Daily report for 4 March 1997

Delegates to the CSD Intersessional Working Group began their consideration of the Co-Chairs’ draft of the proposed UNGASS outcome during the morning. A number ofdelegations proposed alternative structures for the text. Regional and interest groupsconducted informal consultations during the afternoon to consolidate these proposals.

DISCUSSION OF THE CO-CHAIRS' DRAFT TEXT

Co-Chair Amorim introduced discussion on the Co-Chairs’ draft “Proposed Outcome ofthe UNGA Special Session” and reminded delegations that the discussion should not be afull negotiation.

The G-77/CHINA said he would await input from capitals before giving final agreement.Among the improvements he called for to bring the document into line with the interestsof developing countries were: equal treatment of all the components of sustainabledevelopment, notably economic development and growth, as these were recognized inRio as the engine of environmental protection; and adequate reference to common butdifferentiated responsibilities. On Areas Requiring Urgent Action, he proposed includingreferences to mobilization of new and additional resources and the transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologies (ESTs). He called for elaboration on the referencesto desertification and drought. He said the Co-Chairs’ draft presents general principlesbut does not clearly define how these are to be implemented. He suggested that the finaldocument follow the structure of Agenda 21.

The EU welcomed the document’s structure and called for stronger and more appealinglanguage in the opening Statement of Commitment. He said the draft would benefit fromhigh-level input at CSD-5. On Strategies for Implementation, he said eradication ofpoverty and changing production and consumption patterns should be over-archingobjectives requiring urgent action. On Areas Requiring Urgent Action, he called for aclearer distinction between emerging issues on which progress can be made by the CSDand UNGASS and those being handled by other processes. He suggested that the textidentify the level and body responsible for action in order to orient it towardsoperationalization. He noted that there is little mention of the situation and needs ofcountries with economies in transition. He proposed adding references to goodgovernance and human rights to text calling for national action.

BELARUS said the text does not reflect the problems of countries with economies intransition and notified delegates that it will host a regional conference on sustainabledevelopment to take place from 16-18 April 1997. MEXICO said each new area foraction must be accompanied by specific commitments, and called for identification ofactors responsible for implementation. He also supported, inter alia: quantifiablegoals that recognize the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; anintergovernmental group on freshwater; and a reference to the FAO code of conduct forfishing in the text on oceans. Co-Chair Amorim noted that many delegates believedinternational cooperation was not adequately stressed in the draft, but said a mainpreoccupation of the Co-Chairs had been for this concept to appear throughout thedocument. KAZAKSTAN proposed: establishing an international scientific centre forsustainable development; transferring military technology for environmental purposes;using high technology information; and restoring stability to areas affected by naturaldisasters.

ICELAND said the Statement of Commitment should be examined at CSD-5. The finaldeclaration should be concise and, where possible, set dates and targets. He proposedchanging the heading “Policy Approaches” to “Priority Policy Approaches,” as theseissues require urgent action as well. The importance of public awareness of sustainabledevelopment should be included in the section on integration of economic, social andenvironmental objectives. Poverty should be addressed under policy approaches withother cross-sectoral issues.

CANADA said the document should be more of a leaders’ statement, more authoritativeand action-oriented. The Assessment of Progress Reached After Rio should includereferences to the outcomes of the major UN conferences since Rio. She proposed re-orienting the three sections under Strategies for Implementation to include: issues beingaddressed in other fora but which require political attention, such as climate,desertification and biodiversity; sectoral issues that require urgent action but are notcurrently being tackled by any specific forum, such as forests, freshwater, oceans andenergy; and issues requiring comprehensive approaches to implementation, such aspoverty, financial resources, technology transfer and major groups. She proposed addinga subparagraph on ensuring that international trade rules support sustainabledevelopment. Regarding text on positive measures to make trade, environment andsustainable development mutually supporting, she said the use of the General System ofPreferences may not be most effective way to encourage sustainable production.

COLOMBIA noted that the need for urgent action should be emphasized not only in thesectoral areas but also in Policy Approaches and Means of Implementation. Herecommended transferring the issues of poverty, population, health and sustainablehuman settlements into the section on policy approaches and adding a subparagraph onforeign debt. Under Areas Requiring Urgent Action, he proposed that energy andtransportation be addressed in distinct sections. He proposed moving the section oneducation to Means of Implementation and adding a section on international legalinstruments. He recommended taking into account the sequence of Agenda 21 whenstructuring the document.

NORWAY suggested that the Working Group establish a consensus on the structure ofthe document and the CSD’s priorities over the next five years. The document shouldengage those at UNGASS, including the Norwegian Prime Minister and other Cabinetmembers. Specifically, he proposed that: poverty eradication and governance issues begiven the status of Policy Approaches; trade be included as a Means of Implementation;the document cluster items on follow-up to global conferences, on-going processes underUN conventions, and other urgent areas identified by the Co-Chairs. He also called for aclearer indication of what strategies call for in terms of action, advice, information-seeking and direction.

NIGERIA said delegations were in disarray regarding the discussion on the document’sstructure. He called for a clear delineation of cross-sectoral and sectoral issues andimproved treatment of external debt. CUBA said the document over-emphasizes the roleof domestic policies in attracting private financial flows and subordinates the role ofODA to helping those who fail to attract FDI. He underlined the importance ofinternational cooperation in facilitating technology transfer and capacity-building asmeans of attracting investment. He noted the role of the market economy in creatingpoverty.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said the emphasis on environmental protection should bestrengthened and the problems of countries with economies in transition should beincluded. He proposed identifying only five or six areas for urgent action, and includedforests, water, transport and energy among these areas. SWITZERLAND called for:stronger commitments and action-oriented recommendations; poverty eradication to bethe over-arching issue guiding other policies; a clearer distinction between areas requiringpriority attention and those already addressed by other international processes; and theidentification of measurable targets. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested that theStatement of Commitment section highlight long-term objectives and that a catch-phrase,such as “Sustainablity for all by 2005,” be adopted.

IRAN recommended: separating desertification and drought from land and sustainableagriculture; adding natural disaster reduction to the sectoral issues; and separatingtransport from energy. He highlighted the need to reiterate political will, partnership andinternational cooperation and to emphasize that the Rio principles remain valid,particularly that of common but differentiated responsibilities. In the sections onconsumption and production patterns and energy and transport, the developmental needsof developing countries should be elaborated. ARGENTINA emphasized that the conceptof sustainable development should be explicitly clarified and reflected under PolicyApproaches.

NEW ZEALAND suggested that some paragraphs under Areas Requiring Urgent Actioncould be merged. He did not support the proposal to replicate the structure of Agenda 21. He said the Statement of Commitment should be strengthened and reiterate a clearcommitment to Agenda 21 and all Rio principles. The document should be more action-oriented and decisive and clearly call for strengthening the CSD and UNEP. He saidUNGASS should take decisions rather than simply make recommendations to ECOSOC.He stressed the importance of addressing the overlap among various bodies dealing withsustainable development and the need for coordination among them, particularly in theuse of national reports.

AUSTRALIA supported: distinguishing between areas of action being undertaken byother fora and those by the CSD; enhancing national strategies by reportingachievements; in the context of changing consumption and production patterns,recommending the internalization of costs in natural resource pricing, including water;and using a sectoral approach incorporating references to best practices and indicators. Hesupported delineation of those bodies responsible for implementation. ThePHILIPPINES, supported by VENEZUELA, called for a consensus approach tosustainable development based on the definition agreed at the World Summit for SocialDevelopment (WSSD) (economic and social development and environmental protection)and for an in-depth assessment of the current situation to enable more effective decision-making for future implementation of Agenda 21. She called for an integrated approach tosectoral and cross-sectoral issues. On Means of Implementation, she suggested expandingeducation to incorporate public information, communications and advocacy.

The UKRAINE supported the suggestion that the document be more action-oriented andcalled for more emphasis on countries with economies in transition. He suggested a betterbalance in the section on Areas Requiring Urgent Action, stating that somesubparagraphs, such as oceans, are too detailed while others, such as toxic chemicals andwastes and land and sustainable agriculture, are too short.

Co-Chair Amorim announced that it would not be possible to produce a revised draft bythe end of the week. He invited those groups of countries with similar proposals on thedocument structure to combine their ideas and put forward a number of optionalstructures to form an appendix.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Maurice Strong, the Executive Coordinator for Reform at the UN, was briefed byWorking Group Co-Chair Derek Osborn on proceedings at the Intersessional and anyimplications for the UN reform process. Mr. Strong is reported to have shown particularinterest in two areas of agreement reached by delegations. The first was the view thatUNEP is an essential part of the UN system in its role as monitor of global environmentalinformation and catalyst of agreements, and that many delegations expressed their wish tosee the agency strengthened and that it overcome current governance and financialdifficulties. The second issue discussed was the need for the CSD to avoid duplicatingUNEP’s work and to direct more attention to the wider sustainable development agenda,placing less emphasis on purely environmental issues.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

WORKING GROUP: The Working Group is expected to meet during themorning and afternoon in Conference Room 4. The sections on Policy Approaches andMeans of Implementation are expected to be taken up first.