ENB:05:75
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
PLENARY
IMPLEMENTATION IN AREAS REQUIRING URGENT ACTION. Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental Objectives: In paragraph 21 (population), the EU, CANADA, NORWAY and the US added references to reproductive health care and family planning. The US deleted the reference to international assistance for implementation.
Sectors and Issues: In 32 (chemicals and wastes), the EU, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, the US and RUSSIA called for separate sections on chemicals and wastes. CANADA added references to: voluntary industry initiatives; current negotiations on safety of radioactive waste management; and minerals and metals. JAPAN suggested that storage, transport and disposal be consistent with existing agreements as well as the Rio declaration. MEXICO emphasized the proximity principle.
In 33 (land and sustainable agriculture), the G-77/CHINA called for plans to provide developing countries with access to basic agricultural requirements. The EU recommended action to ensure secure land tenure for farmers. The US suggested minimizing conversion of forests and natural areas for food production. AUSTRALIA called for continued WTO work to liberalize international trade and remove distortions to sustainable development in agriculture. NORWAY called for measures to improve food security for the urban poor. The SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE CAUCUS emphasized capacity-building for small-scale farmers to reinforce local food systems.
On 34 (desertification and drought), the G-77/CHINA replaced “adequate” with “new and additional” financial resources and recommended transferring technology without delay. The EU recommended support for the Global Mechanism’s “work to facilitate the mobilization of” adequate financial resources. The US proposed increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of existing financial mechanisms. BENIN underscored the need to eradicate poverty in affected countries.
On 35 (biodiversity), the G-77/CHINA’s reformulation called for action to, inter alia: equitably share benefits from biotechnological development and genetic resource utilization; facilitate technology transfer; and strengthen national capacity- building. SWITZERLAND said governments should elaborate national biodiversity action plans by 2002. The US supported “appropriate” transfer of “relevant” technology and proposed establishing protected areas systems.
In 36 (sustainable tourism), the G-77/CHINA introduced language on: developing countries’, including SIDS, increasing reliance on tourism; special attention to cultural and eco-tourism; and enhancing policies and capacity for sustainable consumption and production. SWITZERLAND said tourism is particularly resource- intensive, policies should be strengthened locally, and the CSD should cooperate with the ILO and other relevant organizations when defining an international programme of work.
In 37-38 (SIDS), the G-77/CHINA, supported by AOSIS, called for adequate provision for the Barbados Programme of Action review in 1999. The US inserted “where appropriate” after a reference to external assistance.
In 39 (natural disasters), the G-77/CHINA called for assistance to developing countries to strengthen mechanisms and policies, improve access to technology and provide support for preparedness and response.
Means of Implementation: The G-77/CHINA condensed three ODA paragraphs into one, stressing that: private capital flows cannot replace ODA; developed countries should honor their commitment to the ODA target as soon as possible; new and additional resources remain key for sustainable development; and developed countries must display political will to reverse the current downward trend. On 41 (ODA target), CANADA said developed countries should “seek” to reverse this trend. The EU said efforts should be made to reverse the trend and donors and recipients should address the factors causing the decline. AUSTRALIA and the EU deleted text on returning to 1992 shares of GNP within five years. On 42 (role of ODA), the US said financing for sustainable development will come primarily from countries’ own public and private sectors. The EU called for continued efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of ODA.
In 44 (FDI), to ensure that FDI is geared toward sustainable development, the G- 77/CHINA called for incentives by donor governments and NORWAY for national policies. The EU recommended ensuring macroeconomic stability and open trade and investment policies to stimulate FDI. In 45 (GEF), the G-77/CHINA called for: adequate resources without stringent conditionalities; adequate, sustained and reliable funding for GEF operation; and GEF funding for incremental costs. A US redraft notes that evaluation of the GEF’s performance will help determine the replenishment size. An EU reformulation adds reference to IDA replenishment. NORWAY, CANADA and JAPAN deleted the reference to a doubling of resources.
In 47 (debt), the G-77/CHINA called for a study of the interrelationship between debt and sustainable development. The EU called for debt relief, the US for debt rescheduling, and both deleted cancellation. On 49 (subsidy reform), the G- 77/CHINA emphasized impacts on market access for developing country products. NORWAY recommended “phasing out” subsidies. The US proposed reforming “or removing” subsidies. JAPAN deleted reduction of “trade-distorting” subsidies.
In 51 (innovative financial mechanisms), the G-77/CHINA said such mechanisms should only supplement ODA. The US noted that they are not fully evolved conceptually. NORWAY said it is crucial to follow-up on the intersessional working group on finance’s proposals. The US called on ODA donors and MDBs to support projects consistent with local and national Agenda 21s. The NGO FINANCE CAUCUS called for: an interim target of 0.1% GNP in ODA for the environment by 2002; targeted aid for the poorest and projects that have no commercial attraction; common corporate operating practices for FDI; and an Intergovernmental Panel on Finance.
On 52 (EST transfer), the G-77/CHINA called for: fulfillment and review of Agenda 21 commitments and implementation; reduced constraints on transfers; and cooperation on building capacity. The EU and US deleted a reference specifying renewed developed country commitment. CANADA added references to improving the flow of ESTs and building on current models of cooperation between the public and private sectors of developed and developing countries. In 53 (human and institutional capacity), NORWAY called for statistical data to reflect technology transfers within ODA. In 54 (the private sector’s role), the G-77/CHINA deleted the linkage between FDI, ODA and technology transfer and called for consideration of an international commission to fund the acquisition of patent rights. The US, supported by CANADA, replaced a reference to further efforts by developed countries to acquire and transfer privately-owned technology with a reference to the international community, and added that transfers on concessional terms should be to the least developed countries. PERU proposed a clearinghouse mechanism to facilitate concessional transfers. On 56 (public-private partnerships), the G-77/CHINA added text on centers for technology transfer. The US included multilateral development banks and international development institutions alongside governments as actors to play a key role in establishing partnerships. In 57 (government’s role in business linkages), the EU stressed the importance of developing national legal and policy frameworks. NORWAY added that cleaner production programmes should be supported when stimulating joint ventures.
In 58 (South-South cooperation), the US called for priority attention to technology needs assessments. The G-77/CHINA called for developing country assistance through trilateral arrangements and the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for South- South Cooperation. On 59 (electronic information and telecommunications networks), JAPAN added a reference to using new technologies to reduce environmental impacts. CANADA drew attention to the potential for technology match-making and brokering.
In 63-65 (science,) CANADA called for full and equal participation of girls and women in education and training. The EU proposed examination of the connection between the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. JAPAN called for promotion of existing regional and global networks. Regarding strengthened capacity in developing countries, the support of funding mechanisms was called for “in accordance with their mandates” (US), “within existing resources” (CANADA), and for “recipient” countries (UKRAINE).