Summary report, 5–11 November 1992

UNCED Working Group

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED), which concluded on 14 June 1992, left a series of specificrecommendations to be considered by the United Nations GeneralAssembly (UNGA) at its 47th Session. Deliberations on UNCEDfollow-up are the responsibility of the Second Committee of theUNGA, which deals with economic and social issues. To save time,the Second Committee agreed that all negotiations on UNCED-relatedissues would take place in a special open-ended ad hoc workinggroup of the Second Committee under the Chairmanship of MalaysianAmbassador Razali Ismail (the Coordinator of the institutionsworking group during UNCED).

Shortly after his appointment, Ambassador Razali prepared adiscussion paper (dated 8 October 1992) in which he identified thekey UNCED-related matters to be taken up for discussion andeventual negotiation by the General Assembly. At the organizationalsession of the open-ended ad hoc working group (hereby referred toas the Razali Group) on 16 October, the workload and the scope ofthe negotiations were discussed, as presented in Razali'sdiscussion paper. The various components of Agenda 21 that require"further elaboration and/or decisions by the Assembly" include:

  • Chapter 12: UNCED requested the UNGA in its 47th Session to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a convention to combat desertification (12.40);
  • Chapter 17: The UNGA should provide for intergovernmental consideration of marine and coastal issues (17.118);
  • Chapter 17: The UNGA should hold meetings on sustainable development of small island states with the first global conference to be held in 1993 (17.131);
  • Chapter 17: The UNGA should convene a conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks (17.50);
  • Chapter 17: A conference on integrated coastal zone management should be held before 1994 (17.11);
  • Chapter 33: Developed countries should report on their financial commitments toward implementing the decisions of UNCED at the 47th Session of the UNGA (33.21) and that a review of funding and mechanisms be set up (33.23);
  • Chapter 34: Consideration of the role of patent protection and intellectual property rights and their impact on the access to and transfer of environmentally-sound technology (34.10);
  • Chapter 38: The UNGA should review the implementation of Agenda 21 and consider holding a special session by 1997 for an overall review and appraisal of Agenda 21 (38.9);
  • Chapter 38: The UNGA should determine the organizational modalities of the Commission on Sustainable Development and the Secretary-General was to prepare a report with recommendations and proposals (38.12);
  • Chapter 38: The UNGA is to consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General on a high level advisory board (38.18) and continued secretariat support for follow-up to UNCED (38.19):
  • Chapter 38: The UNGA should "examine ways of enhancing the involvement of the NGOs within the UN system in relation to the UNCED follow-up process... with accreditation based on the procedures used in UNCED". (38.44)
  • Chapter 40: UNCED called on the UN system to consider strengthening the coordination of activities to ensure the full integration of environment and development concerns.

It was decided at this meeting that the Razali Group would limitits negotiations during this UNGA session to five issues: 1) theendorsing resolution on the report of UNCED; 2) sustainabledevelopment of small island states; 3) desertification/drought; 4)straddling and highly migratory fish stocks; and 5) the creation ofthe Commission on Sustainable Development. To facilitate thenegotiation process, Ambassador Razali held a series ofconsultations during the last two weeks in October beforereconvening the working group on 5 November.


When the UNGA established UNCED in Resolution 44/228, one of theprovisions required UNCED to report back to the General Assemblyand that, upon the conclusion of the Conference, the GeneralAssembly would endorse the results of the Conference. Thus, thefirst agenda item for the Razali Group was to draft a resolutionendorsing the report submitted by UNCED. The proposed resolutionendorses the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles and Agenda 21and welcomes the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions. Italso urges governments, NGOs and inter-governmental organizations(IGOs) to take the actions called for in these documents; callsupon all concerned to implement UNCED commitments andrecommendations; decides to include a standing item in the UNGAagenda on "Implementation of decisions and recommendations of theUNCED"; and finally decides to convene a special session by 1997 toreview and appraise Agenda 21. This is the first resolution to benegotiated by the Razali Group.


When the UNGA established UNCED in Resolution 44/228, one of theprovisions required UNCED to report back to the General Assemblyand that, upon the conclusion of the Conference, the GeneralAssembly would endorse the results of the Conference. Thus, thefirst agenda item for the Razali Group was to draft a resolutionendorsing the report submitted by UNCED. The proposed resolutionendorses the Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles and Agenda 21and welcomes the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions. Italso urges governments, NGOs and inter-governmental organizations(IGOs) to take the actions called for in these documents; callsupon all concerned to implement UNCED commitments andrecommendations; decides to include a standing item in the UNGAagenda on "Implementation of decisions and recommendations of theUNCED"; and finally decides to convene a special session by 1997 toreview and appraise Agenda 21. This is the first resolution to benegotiated by the Razali Group.


The programme area of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 on the sustainabledevelopment of small island developing States requests that theUNGA convene a conference to address this issue. Within the G-77,the members of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) tookit upon themselves to draft a resolution that would establish thisglobal conference. The first version of the draft resolution calledon the UNGA to convene this conference in June 1993 in Barbados,with the objectives of adopting and implementing plans andprogrammes to support the sustainable development of small islanddeveloping States and utilization of their marine and coastalresources, including meeting essential human needs, maintainingbiodiversity and improving the quality of life for island people;and to adopt measures which will enable small island developingStates to cope effectively, creatively and sustainably withenvironmental changes and to mitigate impacts and reduce thethreats posed to marine and coastal resources.

Although few countries had problems with the objectives of theconference, a number of countries privately expressed concern aboutthe timetable. After consultations, it was decided to change theproposed date of the conference to April 1994, in order to allowsufficient time for preparations. As discussions were set to beginin the Razali Group, it appeared as though the draft resolution hadconsiderable support, but there still might be some differences ofopinion on the roles of the ad hoc Secretariat and the preparatoryprocess. Another potential area of contention is the limitation ofNGO participation to those organizations in consultative statuswith ECOSOC.


Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 requested that the UNGA establish anintergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) for a convention tocombat desertification to be completed by June 1994. In earlyOctober, the African Group began consultations on a draftresolution presented by Algeria, Mauritania and Tunisia. By 28October, the African economic experts' group, chaired by Benin,agreed on a draft resolution. The draft is procedural in nature,since the African Group chose to leave the more complicated detailsregarding the terms of reference until after the establishment ofthe INC. The draft resolution was then approved by the AfricanGroup at the ambassadorial level on 30 October and forwarded to theGroup of 77 as a "non-paper". The draft resolution establishes anINC to prepare an International Convention "to combatdesertification in those countries experiencing serious droughtand/or desertification, particularly in Africa" by 1994. Itproposes five substantive sessions and an organizational session tobe held in New York in February 1993. It also proposes that theSecretary-General set up a multi-disciplinary expert group toassist the INC and invites "relevant" NGOs to contribute to thesuccess of the negotiating process.

This non-paper presented by the African Group was slightly modifiedwithin the G-77, which made changes to the title and severalparagraphs in order to bring the language used in conformity withthe exact wording found in Chapter 10, paragraph 40 of Agenda 21,regarding the mandate of the Conference. The draft resolution wasformally introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the G-77 member statesto the Razali Group at its 7 November session (see below).

There is strong support both within the African Group and fromother country groups for the election of Bo Kjell‚n of Sweden asthe Chairman of the Bureau of the INC. The appointment of ahigh-level official as head of the ad-hoc Secretariat will be madeby the UN Secretary-General at a later date. It is very probablethat the PrepCom schedule will be as follows: PrepCom I in Nairobiat the end of April 1993, PrepCom II in Geneva during August 1993,PrepCom III in Paris during November 1993, PrepCom IV in Rome inMarch 1994 and the final meeting in New York in June 1994. Althoughtentatively set for February, the organizational session may beconvened as early as the end of January 1993.


One of the more contentious issues within the UNCED discussions onoceans was the concern, particularly of coastal and distant waterfishing States, that the over-exploitation of living marineresources in the high seas, especially of highly migratory andstraddling fish stocks, has an adverse impact on resources withinexclusive economic zones. Although the concerned parties wereunable to resolve this issue in Rio, they did agree to call for anintergovernmental conference to be convened under UN auspices.Delegations at the UNGA are now focusing on this issue once again.Interested parties, led by the CANZ group (Canada, Australia andNew Zealand) and like-minded countries on one side, and theEuropean Community on the other side, have been holding privateconsultations for the past few weeks. New Zealand, on behalf ofCANZ, circulated a draft resolution on 28 October, however, it hasnot been accepted by the other parties as the basis fornegotiation. Given the sensitivity of this issue and the fact thatmany nations are not faced with this problem, Ambassador Razali hasrequested that the interested parties continue to consult amongthemselves and then present a mutually-acceptable draft resolutionto the working group. It is expected that these consultations willcome to fruition by late this week or early next week and only thenwill negotiations commence in the Razali Group.


Pursuant to the agreement reached in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21, themodalities of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) havebeen deferred to the UNGA at its 47th session. By the first week ofNovember, a number of countries or country groups, including theG-77, the European Community, China, Japan, the US and CANZ, hadcirculated position papers outlining their positions on such issuesas: composition, NGO participation, meeting schedule and agenda,relation to other UN bodies, Secretariat structure, and theCommission's functions. Several NGOs have also released their ownposition papers on these matters. As well, UN Secretary-GeneralBoutros Boutros-Ghali released his own report on institutionalfollow-up (A/47/598 and Add.1). Finally, in response to the variousposition papers, Ambassador Razali prepared a draft resolution onthe CSD that takes into consideration the various positionsarticulated to date. This resolution will be used as the basis fornegotiations once the Razali Group addresses this matter.

Ambassador Razali's Draft Resolution: Ambassador Razali'sdraft resolution was released on Friday, 6 November 1992. Thecentral themes of the draft resolution, in particular those whichhave been the subject of particular concern to States and NGOsalike, are summarized below:

  • Functions: Besides the main functions that are enumerated in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21, the draft resolution identifies other possible functions for the CSD. These include: review and monitor of the progress towards implementation of the UN target of 0.7 percent of GNP for ODA; monitor the application and adherence of the Rio Declaration; monitor and implement the Forest Principles; update Agenda 21 in light of changing circumstances; consider submissions of relevant organizations; and develop recommendations regarding funding mechanisms and transfer of technology.
  • Membership: The draft resolution recommends that Commission members consist of either representatives of 24, 53, or 54 States elected by ECOSOC at the highest level possible, for three-year terms with due regard to geographical distribution. Non-member States are to have observer status.
  • NGO Participation: The draft resolution states that the Commission should "provide for NGOs... to contribute practically and constructively ...". The resolution further calls on the Secretary-General to submit a proposal on NGO participation to the 1993 Organizational Session of ECOSOC. A number of guidelines are to apply, including: the importance of ensuring that Commission members benefit from NGO expertise; UNCED accreditation procedures; and regional and issue balance.
  • Meeting Schedule: The draft resolution proposes that the Commission meet once a year after the sessions of the other relevant UN bodies, and that in 1993, as a transitional measure, the CSD should have one short organizational and one substantive session.
  • Work Programme: Three working level segments are proposed for financing and technology transfer; implementation by international organizations; and implementation at the national and regional levels. A ministerial level meeting is proposed to consider major policy issues and to give further political impetus to UNCED implementation; as well as to review overall progress and to resolve outstanding issues.
  • Relationship of the CSD with Other Intergovernmental Bodies and within the UN System: The draft resolution identifies a number of ways in which the CSD will be expected to interact with other UN bodies, especially in light of ongoing UN reform initiatives.
  • Secretariat Support Structure: The draft resolution sets out the criteria to be applied in the creation of the Secretariat that will provide support for the CSD, the Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development and the High-level Advisory Board. These include: drawing on the expertise gained in UNCED; working closely with other UN and expert bodies; determining the venue to consider the effective implementation, maximization of efficiency and easy access by all countries; and presided over by a high-level official at the Under Secretary-General level.

Summary of Other Positions on Key Matters: The following isa summary of views expressed in position papers circulated bycountries, groups, NGOs and UN Secretary-General BoutrosBoutros-Ghali on some of the key issues relating to the CSD.

  • Composition: Most countries support limited membership, with members to be nominated by region. CANZ, the G-77, China, Japan and the most of the EC countries endorse a Commission of 53 members. The argument for universal membership, originally presented at UNCED, was countered by arguments regarding the potential ineffectiveness of such a large body. The Secretary-General advocates a limited size for the composition of the Commission, subject to the principle of equitable geographical distribution.
  • NGO Participation: The question of NGO access to and participation within the CSD could prove to be one of the most difficult issues to be negotiated. The central debate will revolve around the procedural basis for access and participation. Despite the specific reference in Chapter 38 to an enhanced role for NGOs within the CSD, based on UNCED procedures, the G-77 and the US call for NGO participation on the basis of ECOSOC procedures. CANZ and the EC support NGO participation on the basis of UNCED procedures. The use of ECOSOC procedures would limit participation to those NGOs who already have consultative status with ECOSOC. This, in effect, qualifies only those international NGOs who have been in existence for three years or more and would, thus, totally exclude most national and grassroots NGOs. By contrast, UNCED accreditation procedures would enable all "relevant and competent" NGOs to participate. Some NGOs, like Greenpeace International, maintain that UNCED procedures should, in fact, be further liberalized to ensure greater NGO access to information and meetings to ensure maximum transparency and effective integration of NGOs within the work of the CSD. The Secretary-General proposes to make recommendations on NGO participation at the organizational session of ECOSOC in 1993 on the basis of guidelines elaborated by the General Assembly during this session.
  • Venue: There are two issues that deal with venue: where the Secretariat should be located and where the meetings of the Commission should be held. Most countries advocate locating the Secretariat of the Commission in either Geneva or New York. Not all position papers specify recommendations on where the meetings of the Commission should be held, except that the venue should enable full participation of developing countries. Many G-77 countries are in favor of New York in light of their already established infrastructures there. However, the Swiss proposal to provide infrastructural and financial support for G-77 participation in a Geneva-based CSD may have the effect of softening G-77 resistance to Geneva.
  • Secretariat: Difficulties could possibly arise around the Secretariat support structure. China, the US and Japan want the Secretariat to be incorporated within the Department of Economic and Social Development (DESD). Many NGOs question the propriety of this proposal, especially in light of the potential conflict of interest that could arise since the DESD is one of the UN organs which the CSD is expected to review. NGOs advocate that the CSD Secretariat should be wholly independent of the DESD. CANZ and the EC argue for a more independent secretariat. As Boutros-Ghali is currently engaged in a comprehensive review of Secretariat structures in the economic and social field, he declined to elaborate specific recommendations about the Secretariat support structure for the CSD. As the entire structure of ECOSOC, including DESD, could change, this could become a moot point.
  • Mandate And Functions: Potential conflict may arise around G-77 and China positions that support a strong role for the CSD to monitor the financial commitments of industrialized countries made pursuant to UNCED agreements and future pledging conferences. Several donor countries may well be opposed to such a role for the CSD. Moreover, several NGOs (most notably the US organization, CAPE 2000) maintain that the CSD should not be limited to review of UNCED agreements but that it should be authorized to recommend additional agreements based on changing and emerging circumstances. Other NGOs, including the United Nations Association (USA), suggest that a credible monitoring role for the CSD should include independent review. One option would be to empower the CSD to authorize standing or ad hoc panels of independent experts to establish some other consultative process to gather information and investigate complaints related to compliance with UNCED agreements.


The first substantive session of Ambassador Razali Ismail'sopen-ended ad hoc working group on UNCED follow-up measures tookplace on Thursday, 5 November 1992. Razali reminded the delegatesof the five resolutions under its mandate and expressed his wishthat the group finish its work by the end of November.

General discussion followed on the endorsing resolution, "Report ofthe United Nations Conference on Environment and Development"(A/C.2/47/WG.I/CRP.7). Many countries emphasized the need tostreamline Razali's draft to include consensus language agreed toin Rio and to remove paragraphs more appropriate for inclusion inthe CSD resolution. Discussion proceeded paragraph-by-paragraphthrough the text. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the G-77, wasonly able to comment on the first six paragraphs as the G-77 hadnot completed its review of the text. After the first reading,Razali adjourned the meeting early and appealed to the G-77 toconclude its work so that he might reformulate his draft.


The next meeting of the Razali Group convened Saturday morning withdiscussion on Razali's revised draft of CRP.7, which had beenconsiderably streamlined. Debate was delayed while governmentsworked on final changes to paragraph 5 that called on all concernedto implement the commitments, agreements and recommendationsreached at UNCED, "in particular those related to finance,technology and capacity building, in order to achieve sustainabledevelopment in all countries." When debate began, Razali movedparagraph-by-paragraph through the new text. While the G-77attempted to blend the concerns of the EC with those of its memberstates and China, consensus was not reached by the end of themeeting and final resolution of this paragraph was postponed untilinterested delegations could work out a compromise.

The G-77 proposed two additional paragraphs to the enablingresolution: one that takes note of the financial commitments madeby countries at UNGA-47 and urges other developed countries toannounce their commitments; and a paragraph that would place UNCEDreview as a permanent agenda item of the General Assembly.Consensus was reached on both paragraphs. Agreement was alsoreached on the convening of a special session for the purposes ofreview and appraisal of Agenda 21 not later than 1997 and that theSecretary-General will submit a report with recommendations on theformat, scope and organizational aspects of the session to beconsidered and approved by UNGA-49.

Razali then called for initial comments on revision 1.0 of thedraft resolution for a conference on the sustainable development ofsmall island developing States. The document was well received,especially in light of the change of date from June 1993 to April1994. Further discussion was postponed to the following session.

The G-77 then introduced the draft resolution establishing anintergovernmental negotiating committee for the elaboration of aninternational convention to combat desertification in thosecountries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification,particularly in Africa. They hoped that this "procedural" draftresolution to set up the INC would not have long discussions.


The third substantive session of the Razali Group began byreturning to the Endorsing Resolution and the outstanding problemswith paragraph 5, on the need to implement agreements andcommitments made in Rio. The Chair circulated a new formulationincorporating the interests expressed at the previous two sessions.Despite agreement on this new language by the US and the G-77 andsupport from the EC, provisional on a small addition, Japan was notsatisfied by the new formulation. Razali requested that the G-77rewrite the paragraph taking into account the Japanese concerns andthe UK amendments.

The draft resolution on the convening of a global conference on thesustainable development of small island developing States wasissued as A/C.2/47/WG.I/CRP.9 with a correcting note from the Chairmodifying two of the preambular paragraphs. Razali began movingparagraph-by-paragraph through the text. Japan proposed two newpreambular paragraphs recalling resolution 45/202 and acknowledgingthe special role of UNCTAD in the development of small islandStates.

In the main text, the UK, speaking on behalf of the EC, proposed anamendment to paragraph 5, which deals with the objectives and scopeof the conference. The amendment requests the conference to look atexisting global and regional plans of action and institutionalfinancial support (such as World Bank programmes) to determinewhether their combined effects are consistent with Agenda 21; andto make recommendations for changes to be made to these programs tobring them in line with Agenda 21. The interested parties wererequested to re-work the paragraph.

Paragraph 9 on the work of the preparatory committee was the nextparagraph that led to lengthy discussion. The argument was whetherthe preparatory committee or the Secretariat should be responsiblefor setting the conference agenda. Compromise text proposed byTunisia states that the preparatory committee will set the agendabased on recommendations submitted by the Secretary-General. Therewere also lengthy discussions on paragraph 11 about the need for a"full-time" Secretariat.

Paragraph 15 requests NGOs in and eligible for consultative statuswith ECOSOC to contribute to the Conference, as appropriate. TheUK, on behalf of the EC, reminded the delegates of the role NGOsplayed in the success at Rio and felt that in the post-UNCED era itwould be important not to revert to old practices. They noted thatmany NGOs, especially those from small island States, are not inconsultative status with ECOSOC nor is there time for them to getthis status before the Conference. They proposed new language thatwould base participation on UNCED rules. Pakistan proposed newlanguage that would, in effect, encourage participation of NGOsfrom small islands and other developing countries that do not haveECOSOC status. The US called into question the need for consistencyon NGO participation in post-UNCED activities, specifically in theCSD. Norway proposed new text based on language in Agenda 21(38.44) and Sweden said that NGO participation in this Conferencemust be reviewed in light of upcoming changes in rules for ECOSOCconsultative status but that the general framework for upcomingconferences must have the same rules for NGOs. Pakistanreformulated its amendment so as to invite relevant NGOs to makecontributions to the negotiating process, as appropriate, but thatit be clear that they not take a role in the negotiating and thatparticipation be based on UNCED rules. Razali resisted linking theprocess of resolution of this paragraph to the negotiations of theother documents and closed discussion. It is believed that theinterested parties will meet to resolve this matter.

The group quickly finished the first reading of the Small IslandStates resolution and turned their attention to the "Draftresolution on the establishment of an intergovernmental negotiatingcommittee for the elaboration of an international convention tocombat desertification in those countries experiencing seriousdrought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa"(A/C.2/47/WG.I/CRP.9). The US circulated a list of informalsuggestions to the draft. After several comments on preambularparagraphs, Tunisia pleaded with the delegates not to overload thisresolution, since it was intended to be procedural in character,leaving the substantive matters to be decided by the processitself. The EC, Norway and the US proposed new preambularparagraphs or changes to those that exist. Pakistan, on behalf ofthe G-77, said that they would scrutinize the proposals of the USand others and return with their comments on Wednesday.


Wednesday morning's meeting of the Razali Group was scheduled tocontinue the discussion on the convention to combat desertificationand/or drought. However, Pakistan, on behalf of the G-77, requestedthat this discussion be postponed until the G-77 had theopportunity to review all proposed amendments to the text. Razaliannounced that discussions on this topic will resume on Friday, 13November and then opened a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion on theChair's draft resolution on institutional arrangements to follow upthe UNCED (A/C.2/47/WG.I/CRP.10).

The G-77 advocated deleting most of the preamble as it repeatsparts of Chapter 38 in Agenda 21. A number of developed countriesdisagreed, stating that these paragraphs (especially preambularparagraphs 2-4) are important and should be retained, if notfurther elaborated. New Zealand recommended adding a paragraph tothe preamble that reaffirmed the participation of NGOs, thescientific community and major groups. Pakistan later respondedthat the issue of NGO participation should be left to the operativepart of the resolution, not the preamble. Razali suggested thatthey postpone the discussion of NGOs until they get to theoperative paragraph on NGO participation. Discussion on thepreamble concluded with a suggestion by India, supported by China,Kenya and Pakistan, that the preamble be confined to paragraphs 1and 5. These two paragraphs welcome the adoption of Agenda 21 andtake note of the report of the Secretary-General on institutionalarrangements to follow-up the Conference.

Discussion then moved on to the operative paragraphs of theresolution. Paragraph 3 and sub-paragraphs (a) through (j) listspecific functions of the Commission, as recommended in paragraphs38.13, 33.13 and 33.21 of Agenda 21. Paragraph 4 sets outadditional functions of the Commission not mentioned specificallyin Agenda 21. The lengthy discussion of these two paragraphsrevolved around the functions of the Commission. Delegatesexpressed the following concerns: whether the Commission be limitedto those functions elaborated in Chapter 38; whether it shouldinclude functions related to finance, as stated in Chapter 33; ifit should act as the international review mechanism for theforestry principles and/or the Rio Declaration; and finally, if itshould be charged with updating Agenda 21. Some countries believedthat the functions of the Commission should be limited to thoseoutlined specifically in Agenda 21. Others preferred giving the CSDas dynamic and flexible a mandate as possible. Finally, a number ofcountries, including Finland, the EC and New Zealand, suggested thedeletion of sub-paragraph 4(d) that states that the Commissionshould consider "submissions of relevant international institutionsoutside the United Nations system, including the Earth Council andthe International Center for Sustainable Development Studies."Countries objected to this paragraph as it singled out twoinstitutions to the exclusion of all other relevant ones.

Paragraph 5 outlines the Commission's functions relating tofinancial resources. The G-77 was not satisfied with the Chair'sformulation and suggested that this paragraph be replaced withparagraph 6 from the G-77 position paper. Japan, France and the USdid not think that this paragraph was even necessary, as thesefunctions were outlined in paragraph 3.

The last paragraph discussed was paragraph 6, which deals with theCommission's membership. China and the G-77 advocated a flexiblepolicy for the designation of representatives and that theconfirmation of delegation members not be left to theSecretary-General. Pakistan also advocated replacing paragraphs 6and 7 with paragraphs 2-4 of the G-77 position paper. Razaliindicated that the replacement of entire paragraphs was not aposition he advocated. New Zealand, supported by Vanuatu, stressedthat in addition to having membership based on equitablegeographical distribution, there should also be rotational fairnessand no permanent or even semi-permanent members, so that allcountries who wish to serve on the Commission will have theopportunity to do so. There did not appear to be consensus on thenumber of States on the Commission. Razali's draft leaves openthree options: 24,53 or 54.

The next meeting of the Razali Group is scheduled for Fridayafternoon, 13 November, when the Group will continue its discussionon desertification. Discussion of the Commission is scheduled toresume on Saturday morning, 14 November.


Ambassador Razali announced the schedule for next week's meetingsof the open-ended ad hoc working group on UNCED-related issues onWednesday, 11 November. The group is scheduled to meet onWednesday, 18 November at 3:00 pm; Thursday, 19 November at 10:00am and at 6:00 pm; Friday, 20 November at 3:00 pm; and Saturday, 21November at 10:00 am. It is possible that Saturday's meeting may berescheduled. It is likely that the Razali Group will be able tofinish its work on some of the resolutions under its mandate duringthe course of the week. Those most likely to be completed are theenabling resolution on UNCED, the resolution on the sustainabledevelopment of small island developing States, and the resolutionon the convention to combat desertification and/or drought.Negotiations on high seas fisheries will probably get underwaymid-week and negotiations on the Commission on SustainableDevelopment will continue through the week.

The next issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin will notbe published until the end of the General Assembly's considerationof UNCED-related issues in December. However, informal summaries ofthe proceedings of the Razali Group will be uploaded after eachmeeting in the APC computer conference