference to critical levels of greenhouse gases.
INSTITUTIONS: The Institutions contact group met Saturday to continue its review of the 5 June Chair's non-paper. The key points of the compromise text are: the Sustainable Development Commission to report directly to ECOSOC, with ECOSOC, in turn, presenting its report to the General Assembly; deference to UNGA-47 for resolution on the modalities of the Commission's work; less stringent language on the periodic submission by Governments of Agenda 21 implementation reports; and soft language on the role of the Commission in considering the progress on the implementation of agreements that could be made available by the relevant Conference of Parties. The following concerns were noted: (1) whether the Commission would report "through" or "to" ECOSOC; (2) whether the Commission should be a high-level body or not; and (3) G-77 concern with national reporting.
INSTRUMENTS: The Instruments contact group met on Thursday to remove most of the brackets, with the exception of paragraph 39.3(d), which calls for the promotion of agreements, instruments and international standards for the protection of the environment that take into account the different situations and capabilities of countries to "avoid the possible use of unilaterally set environmental standards as barriers to trade". Informal consultations are continuing on this issue. One important revision in the text changes the title in Programme Area D from "Dispute prevention and settlement," to "Dispute avoidance and settlement", with the latter representing weaker language.
BIODIVERSITY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY: The Biodiversity contact group met Friday to attempt to remove square brackets around two important paragraphs in the Objectives section. Paragraph 15.4(d) refers to appropriate measures for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from research and development of biological and genetic resources. Paragraph 15.4(j) refers to the "rights of countries of origin of genetic resources to benefit from biotechnological development and commercial utilization of products derived from such resources." The US remains opposed to these paragraphs. Unfortunately, countries attempted to reopen substantive negotiations on these matters. Due to protracted negotiations, the group was unable to commence discussions on biotechnology.
FRESHWATER: The contact group on freshwater resources met for the first time on Friday night to address the introduction to the Agenda 21 chapter, which had not been negotiated at PrepCom IV. After a lengthy discussion, the group agreed that an introduction was necessary and that they would ask the Chair, Amb. Bukar Shaib, to draft a new introductory paragraph.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The contact group on technology transfer made some progress in its meeting on Friday morning. The group agreed to postpone discussion of Saudi Arabia's proposal to insert the words "safe and" before any mention of technology. The paragraph on the terms of transfer, which had been the most controversial at PrepCom IV, was, as expected, the cause of much discussion in the contact group. The US proposed replacing the bracketed text with text on technology transfer from the Biodiversity Convention. This was particularly ironic for two reasons: (1) the US had proposed text from a Convention that it has refused to sign; and (2) the G-77 later announced that it was willing to remove the brackets and accept the existing text, something it had not been willing to do at PrepCom IV. The US announced that it would have to consult with Washington before it could go any further.