ENB:05:86 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]


Delegates discussed paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the draft political statement during the afternoon, chaired by COW Chair Tolba. Based on discussions, the Chair will produce revised texts. A contact group will consider text in 7 (integration) on, inter alia, coercive economic measures and foreign occupation.

On 8 (globalization), the G-77/CHINA proposed language on, inter alia: sustainable economic growth; unilateral measures that create trade obstacles; open and equitable global economic relations; refraining from protectionist tendencies; an environment to help developing countries produce goods; and international support for capacity building in trade and environment. JAPAN, the US and the EU objected to the sentence on global economic relations. The US proposed referring to economic growth in the context of sustainable development and objected to references to unilateral measures. The EUROPEAN COMMISSION, on behalf of the EU, preferred existing language and noted that the G-77/CHINA text from the Agenda for Development did not reflect the balance of that agreement. RUSSIA, UKRAINE, BELARUS, ROMANIA and AUSTRALIA expressed concern that countries with economies in transition should not be excluded.

On 9 (unsustainable consumption and production), ICELAND, supported by CANADA, proposed a reference to renewable energy sources, but the G-77/CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA objected. NORWAY suggested a reference to unsustainable patterns beyond industrialized countries. KOREA supported retention of a reference to environmental ethics. A number of delegations objected to the proposal for “factor four.” RUSSIA proposed assisting “other” countries, rather than “developing.”

On 10 (poverty), the G-77/CHINA proposed, inter alia, deleting target dates for strengthening national policies on poverty and adding time-bound commitments for transferring resources. JAPAN and the US objected to time-bound commitments. The US opposed deleting the target date for national policies. RUSSIA proposed that eradication of poverty was a priority for “all” countries. The US supported sustained economic growth “in the context of sustainable development.” The EU preferred “economic growth that is sustained and sustainable.”

[Return to start of article]