Earth Negotiations Bulletin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations


PDF Format
  Text Format
 French Version

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd)


Vol. 8 No. 40
Friday, 16 April 2004



Delegates met throughout the day in informal consultations to consider the Strategy Document, concluding a first reading of sections on waste management, coastal and marine resources, freshwater resources, land resources, energy resources, tourism resources, biodiversity resources, transport and communication, graduation of SIDS LDCs, and trade: globalization and trade liber­alization.


INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: Throughout the infor­mals, facilitated by Don MacKay (New Zealand), developed coun­tries proposed alternative text on many paragraphs, some of which sought to “balance” the text by placing greater obligation on SIDS. Developed countries also raised concerns about the use of manda­tory language giving directives to the international community, which developing countries agreed to address. A group of devel­oped countries suggested modifying the chapeau of numerous paragraphs to recognize the commitment of SIDS in various areas, to which developing countries stressed the need for assistance, rather than restating existing commitments.

Waste management: On specifying actions to be taken by international bodies and processes, several developed countries expressed concern that the Document should not “usurp” the work of such bodies, and called for the deletion of these references. Objecting to these proposals, developing countries noted that in many cases SIDS are not adequately represented in some interna­tional bodies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, and often lack the capacity to adequately participate in the decision making processes of those bodies. A developed country said it would provide a revised text of the section on waste management.

On transportation of radioactive wastes, developing countries objected to proposals to delete related text, saying this was agreed language from the BPOA and that the objective of the IM was not to renegotiate the BPOA. On the responsibility for addressing pollution and accepting liability for rehabilitation of World War II shipwrecks, some developed countries proposed deleting the asso­ciated subparagraph, with a developed country suggesting to deal with this issue bilaterally. Developing countries stressed the importance of recognizing this issue at the international level.

Coastal and marine resources: The establishment of a new financial mechanism to assist SIDS in the implementation of UNCLOS was opposed by developed countries, which stressed the need to make better use of existing mechanisms. Developing coun­tries emphasized the need to address SIDS’ access to such mecha­nisms.

On fisheries management, developed countries proposed strengthening language to assist SIDS in addressing illegal, unre­ported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and problems relating to flags of convenience. Noting that SIDS lack the capacity to control IUU fishing, developing countries welcomed this proposal.

Some developed countries opposed singling out distant fishing nations to provide support for sustainable fisheries management. Developing countries maintained that these nations should take responsibility for their part in depleting SIDS fisheries. Noting the difficulty of assessing “equitable” resource management, some developed countries suggested, and developing countries agreed, to replace the word “equitable” with “effective.”

On activities of SIDS in their economic exclusive zones, devel­oped countries suggested adding reference to the relevant work of the CBD and international law. Developing countries said they would consider these proposals. A developed country proposed qualifying that management approaches be based on scientific information. Developing countries expressed concerns regarding SIDS’ access to this information.

Freshwater resources: Delegates agreed, without amend­ment, to the introductory paragraph outlining challenges faced by SIDS on this issue. Developing countries said they would consider proposed language referencing the 4th World Water Forum to be held in Mexico in 2006, but stressed that support for the implemen­tation of the Joint Programme for Action for Water and Climate launched at the 3rd World Water Forum should be provided prior to 2006.

On providing assistance for appropriate technologies to meet the MDG on safe drinking water, a developed country proposed text recognizing SIDS’ commitment to the WSSD sanitation and integrated water resources management targets. Developing coun­tries stressed the need for assistance in meeting these targets.

A developed country requested clarification on why a specific WMO programme was singled out to assist SIDS in a paragraph on strengthening national capacity on water quality. Developing countries stressed the importance of the particular programme in assisting SIDS in planning and forecasting. A developed country noted that the mechanisms and programmes specified are relevant for all developing countries and not just SIDS. Facilitator MacKay suggested modifying the language to reflect SIDS-specific needs.

Land resources: Developed countries proposed reformulating paragraphs related to land degradation and trade, which they said should emphasize that SIDS have primary responsibility for their land resources. Developing countries indicated the need to mention the GEF, CCD and CBD as mechanisms to address the issue of land degradation. Many developed countries suggested deleting specific language directing the GEF to facilitate SIDS’ access to financial and technical resources to address land degrada­tion. Developing countries also said it would be difficult to empha­size quality control and product development in the Document unless capacity is built within SIDS. Developing countries stressed the need to retain references to sustainable forest management part­nerships within the UN and the international community, since improved forest management is critically needed in SIDS.

Developed countries proposed deleting the paragraph on mining and suggested changing paragraphs related to minerals to include issues such as the need to build capacity through improved development of policy and legislation. Developing countries said they would consider the proposed changes to these paragraphs.

Energy resources: On forms of energy that should be listed as commercially feasible options of energy supply for SIDS, devel­oped countries proposed adding geothermal, biomass and hydro­power to the existing list, which includes wind, solar and ocean energy. One developed country said the section on energy resources focused too much on what other countries should do, but did not reflect what SIDS should do. Developing countries under­scored that this section builds on language already agreed to in the JPOI. Delegates discussed the possibility of moving references to technology transfer to the section on implementation. Some devel­oped countries indicated that they would propose new text for this section.

Tourism resources: On the balance between tourism develop­ment and other sectors of the economy, a developed country suggested, and developing countries agreed, to address environ­mental protection. On resources and tools to achieve sustainable tourism, some developed countries suggested adding references to the CBD guidelines on tourism and development, financial resources, and means of raising these resources at the national level. Developing countries said they would consider the proposed language. On national tourism development plans, some developed countries suggested referencing sustainable development strate­gies.

Biodiversity resources: On text related to international assis­tance, developed countries called for language on access and benefit sharing and updating text related to relevant conclusions of CBD COP-7. Developing countries noted that there was no refer­ence to SIDS in the CBD Work Programme on Protected Areas, and requested specific text responding to the unique situation of SIDS in relation to the CBD’s implementation.

Developed countries proposed changing language on the GEF, noting that it is just one of the mechanisms that provide technical and international assistance and that the Document cannot mandate the GEF to undertake specific actions. Developing countries indi�cated that the emphasis of the paragraph is on the simplification of the GEF�s disbursement procedures, and underlined their need to have predictable, but not necessarily new, sources of funding.

Transport and communication: On the challenges faced by SIDS in transport and communications, a developed country suggested opening the section with an acknowledgement of recent developments that have reduced the isolation of SIDS. Developing countries stressed the need for support to access new communica�tion technologies. On assistance for developing and managing airports and ports, developing countries highlighted, inter alia, costs involved in meeting new international security requirements. A developed country suggested expanding the language to include assistance for other forms of transport infrastructure.

On regional transportation arrangements, a developed country suggested operationalizing the language to state that SIDS should expand their participation in such arrangements, and requested clarification of the concept of �rationalizing� air services. Devel�oping countries highlighted the challenges of developing air poli�cies based on market forces, noting the need for intervention to ensure air service in some areas.

On liberalization of telecommunications, one developed country requested deleting language on cost reduction measures, and some developed countries said the World Summit on the Infor�mation Society (WSIS) process is not an appropriate forum to address this issue. A developed country requested clarification on the reference to supporting non-State participation in the WSIS. Developing countries noted that this reference reflects the language of the WSIS, and could encompass NGOs, other stakeholders, and non-State SIDS.

Science and technology: On investment in science and tech�nology capacity of SIDS, developed countries recommended deleting the paragraph calling for the creation of a clearinghouse mechanism. Developing countries explained that the mechanism envisaged was to identify SIDS-appropriate technology and help SIDS obtain access to these technologies. Regarding SIDSNet, a developed country reserved its position on language calling for adequate funding for its maintenance and strengthening, noting that the source of the funding has not been determined. Developing countries said they would consider this issue.

Graduation of SIDS LDCs: Developed countries indicated that ECOSOC was already conducting work on this issue and called for deleting this section. Developing countries noted that although ECOSOC is looking into LDC graduation issues, it is important to further discuss: the results of a country�s graduation from LDC status; the methodology used to determine LDC gradua�tion; and the issue of graduation itself. Developing countries indi�cated that the IM needs to look at the environmental vulnerability of SIDS and come up with specific recommendations for the gradu�ation of SIDS LDCs.

Trade: globalization and trade liberalization: A developed country proposed deleting this section, saying there was no mandate to address trade issues in this process and that the UN was not the appropriate body to address trade-related issues, as they are being addressed by the WTO. Welcoming the inclusion and rele�vance of this section in the Document, a group of developed coun�tries raised concerns about some elements of the text, in particular the creation of new groups under the WTO. They said they would submit alternative language on the entire section. Developing countries noted that trade is an instrument of sustainable develop�ment and is recognized as such in the Doha Development Agree�ment, and highlighted that many trade issues are already addressed outside of the WTO. Developing countries emphasized that the BPOA+5 review, the JPOI and Monterrey Consensus all addressed trade-related concerns of SIDS and said the Document should build on these provisions. He also underscored the central role of the UN in addressing these concerns, noting that it is the only forum where all SIDS� voices are represented.


Facilitator MacKay expressed general satisfaction with the pace of discussion and, with 18 paragraphs outstanding, was confi�dent that delegates would conclude their first reading of the Docu�ment before the Friday Plenary. Although MacKay announced at the day�s end that he would provide a composite text on Friday morning, many delegates noted that divergences between country positions were overwhelming at this juncture and felt uncertain as to how negotiations would move forward. With numerous outstanding controversial issues and scores of proposals being tabled, several participants were surprised that night contact groups were not established to help reach compromise on specific issues. Several participants were speculating on the options for moving forward, with some raising the possibility of adopting the Docu�ment in its original form, as compilation text or a Facilitator�s paper.


INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: Delegates will meet in the morning and early afternoon in Conference Room 1 to conclude their first reading of the Strategy Document. Delegates will also consider a revised provisional agenda for the IM.

CSD-12 PLENARY: CSD-12 Plenary will convene in Confer�ence Room 1 in the afternoon, where it is expected to hear a brief report of the informal consultations, adopt the provisional agenda for the IM, and discuss the way forward.

ENB SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: The Earth Negotiations Bulletin summary and analysis report of the SIDS preparatory meeting will be available on Monday, 3 May 2004 at:

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin � <> is written and edited by Alice Bisiaux <>, Lauren Flejzor <>, Prisna Nuengsigkapian <>, Anju Sharma <> and Richard Sherman <>. The Digital Editor is Leila Mead <>. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <> and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development - DFID), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. General Support for the Bulletin during 2004 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI). Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. Funding for translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin in French has been provided by the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <>, +1-212-644-0217 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.