Summary report, 13–24 September 1993

2nd Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee of the International Convention to Combat Desertification

Jump to analysis

The second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the elaboration of an international convention to combatdesertification in those countries experiencing serious droughtand/or desertification, particularly in African (INCD) met inGeneva from 13-24 September 1993. The INCD has the mandate toproduce the international Convention by June 1994.

At this session, the Committee had the following tasks: determiningthe programme of work, including the mandate of the working groups;consideration of the compilation text of the Convention prepared bythe Secretariat; and agreeing on the future programme of work ofthe Committee, including the elaboration of regional instrumentsfor Africa, Asia and Latin America to supplement the Convention.

By the conclusion of the two-week session, the two working groupshad made faster progress than had been anticipated and completedtheir discussion of the Secretariat's compilation text, identifyingareas of convergence and divergence. They also authorized theSecretariat to prepare a consolidated draft text of the Conventionfor consideration at the next session of the Committee, to be heldfrom 17-28 January 1994 in New York. However, as in Nairobi, themost difficult issue to resolve was the future work of theCommittee, specifically the negotiation of regional instruments.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INCD

The INCD is a product of the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED). While the idea of a conventionto combat desertification had been discussed throughout the UNCEDpreparatory process, it was only in Rio where language was adoptedrequesting the General Assembly to establish an intergovernmentalnegotiating committee for the purpose of negotiating a convention.

The General Assembly, during its 47th session in 1992, adoptedresolution 47/188 calling for the establishment of the INCD, whichwill hold five sessions, with a view to finalizing a convention byJune 1994.

The organizational session of the INCD was held in January 1993. Atthat meeting delegates elected Bo Kjelln Chair of the Committee,elected the Bureau, adopted the rules of procedure, set theschedule of meetings and established the two working groups.

The first session of the INCD was held in Nairobi, Kenya from 24May - 3 June 1993. The first week of this session focussed on thesharing of technical information and assessments on various aspectsof drought and desertification. Divided into seven sections, theinformation sharing segment provided an opportunity for scientists,technical experts, delegates and NGOs to share relevant experiencesand learn more about the scourge of desertification and its globaldimensions. The second week focussed on the structure and elementsto be contained in the Convention. As well, delegates exchangedideas about the Convention and its objectives.

Several areas of consensus appeared to have been reached. Theseinclude the need for a bottom-up approach that reinforces localparticipation and action, NGO activities, the full participation ofwomen, and the significance of indigenous technologies andpractices. The idea of national and sub-regional action programmesalso received overwhelming support. Delegates also supported theneed for commitments to improved research and development, datacollection and analysis, exchange of information, capacitybuilding, and transfer and adaptation of technology.

While agreement was reached on the mandates of the working groups,negotiations stalled in Nairobi over the elaboration of relatedregional instruments while still giving priority action to Africa.Kjelln proposed that an instrument on Africa, such as an annex, benegotiated once the main structure of the Convention had beendefined and that similar instruments for other regions benegotiated subsequently. This proposal met with resistance from afew countries in regions other than Africa that believed their ownproblems with desertification deserved attention and that similarinstruments for their regions should be negotiated simultaneouslywith the instrument for Africa.

The Chair finally proposed text that invited the 48th session ofthe General Assembly to consider extending the negotiating processso that the Convention and the African instrument would be adoptedby June 1994 and the other instruments would enter into forceaccording to modalities to be specified in the Convention. Fourdelegations, Brazil and Mexico, later supported by Peru andPakistan, could not accept this text. The decision on this matterwas deferred to the second session.

REPORT OF THE SECOND SESSION

The second session of the INCD opened on Monday, 13 September 1993in Geneva. The Committee first heard statements by ministers fromMali, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, andUzbekistan, and representatives of Japan, Tunisia, the Organizationof African Unity, the Sahara and Sahel Observatory, and UNSudano-Sahelian Office. Dominic Walubengo of KENGO also briefed theCommittee on the report of the Bamako NGO Forum that was held inAugust. The PrepCom also accredited 61 NGOs, bringing the total to233 NGOs accredited to participate as observers.

Then the Committee turned its attention to the main task of thesession -- a careful reading of A/AC.241/12, "Compilation ofGovernment Views, Statements and Drafting Proposals." The resultsof this reading and discussion, which took place within the twoworking groups, will form the basis from which the Secretariat willprepare a consolidated text in time for the next session of theINCD, to be held in January 1994. In addition to this task carriedout by the working groups, the Plenary also elected the remainingofficers to the Committee and considered the future work of theCommittee and the situation as regards extrabudgetary funds.

ELABORATION OF THE CONVENTION

Responsibility for elaborating the Convention has been given to thetwo working groups and at the Geneva session the working groupsbased their discussions on the compilation document prepared by theSecretariat (A/AC.241/12). This document compiled proposals for thetext of the convention as submitted by governments as well as thosemade during the Committee's first substantive session in Nairobi.Working Group I, chaired by Ahmed Djoghlaf (Algeria), wasresponsible for the sections on the preamble; principles;objectives; structure and nature of commitments; national actionprogrammes; regional action programmes; capacity building;education and public awareness; financial resources and mechanisms;and coordination and cooperation. Working Group II, chaired by Annede Lattre (France), examined the sections on definitions;technology transfer and cooperation; research and development;information collection, analysis and exchange; institutions;regional instruments; and procedures and final clauses.

To facilitate greater understanding of the emerging nature of theConvention, the following will summarize the discussions of theConvention in the order in which each section will appear in thefinal Convention.

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTORY ELEMENTS

There appeared to be consensus on the need fora clear and concise preamble that contains reference to the historyof desertification in the UN system. Many agreed that the preambleshould include: the causes of desertification; the link betweendesertification and other problems, including demographic factors,refugees, poverty and trade flows; the importance of communityinvolvement; and the need to coordinate existing regional andinternational programmes. Canada and Mauritania added theimportance of Africa to the list. Brazil thought that a number ofbenchmark documents should be mentioned, including the 1977 Plan ofAction, Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.

There were only two contentious points in the discussion. The EC,supported by Canada, recognized the need to make reference to thewidespread nature of desertification, however, they do not want torefer to desertification as a "global" problem, as this has aspecial meaning with regard to incremental costs and globalbenefits. A number of countries disagreed. The second pointaddressed the relationship between poverty and desertification.Some developing countries urged that the preamble mention thisrelationship. The EC did not agree.

Norway, supported by the US, mentioned the possibility of mergingthe preamble and the principles sections in light of the overlap.Nigeria said that the preamble and principles are not mutuallyexclusive. This argument continued during the discussion on theprinciples section.

I. PREAMBLE:

II. PRINCIPLES:

The main focus of this discussion waswhether there should be a section on principles and, if so, whatshould be included. Mali listed the nine principles proposed by theAfrican Group: sovereignty over resources; sovereignty ininternational cooperation programmes; collective responsibility inthe maintenance of a sound and healthy environment; cooperation andpartnership; international solidarity; shared but differentiatedresponsibility; decentralization of decision-making; subsidiarity;and integrated approaches. Gambia added the precautionary principleand the principle of public participation to this list. Brazil,Sweden, Norway and Finland said that the Rio Declaration should bethe point of departure.

Canada said that the list put forward by the African Group was agood starting point. Australia later supported Canada and pointedout that there are other treaties that contain principles,including the Biodiversity and Climate Change Conventions, CITES,the Law of the Sea, and the environment protocol to the AntarcticTreaty. The Chair added the Convention on Long-Range TransboundaryAir Pollution to this list. Benin commented that the UN Charteralso has a section on principles.

A number of developing countries supported the list of principlesput forward by African Group, as well as the need for a separatesection on principles. Japan said that the principles should beincorporated in the preamble or the section on objectives. The US,supported by the UK, reserved its position on a separate section onprinciples. If principles are not intended to be binding, theyshould be in the preamble. If they are binding, they should becommitments.

III. OBJECTIVES:

Most delegates supported the need for clearand concise objectives. Mali, on behalf of the African Group,suggested seven objectives: preventing and combating drought anddesertification; halting land degradation; improving the livingconditions of the populations in affected areas; cooperation andpartnership; capacity-building; sustainable development; anddeveloping organizational, scientific, technological and financialmeans.

Belgium, on behalf of the EC, said that the objective should be toaddress the main causes of desertification and to maximizeproductivity. Any expansion of the objectives are, in fact,commitments. Germany said that the first of Mali's objectives,preventing and combatting drought and/or desertification with aview to achieving sustainable development, is the most important,followed by a strategy for poverty alleviation.

Egypt stated that the Convention should not focus on technicalassistance to developing countries alone, since a number ofindustrialized countries also suffer from desertification. Indiasaid that the objectives should be international and not regional.

IV. DEFINITIONS:

The work programme adopted by the Committeeplaced the definition of concepts as the first item for discussionby Working Group II. However, it was deferred to the second week toavoid holding up work, in the hope that the concepts would emergeas discussion progressed. It was agreed in principle that thedefinition on desertification as stipulated in Chapter 12 of Agenda21 would be used. As it became clear that no distinct definitionswere emerging, Brazil supported by Malaysia, raised the issue ofdefinitions twice during the second week. After a brief discussion,the Group agreed not to have a discussion on definitions at all.

SECTION TWO: COMMITMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS

I. STRUCTURE AND NATURE OF COMMITMENTS: Mali presented thedraft proposals of the African Group. These include: scope of theConvention; strategy; measures to implement strategy; key elementsof strategy; commitments; and linkages to global environmentalconventions. Many delegates endorsed this structure and somesuggested that this could serve as the basis for furthernegotiation in New York. There was general consensus thatcommitments are central to the Convention and that commitments mustbe taken at different levels: local, national, regional andinternational. There was also a call for clear, specificcommitments that can be implemented.

Canada stressed that there must be criteria against whichcommitments can be tested and clearly defined roles andresponsibilities for implementation. Gambia added the need to linkthe various sections of the document, especially the principles andthe commitments sections. Bolivia said that the commitments shouldaddress the physical and environmental aspects of desertification,as well as the economic, social and human aspects. Mongolia saidthat the commitments must be specific and must respond to therealities facing different countries. Chad and the Central AfricanRepublic called for priority commitments for least developedcountries. Togo, supported by Cte d'Ivoire, said that commitmentsare also important with regard to countries that are not yetaffected by, but in danger of, desertification. Armenia stressedthe need for commitments aimed at poverty eradication. Finlandstressed the importance of commitments relating to land use.Bolivia and Uganda said that developed countries should make thecommitments to provide the necessary financial resources andtechnology.

On the format, two alternatives were put forward: one based on theClimate Change Convention, which contains a separate section oncommitments, and one based on the Biodiversity Convention, whichincludes a part on commitments within each section of theConvention. Finland suggested that the text of Agenda 21 shouldform the basis for the negotiations on the format.

Many delegates mentioned the complementarity of commitments bycountries affected by drought and desertification on the one handand the donors, industrialized countries and internationalorganizations on the other. The need for political commitment,support, and financial, scientific and technical assistance fromthe international community was also stressed by a number ofdeveloping countries.

Many recognized that local communities, especially NGOs, indigenouspopulations, women and youth, should play an important role inimplementing the commitments. China, Syria and Australia mentionedthe need for education and public awareness.

The EC and Malaysia agreed that the commitments in this conventionshould not overlap with those in other environmental conventions.Saudi Arabia specifically mentioned that there should be no overlapwith the Climate Change Convention.

II. ACTION PROGRAMMES

This section addressesprocedures and criteria for the development and review of long-termnational action programmes. The African Group's proposals includemacro-economic issues, poverty eradication, combattingdesertification and drought, and empowering local populations.Several industrialized countries said that most of these proposalsbelong in the regional instrument for Africa and thatmacro-economic issues and poverty eradication should not beresolved in this forum. Germany said that the African proposalswere not concrete enough and do not take into account experienceswith previous plans. Niger said that something should be addedregarding crop damage due to parasites and other plagues, livestockproduction and population policies. Mauritania suggested referenceto protection of animals, the environment, and pest control.

Australia and Norway said that national plans should beforward-looking and long-term (at least five years). There shouldbe provisions for regular review, assessment and adjustment;criteria should be specific; donor countries should commit tolong-term assistance in accordance with national plans; andpastoralism should receive more attention. Egypt and Chile saidthat the autonomy of States should be respected. The US stated thatit is up to individual countries to determine what is necessary fortheir own national plans. China supported the establishment ofnational centres to monitor and study desertification.

The US, Australia and Norway stressed the importance of nationalplans that focus on concrete activities that can be properlyimplemented. France and others alluded to the multiplicity ofnational plans. Belgium, on behalf of the EC, said many actionplans have failed because there is a lack of focus orprioritization. Malaysia and Burkina Faso commented that theseplans are rarely implemented because of a lack of resources orknow-how. Mali said that past plans have failed due to: the hastein drawing up plans; insensitivities of the experts drawing up theplans; and inadequacy of resources.

A number of delegates stressed the importance of integratingnational action programmes with economic plans, environmentalaction plans, and regional and subregional plans. Many developingcountries mentioned the need for international support (includingfinancial resources) for these action plans. Germany and UNESCOechoed the need for greater donor coordination.

Most stressed the need to involve local populations in nationaldevelopment planning, execution and follow-up. A number ofdeveloping States argued that matters relating to poverty cannot beleft out although some developed States did not think povertyeradication should be addressed here.

A. NATIONAL ACTION PROGRAMMES:

B. SUB-REGIONAL ACTION PROGRAMMES:

The African Group'sproposals for sub-regional action programmes were guided by threeconcerns: the need to ensure consistency between nationalprogrammes; rationality; and the adjustment of present provisionsand positions. The US cautioned that the language should not be tooAfrica-oriented as this Convention is supposed to be universal inits scope.

Benin stressed the importance of management of transboundarywaterways, grazing lands and biodiversity, adoption of legislationon nature protection and promotion of eco-tourism. Finland andJordan supported paragraph 78 that mentions the need to take intoaccount migratory flows of people and animals.

Egypt commented that while sub-regional programmes may bescientifically-based and technologically feasible, often they arenot implemented for political or financial reasons. It was agreedthat sub-regional action programmes should complement, strengthenand be coordinated with national action programmes. Botswana urgedstrengthening and increasing coordination between sub-regionalprogrammes. Senegal agreed, adding that data collection, research,participation by local communities, training and administrationshould be strengthened.

Mexico stressed the need for international cooperation networks onscience, technology, training and exchange of experiences. Moroccosuggested establishing linkages between transboundary andgeographically-separated projects. China, supported by India,suggested that sub-regional centres should be established, withassistance from the international community, to implement theregional action programmes.

Brazil stressed the need to strengthen existing institutions, butin their absence, new ones should be created. Belgium said that therationalization of existing institutions is important and shouldprecede the establishment of new ones. He added that any newinstitutions should support national policies and not drain limitedfinancial and personnel resources. The UK added that most regionalcooperation agreements in Africa have not been effective.

A number of African countries added that sub-regional institutionsshould be created to fill the many gaps that exist in Africa,especially with regard to satellite imagery and shared waterresources. Niger listed three criteria for regional initiatives:action that no one country can successfully undertake alone;significant benefit to countries; and specific national components.Bolivia also mentioned the need to develop criteria to determinewhich institutions are working on desertification and if they haveused an integrated approach. Norway and Zimbabwe agreed that theareas requiring subregional action should first be recognized andonly then should the necessary institutions be identified.

Austria described the Central European Initiative as a successfulsub-regional institution that does not have its own bureaucracy,but relies on civil servants and others working in their nationalcapacities who communicate with each other on early warning systemsand other matters.

III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL AREAS OF COMMITMENT

A. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: There was consensus regarding thesection on research and development, although it was seen as toodetailed and specific. Delegates thought that it will be necessaryto prioritize issues and to cover strategies instead of detailedplans of action.

Canada suggested that the distinction between desertification anddrought be made because the former is reversible while the latteris not. It is necessary to look at the relationships between thesetwo problems in order to address the problem of poverty incombatting desertification. It is also necessary to distinguishbetween prevention and restoration of desertified areas. Researchwork should be focused on on-farm or off-station research in orderto involve farmers at all levels. The specific areas that requiremore attention include: the role of women in farming and trainingchildren on the appropriate methods; concentrating on farm andpastoral systems and not just crop production; the socio-economicfactors relating to drought and desertification; and theestablishment of production-oriented land management systems. Abottom-up approach is needed for research and the integration oflocal indigenous knowledge with modern technology and research.

B. INFORMATION COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND EXCHANGE:

The debatecentered on the type of information to be collected: basicinformation (data-banks) or applied information (needed incombatting desertification) such as early-warning systems. Therewas consensus that the information should not be expensive orelitist. Canada suggested that the information respond to questionsabout specific localities (monitoring) with a minimum data set foranswering specific questions. It should also cover thesocio-economic aspects. India expressed concern that therequirements of the developing countries, as stipulated in thedocument, would require considerable funding. Morocco stressed theneed for all countries suffering from desertification to have therequisite instruments to monitor and assess desertification. Thereis need to establish five to ten parameters to be collectedperiodically as a measure for the success of the programmes. UNESCOproposed that the process tap into UNDP's Sustainable DevelopmentNetwork. The role of coordination should not be centralized in oneinstitution. Information collected should not just be exchangedbetween the parties but with everyone who needs it. It is alsonecessary to identify who will provide data and to consult with theUN agencies on this issue. It was proposed that the Panel ofExperts identify information needs, intended uses, and existinginformation at the local, national and regional levels. At the endof the session, the Chair requested all the delegates to submittheir written comments.

C. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND COOPERATION:

Botswana, on behalfof the African Group, said technology transfer must address: waterprovision and purification; energy development, particularlyrenewable alternative energies; and agricultural technologies forimproved husbandry and food security. Niger stated thatagricultural production and processing should be developedsimultaneously. Norway and ICRISAT stressed the need to strengthenthe extension services. Mexico suggested the establishment of pilotprojects for the transfer of technology.

Many agreed that the adaptation and utilization of any technologymust be culturally, environmentally, socially and economicallyrelevant. Finland explained that technology development should bedemand-driven and that its development largely depends on itsadaptability and acceptability.

China proposed five aspects that should be addressed: provision forthe transfer of patented technology to developing countries;development of mechanisms that facilitate the utilization oftraditional experiences; integration of these with moderntechnologies to improve them; stipulation of the role of IGOs andNGOs in technology cooperation; provision of a financial mechanism;and capacity building.

Belgium, on behalf of the EC, stressed the need to cover patentissues and to involve the private and government sectors intechnology transfer. Austria suggested that countries withunpatented know-how that is considered common knowledge should bemade available for South-South cooperation. Canada warned that manyunpatented technologies exist, and that this issue should beaddressed.

The US, Norway and the EC supported the use of existinginstitutions in the process. Niger highlighted the need to identifythe weaknesses of these institutions so they can be improved.Burundi preferred the creation of new institutions.

Benin, supported by Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Australia, emphasizedthe need for training and Burundi underscored the need to trainpeasants and women. Sudan stressed the need to prevent dumping oftechnologies.

The Africans supported the need to develop alternative renewableenergies, but Saudi Arabia stated that the issue of energy securityshould be deleted since it is being addressed by otherinstitutions. Malaysia suggested deleting reference to theutilization of biodiversity, since it is covered under theBiodiversity Convention. Tanzania suggested an amendment thatstresses biodiversity in "dryland areas." Tanzania also said thereis need to promote technologies that improve traditional ones, suchas water harvesting and agroforestry techniques as well as remotesensing facilities that supplement traditional monitoringmechanisms.

Belgium re-emphasized the need for demand-driven technologytransfer. Zimbabwe concurred, but emphasized that demand is alsoinfluenced by the awareness of existing technologies. She said thattechnology transfer should include the know-how necessary to buildlocal capacity.

Bolivia suggested that direct exchanges between countries withsimilar characteristics would be useful. Gambia charged thatgovernment policies were not always conducive to technologytransfer and needed to be re-assessed. UNESCO mentioned the need toencourage the private sector to invest in these marginal areas,while providing patented and subsidized technology.

IV. OTHER AREAS OF COMMITMENT

A. CAPACITY BUILDING: All delegates supported the need toaddress capacity building and many stressed that capacity buildingis the cornerstone of the Convention. Finland and Belgium, onbehalf of the EC, suggested that due to the close linkages betweencapacity building and the next section on education and publicawareness, these sections be combined. In fact, many delegatesaddressed both of these sections in their interventions.

Belgium (EC), the US and Sweden agreed that aid agencies mustincrease their knowledge of affected populations. Not only shouldcapacity be developed among local populations, but localpopulations should contribute their special knowledge todecision-making. It was noted by a number of countries thatdecision making should be decentralized and include the fullparticipation of women, youth, children, NGOs, and localpopulations. Niger pointed out that strengthening the capacity oflocal populations includes, in part, combatting illiteracy andsharing knowledge, assets and power.

Some delegates, including Canada, suggested that capacity buildingshould be included in other sections of the document. Canada alsomentioned that the OECD is exploring how to increase theeffectiveness of capacity building. They will share the resultswhen available. Canada and the Russian Federation highlighted theneed for more effective utilization of existing institutions.Israel stated that capacity building should be enhanced by aninitial process of long-term interactive learning and study of theproblems, their causes, and the available and missing means forcapacity building. This process should be executed throughlong-term, mutual exchange of expertise. Israel expressed itswillingness to participate in these learning processes with allprospective partners.

Japan urged that capacity building measures should be regionallyand nationally relevant. Zimbabwe stated that capacity buildingshould be locally driven, not donor driven. This point was echoedby China and Benin who said that local communities must take overtheir resources on a democratic basis.

Lesotho, supported by Norway, stated that capacity building shouldbe carried out in conjunction with public awareness and education.Kenya highlighted the importance of promoting capacity building atthe primary, secondary and university levels. Sweden suggested thatnon-formal education should also be addressed, and that there is aneed to educate decision-makers.

Norway asked UNDP, within its Capacity 21 initiative, to prepare acomprehensive review of national level capacity and to identifywhere capacity will be needed to implement the Convention. Armeniareferred to the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions asuseful models for capacity-building regimes.

B. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS:

Algeria supportedSenegal's earlier call for an international training centreheadquartered in Africa. The centre would train scientific,technical and management personnel and develop programmes fortraining institutions. Algeria offered to host this centre.Malaysia emphasized the need to address the sustainable managementand use of natural resources and the use of extension services.Tanzania called for sustained public awareness measures. Ghanastated that a public awareness strategy should use a networkapproach and begin with the aspirations of the people. Togo saidpublic awareness should take into account local realities and theneed to address poverty that leads to migration and refugees. SaudiArabia said media-initiated public awareness should targetpeasants, women and children. As well, school curricula shouldinclude issues on drought and desertification. World VisionInternational (Mali), on behalf of the NGOs, stressed theimportance of rural community education, community radiobroadcasting and primary education.

C. FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MECHANISMS:

Several developedcountries pointed out that at this point, it is unclear what thefinancial requirements will be until the negotiating process hasadvanced further and commitments are better defined. Mali, onbehalf of the African Group, introduced its recommendations:existing mechanisms should be improved qualitatively andquantitatively (including the need for developed countries tofulfill their commitment to devote 0.7% GNP to development aid);the need for new resources (improvement of the GEF and theestablishment of a special fund for combatting desertification);and debt relief. Canada disagreed with the African Group's proposalto mandate the contribution of 0.7% of GNP for ODA, as this goesbeyond the Rio Agreements and does not belong in this Convention.Switzerland said that the flow of funds should be determined inaccordance with programmes to be carried out, not measured inpercentages of GNP.

Kenya, Bolivia and Malaysia pointed out that many of thecommitments made as part of the UNCED process, as well as theSpirit of Rio, appear to be forgotten.

In a lengthy intervention, Egypt provided numerous statistics onthe amount of funds needed to combat desertification and how muchis currently available. He cited a number of lessons to be learnedfrom the attempts to mobilize funds for the 1977 Plan of Action.First, a special account was set up by the General Assembly andafter ten years it had only collected US$236,000. After that, aninternational consulting group (DESCON) was set up to mobilizeresources and after eight meetings it ceased to exist. Finally,UNEP conducted a study on how to finance the Plan of Action, butthe recommendations were never implemented. He suggested that theSecretariat provide delegates with a copy of this 1981 report, asit is still valid today.

Many developing country delegates called for new and additionalfinancial resources from developed countries. Japan did not supportthis call. Developing countries stated that many programmes andplans are unsuccessful because of a lack of resources to implementthem. Burkina Faso said that the problem in the past has been lackof coordination between donors and duplication of activities at thenational level. Senegal and Bolivia cited numerous other problemsincluding lack of coordination, inefficient funding, debt, andterms of trade. Several delegates noted that existing funds havenot always been used effectively. Germany noted that the problem isnot the provision of funds, but the capacity of the governments andtechnical services to use them effectively. Belgium, on behalf ofthe EC, pointed out that lack of funds has not been the problem,rather scarce human resources and coordination of externalresources has undermined programme success.

China advocated using Articles 20 and 21 of the BiodiversityConvention, where each contracting party will seek to providefinancial support in accordance with its national plans, prioritiesand programmes, and developed country parties will provide new andadditional financial resources. Zambia added that financialresources should be mobilized from both the national andinternational levels. Mexico stated that political will is animportant part of mobilizing resources at the national and locallevels. The US, Canada and the EC suggested that the bulk ofresources will come from the affected countries.

Brazil, Malaysia, Morocco and Zambia supported the establishment ofa new fund for desertification. Most industrialized countries didnot support this. Portugal commented that the INCD should notdiscard the idea of a special fund until there is more substantiveinformation on this proposed mechanism.

Nigeria, Senegal and Portugal supported the use of the GEF as thefinancial mechanism for this Convention. Australia, the Nordics andMalaysia did not think that a new window in the GEF fordesertification should be established. The Nordics and theNetherlands added that some anti-desertification programmes couldbe funded through the existing windows of the GEF. Argentina saidthat perhaps the GEF could be used during the period before theConvention enters into force. Spain stated that the GEF couldprovide a compromise solution at "a later stage."

China, India, Australia, the Nordics and Switzerland supported theuse of a "package approach" for financing the Convention, relyingon a panoply of financial sources, resources and mechanisms.Australia stressed the need: to facilitate a consistent approachbetween bilateral and multilateral sources; to improve coordinationwith NGOs; and to provide funds within the context of a coherentcountry-driven approach designed to promote sustainabledevelopment.

The UK stressed the need to consider what actions and activitiesare to be provided for by the Convention. This list should bespecific and directly related to the causes and prevention ofdesertification. The US, supported by Australia and Switzerland,said that a three-step process will be necessary: what is currentlybeing spent on desertification; what can be done more efficientlyor reoriented from existing programmes; and what is a realisticestimate of what is needed. Canada suggested that all affected anddonor countries should estimate the level of resources that can bedevoted to combatting desertification. Australia suggested thatthere might be need for a clearinghouse on methods of assistancethrough the various channels available. Bolivia suggested invitingrepresentatives from international and regional financialinstitutions, including the GEF, to exchange views on the financialmechanisms for financing the Convention and to produce a report forthe next INCD session in New York.

UNEP urged delegates to recognize that a cooperative effort isrequired by all participants when considering coordinationmechanisms. With regard to financial resources, UNEP's 1991estimate of the total recent expenditures on desertificationcontrol worldwide was less than US$1 billion per year. This isequivalent to only US$1 per year for each person at risk fromdesertification. Approximately US$12 per person per year is needed.This amounts to a global programme of about US$12 billion.

D. COORDINATION AND COOPERATION:

Malaysia alleged thatthere was a deliberate attempt to omit the reference tointernational cooperation and North-South cooperation and totransfer all the responsibility for combatting desertification todeveloping countries. This point was supported by Mali, on behalfof the African Group, and Saudi Arabia, who stated that if theSouth could solve all the problems of desertification there wouldbe no need for these negotiations.

Canada referred to a Canadian initiative that will preparediscussion materials on trade and sustainable development for thenext session of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

Algeria stated that the achievement of the INCD goals requires anew type of North-South cooperation based on a spirit ofpartnership and international solidarity. Mali, on behalf of theAfrican Group, stated that coordination should be examined at boththe national and international level and that bilateral andmultilateral cooperation must be improved. Australia supported thispoint and further suggested that governments develop otherapproaches such as: integrating desertification into developmentplanning programmes; directing activities away from treating theconsequences of desertification towards creating alternativestrategies; developing social indicators of desertification;developing programmes to monitor impacts; and enhancing communityparticipation in desertification programmes.

Egypt suggested that mechanisms are required to institutionalizeand coordinate donor resources at the national level. Burkina Fasostated that cooperation should extend beyond past efforts andappealed to all governments to honor the commitments made at Rio.He added that despite the fact that recipient countries cannotalways absorb development resources properly, improvements must bemade in the coordination of financial resources. He noted that the"real situation" is different from what is being described in thesediscussions. Mauritania stated that desertification and povertycannot be controlled without cooperation and coordination.

SECTION THREE: INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS

A. OVERALL ARRANGEMENTS:

The Secretariat pointed out thatthe main issue was to assess what new institutions should beestablished under the Convention. Some delegations, such as the UK,Germany, Australia, Japan and the US, felt that the Conference ofthe Parties, and not the INCD, should decide on the establishmentof subsidiary bodies. Others thought it was premature to discussthe question of institutions until agreement has been reached onthe substantive components of the Convention.

Canada suggested that only those institutions be established thatwere absolutely necessary for the successful implementation of theConvention, in order to conserve limited financial resources.Canada, along with many other Northern countries, suggested makinguse of existing institutions established under other environmentalconventions. This point represented clear divergence among thecountries, with the African delegations urging that issue-specificinstruments, such as the Desertification Convention, warrant theirown institutions. Many African countries believed that despite thesimilarity of the goals with the Climate Change and BiodiversityConventions, the nature, objectives and scope of theDesertification Convention were sufficiently different as torequire an independent institution.

B. CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES:

The African delegationssuggested that the actual functions of the Conference of theParties should not be finalized until agreement has been reached onthe substantive obligations of the Convention. The EnvironmentLiaison Centre International spoke on behalf of NGOs and statedthat NGOs favor the establishment of a Conference of the Parties(COP) as the supreme decision-making body for the Convention. NGOsexpressed their wish to be able to attend these meetings asobservers. The representative also stated that one of the mostimportant functions of the COP is to review progress made incombatting desertification.

C. SECRETARIAT:

Most delegations favored the establishmentof a permanent secretariat to service the administrative needs ofthe Convention, but felt that it was premature to start definingits functions, size or structure. Botswana, on behalf of theAfrican Group, argued that some minimum structure should at leastbe agreed upon. The NGOs suggested that countries should submitprogress reports and that a Secretariat should be established withan NGO liaison unit.

D. SUBSIDIARY BODIES:

The African Group strongly supportedthe establishment of subsidiary bodies, especially ascientific/technical advisory board and a body to deal withfinancial matters. Senegal urged delegates to show support for theAfrican position and stated that agreement on the establishment ofsubsidiary bodies would be the expression of a willingness to movediscussions to a more operational phase. Uzbekistan urged delegatesto reach agreement on the question of subsidiary bodies andsuggested that monitoring centres, as proposed by the AfricanGroup, should be established. Despite the apparent agreement forsuch monitoring centres, there appeared to be some question whetherto establish new institutions for such purposes or to strengthenexisting ones. Botswana stated that desertification and drought areof such great importance that it is necessary to have anindependent body on technical matters that works closely with otherinstitutions focussed on related issues. Botswana remindeddelegates that WMO had offered to provide facilities for such abody. Zimbabwe urged that at least the monitoring body should bebased in Africa. The issue of the establishment of a scientific andtechnical advisory body was not resolved by the group.

II. PROCEDURES

There was no discussion on thissection.

A. OVERALL ARRANGEMENTS:

There was no discussion on thissection.

B. ANNEXES AND PROTOCOLS:

The Secretariat explained thedifference between the annexes in this section, which aretechnical, and those being discussed under the regionalinstruments. The UK commented that it was difficult to discussthese instruments until agreement had been reached on thesubstantive content of the Convention. Belgium, on behalf of theEC, pointed out that 10 percent of the Community in 5 member Statessuffered from desertification. He stressed the importance of abroad Convention that covers both the developed and developingcountries. He added that the Convention should provide for regionalinstruments to cover desertified areas in developed countries,should the need arise in the future. Argentina, supported by Beninand Norway, said the Convention should not be a frameworkConvention. Argentina also favored regional instruments in the formof annexes. Benin outlined and elaborated on the differencesbetween the three options for regional instruments: protocols,annexes and additional appendices. He said that while a protocolwould be better, from a diplomatic and practical point of view,Africa favors an annex that is an integral part of the Convention.The annex for Africa should be concluded by June 1994. Botswanaagreed with Benin, adding that the annex should be a "primaryinstrument."

Brazil said that while it recognized the priority given to Africa,all regional instruments should have the same legal status. TheConvention can only be complete once all the regional instrumentsare completed. She renewed Brazil's request to the Secretariat toprepare an instrument for Latin America and the Caribbean region.Similarly, Uzbekistan and Iran stressed the priority for aninstrument for their region.

Canada highlighted questions to be addressed in formulating theConvention: the relationship between the regional instruments andwhether they would be an integral part of the Convention; thetiming for ratification and entry into force and their implicationsif they differed from each other; and the availability of resourcesto the Committee to carry out its work. He stated that theCommittee should not borrow heavily from other Conventions, butlearn from them. He underscored the need to establish universalprinciples in the preparation of the regional instruments. Hestated that in order to give priority to Africa, the annex onAfrica should be completed by June 1994, with arrangements forprovisional implementation immediately thereafter. He supported theestablishment of a group of legal experts to examine thesepossibilities, and suggested that the results of this meetingshould be forwarded to the Committee before its next session.

C. AMENDMENTS:

The UK, supported by China, stated that theysupported the African Group's proposals in principle but stressedthe need to leave the section open for discussion at the nextsession since the substantive nature and content of the Conventionare still unknown. The UK, supported by Botswana, Benin and China,suggested that a simple majority of 2/3 is preferable forratification. The UK, supported by the US, said that an amendmentshould not enter into force for all parties and that a party notwishing to be bound by the amendments should so indicate. Botswanaagreed with the UK that discussion on this section was premature,but noted that most of the African Group's suggestions are based onprecedents.

D. VOTING PROCEDURE:

Belgium proposed that votingprocedures be left for the Conference of the Parties to decide. TheUS preferred consensus, but said they would support an article onvoting procedures.

E. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT:

Belgium, on behalf of the EC, statedthat this section should be considered after substantive discussionon the Convention. The UK, supported by Australia, suggested thatthe Basel Convention and Montreal Protocol be used as precedents.

III. FINAL CLAUSES

A. SIGNATURE: Benin suggested that signature be done at thelevel of Heads of State at UN Headquarters in New York.

B. DEPOSITORY:

Belgium, on behalf of the EC, supported bythe US, suggested that this section be modelled on the ClimateChange and Biodiversity Conventions.

C. RATIFICATION:

Belgium, on behalf of the EC, supported bythe US, suggested that this section be modelled on the ClimateChange and Biodiversity Conventions.

D. ENTRY INTO FORCE:

Argentina suggested that the Conventionshould enter into force after 30 countries have ratified it, sincethe problem of desertification is geographically-specific andimplementation is urgent. Benin, Tunisia and Mali agreed. The USand Iran said it was premature to decide on this. There wasdivergence regarding the period between ratification of theConvention and its entry into force. Benin supported a three-monthinterval. Some felt that this decision should be deferred to thenext session.

E. INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS:

The discussion on this section waspostponed, pending the outcome of the Chair's draft resolution onthe future work of the Committee, which includes interimarrangements.

F. RESERVATIONS:

The Netherlands suggested that it waspremature to decide on this issue. Tunisia stated that discussionat this time would be in accordance with the preparation ofinternational law, but the Netherlands pointed out that in recentenvironmental conventions, such decisions were made towards the endof the negotiations.

G. WITHDRAWAL:

The UK favored a two-year optimum periodinstead of the suggested three years. Benin and Gambia said theidea was to reduce the number of withdrawals.

H. AUTHENTIC TEXTS:

There was no discussion on this section.

SITUATION AS REGARDS EXTRABUDGETARY FUNDS

Arba Diallo reported on the status of extra-budgetary funds,supplementing the information in A/AC.241/13. Developing countryparticipation at the first two INCD sessions was made possible bygrants from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,the UK and the US. Costs for 70 developing countries to attendINCD-2 was estimated at US$350,000. An additional US$2,400,000 isneeded to cover the costs for developing country participation atthe remaining three INCD sessions.

With regard to the Trust Fund for Secretariat activities, Diallostated that UNEP had made an additional contribution of US$60,000for NGO participation and for the migration meeting in Almera. TheNetherlands had contributed US$555,139 and Canada and Switzerlandhave provided financial support for the hiring of two additionalexperts on the Secretariat. The budget for the Asian and LatinAmerican case studies is estimated at US$300,000 and the estimatedcost of the studies to be undertaken by the Experts Panel amountsto US$200,000.

France said that it will contribute Fr.500,000 to the VoluntaryFund and Fr.600,000 to the Trust Fund. Australia and the USrequested more details about what Secretariat activities are beingsupported by the Trust Fund. The Netherlands wanted to ensure thatthese resources are being used for the process as mandated byresolution 47/188. Norway requested clarification on the use of theVoluntary Fund and expressed concern that Trust Fund contributionsare being used for regional meetings and case studies, rather thanfor the financing of the negotiating process. Sweden stated that itis contributing 1 million Swedish crowns for the Uganda case study.

Diallo responded that many countries who suffer fromdesertification have requested assistance and the Secretariat isdoing its best to ensure maximum participation. The Voluntary Fundis also facilitating the participation of Bureau members. The TrustFund has been used primarily to cover staff and Secretariat costs.However, some countries have made contributions earmarked for thecase studies.

FUTURE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

At the conclusion of the first session of the INCD in Nairobi,delegates were unable to reach consensus on the negotiation ofregional instruments, while ensuring priority for Africa. Thisissue was included in a draft decision prepared by the Chair on themandate of the working groups. This draft decision was not adoptedby the Committee as the text was unacceptable to Brazil, Mexico anda few other delegations. As a result, the Chair undertook extensiveintersessional consultations in hope that the decision could beadopted on the first day of the second session, thus enabling theworking groups to begin their work.

When delegates arrived in Geneva, they quickly adopted thedecision, stipulating that "an instrument on Africa should benegotiated once the main structure of the Convention has beendefined and adopted as an integral part of the Convention. Similarinstruments for other regions will be negotiated without delay,according to modalities to be decided by the Committee at itssecond session." Later in the first week of the session, Kjellnpresented delegates with a non-paper on the modalities for thenegotiation of the regional instruments.

During initial discussion of this non-paper in the Plenary, theLatin American and Caribbean Group, supported by the Asian Group,asserted their position that the difficulties with desertificationin each region should be taken into account and references to theAfrican agreement as a blueprint for subsequent regional agreementsshould be deleted. The African Group supported the generaldirection of the Chair's draft and urged other G-77 delegations toexchange views among themselves before presenting them to thePlenary. Several European countries that suffer fromdesertification, including Spain, Portugal, Armenia and Azerbaijan,called for a regional instrument covering Europe as well. TheWestern European and Others Group pointed out the following: theneed to focus on the linkages between the Convention and theregional instruments; assessing the financial and human resourceimplications of carrying out additional case studies in support ofother regional instruments; the viability of extending the INCDmandate, the timing of possible further work and the costimplications; and the need to address the legal issues related tothe regional instruments as well as the nature and content of theConvention itself.

Kjelln continued to consult with the heads of the regional groupsand prepared a draft decision for consideration by the regionalgroups during the second week. On Tuesday, 21 September, the Groupof 77 met for the first time in the INCD process since early in theNairobi session. It was widely seen that the late arrival of theColombian delegate from New York enabled the group to meet. To thesurprise of many observers, the G-77 agreed on a single positionwith regard to the Chair's draft decision. Yet, the donor countriescontinued to have some difficulties with this decision,questioning: reference to the globality of desertification; thenature of the regional instruments; the open-endedness of thenegotiating process on regional instruments; and the problem ofdiscussing the nature of the instruments before agreement isreached on the content of the Convention. A multitude of informalconsultations continued. Several scheduled informal sessions of thePlenary were cancelled, as Kjelln did not want to meet with theCommittee as a whole until there was agreement ad referendumbetween the heads of the regional groups.

By Thursday afternoon, Kjelln convened the Plenary to announcethat the consultations had led to an almost complete agreement onthe draft decision on the future work of the Committee, yet therestill was one outstanding problem -- the "global" nature ofdesertification. The draft contained a decision by the INCD with anannex containing a draft resolution for adoption by the GeneralAssembly. The decision recalls the establishment of the INCD, thedecision on the organization of work, and the link establishedbetween the global dimension of desertification and the particulareffects in each region. The draft resolution to be submitted to theGeneral Assembly states that the INCD shall hold one session afterthe adoption of the Convention, not later than 31 January 1995, inorder to review the situation in the interim period pending theentry into force of the Convention, in particular with regard tothe implementation of the provisions adapted to the specific needsof each region. The interim arrangements reflect the "prompt start"procedures used in the climate change negotiations. The draftdecision also requests the Secretariat to continue to support thepreparation of a regional instrument on Africa, similar instrumentsfor Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, and to consider otheraffected regions.

The paragraph in dispute was the third preambular paragraph in theannex. This paragraph read: "Recognizing that "desertificationand/or drought affects all continents and is thus a problem ofglobal dimension and that concrete measures have to be taken in allregions, particularly in Africa, within the framework of theConvention." The G-77 maintained that desertification and/ordrought should be considered a global problem in the broadest sensepossible. The G-77 believed that the reference to "affects allcontinents," did not sufficiently convey the global dimension ofthe problem. They argued that the global dimension ofdesertification and drought deals not only with spatial andphysical aspects, but the social and economic aspects as well. Lackof consensus on this particular concept was the primary reason fordisagreement on this paragraph.

As in Nairobi, on the last day of the session, Plenary was notcalled to order until late in the afternoon to allow still moretime for consultations. The first paragraph of the decision wasamended to read: the INCD recalls "General Assembly resolution47/188 of 22 December 1992 establishing the IntergovernmentalNegotiating Committee for the elaboration of aninternational convention..." The third preambular paragraphrecognized that "...an effective Convention should deal with thespecific needs in all regions, particularly in Africa." A newparagraph was introduced into the annex that contains the draftGeneral Assembly resolution. This paragraph read: "Recalling thatAgenda 21, Chapter 12, in particular paragraphs 12.1 to 12.4,recognizes desertification and/or drought as a problem of globaldimension, in that it affects one-sixth of the world's populationand one quarter of the total land area of the world and requires abroad response, as set out in paragraph 12.4 of Agenda 21 and thatconcrete measures have to be taken in all regions, particularly inAfrica..." After the Chair read out these changes, a number ofdelegates commented on their interpretation of the "global" natureof desertification and the fact that this text was a compromiseaimed at enabling the Committee to move forward. Developedcountries still expressed their concern that an effective agreementshould be reached by June 1994 and that appropriate emphasis willbe given to the particular circumstances in Africa, whilerecognizing the need to deal with problems in other parts of theworld suffering from desertification and/or drought. Once thesestatements were made, the decision was finally adopted.

CLOSING SESSION

In addition to adopting the decision on the future work of theCommittee, the Plenary also addressed two other items at itsclosing session on Friday, 24 September. The Plenary adopted thedraft provisional agenda for the third session (17-28 January1994). The agenda includes: adoption of the organization of work;the elaboration of an international convention to combatdesertification in countries experiencing serious drought and/ordesertification, particularly in Africa; review of the situationregarding extra-budgetary funds; the adoption of a provisionalagenda for the fourth session; and the adoption of the report ofthe Committee on its third session.

The Committee also adopted the report of its second session, ascontained in document A/AC.241/L.13. This report will be submittedto the General Assembly along with the report of the first session.Appended to the report are the reports of the two working groups.Each of the working group's reports contains an annex in the formof a Chair's summary of work, to enable delegates to prepare forthe next session.

In his closing statement, Kjelln acknowledged that the Committeehad achieved what it had set out to do. He alerted the delegates tothe critical path on which the Committee was treading and warned ofthe difficulties ahead. He highlighted two elements he consideredimportant: continued attention and emphasis on action at the locallevel and the full participation of populations living in drylandareas. At the beginning of the third session, he continued, theCommittee will have a consolidated text and indications of what isto be achieved through the regional instruments. He said that thenegotiations on this text will take place in the working groups. Hewill continue to re-assess the organization of work. After closingstatements from a number of delegates, Kjelln gavelled the secondsession of the INCD to a close.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE INCD

While the first session of the INCD provided the context and setthe tone for the series of negotiating sessions to follow, it wasthe second session where the work of elaborating a convention tocombat desertification actually began. During this two-weeksession, delegates progressed from stating their initial positionsto clarifying areas of convergence and divergence.

It is often useful to analyze negotiations in terms of phases orstages. In each phase, the focus is different -- identifying anddefining the problem, exchanging statements of initial positions,drafting, negotiating, and reaching consensus on the final, mostdifficult details. The first phase of the INCD negotiating processtook place at the first session in Nairobi during the informationsharing segment. During this initial phase delegates identified thescope and magnitude of the problem, its primary causes, and thetype of international action required to address the issue. Thisphase also gave delegates with a shared body of knowledge.

The second phase of the process began during the second week inNairobi. During this phase, delegates usually explore variousalternative packages, and attempt to reach some tentative,conditional understandings on the key issues. This is also thephase where initial coalitions and groups start to coalesce, asdelegates determine shared priorities. In Nairobi, delegatesreached agreement on the nature and structure of the Convention.They also requested the Secretariat to compile the varioussubstantive suggestions and proposals presented by governments intoa single compilation text. It was this text that served as thebasis for negotiations at the second session. During the two weeksof discussion of this compilation text by the two working groups inGeneva, governments continued to state their initial positions onthe various sections of the Convention. Further areas ofconvergence and divergence began to emerge. It is only whendelegates start to narrow the areas of divergence and attempt toreach consensus will the next phase -- negotiating -- actuallybegin.

The discussions on the compilation text were characterized by asense of cooperation and a desire to make progress. Mostdelegations arrived at the second session with clearly definedpositions and specific suggestions to enable the Secretariat toprepare a draft of the Convention for the next session. TheOrganization of African Unity had prepared specific draftingsuggestions for each section of the Convention. Many otherdelegations proposed that certain sections of the OAU draft shouldserve as the basis for further negotiation. As a result of thispositive atmosphere and the high level of preparation, the WorkingGroups were able to complete a full reading of the compilation textand set in motion the process that will enable delegates to beginactual negotiations in New York.

Already, there appears to be consensus on a number of specificitems. Working Group I agreed on the need for: a clear and concisepreamble that refers to the history of desertification in the UNsystem; clear and concise objectives; commitments that are centralto the Convention and articulated at different levels (local,regional and international); and for these commitments to be clear,specific, and implementable. National action programmes should beforward-looking, long-term, and contain provisions for regularreview, assessment and adjustment. Individual countries shoulddetermine what is necessary for their own national plans and localpopulations should be involved in the development of nationalplans.

In the section on sub-regional action programmes, there wasconsensus that sub-regional programmes should complement nationalprogrammes, strengthen national capabilities, and increase thecooperation between them. All delegates supported the need toaddress capacity building and many stressed that capacity buildingis the cornerstone of the Convention. Most delegates saw a need fora public awareness strategy and improved education on drought anddesertification at all levels. All delegates stressed the need forincreased cooperation and coordination between North and South,South and South, and among bilateral and multilateral donors.

In its discussion on research and development, Working Group IIagreed on the use of local knowledge and experiences and abottom-up approach. There was also agreement on the need for earlywarning systems; accessibility of information; and the need toidentify information needs at the local, national and sub-regionallevels. On the issue of transfer of technology and cooperation,there was consensus on: the need to involve the private sector andgovernments; the use of existing institutions for technologytransfer; the need for training; additional finances to ensureaccessibility; the need for culturally-relevant technology; and theneed to guard against dumping. Delegates agreed to defersubstantive discussion on institutions and procedural matters untilagreement is reached on the nature of the Convention and the issueof regional instruments. Nevertheless, some converging views did infact emerge. These included: the necessity of the Conference ofParties and the Secretariat; the requirement for at least 30ratifications for the Convention to enter into force; and therecommendation that the Convention should be signed at the Heads ofState level.

There are also a number of areas where delegates expresseddiverging views. In the introductory elements to the Convention,delegates disagreed on the following: should the causes ofdesertification be mentioned in the preamble; what is therelationship between poverty and desertification and how shouldthis be treated in the Convention; should there be a separatesection on principles; and if there is a separate section onprinciples, which principles should be included; and what specificobjectives should be enumerated within the Convention (i.e.,desertification, drought, poverty alleviation). There were alsodifferences of opinion as to the need for a separate section oncommitments or whether the commitments should be contained withineach section of the Convention. Divergent views regarding the needto establish new institutions were expressed throughout thediscussions in both working groups. Most delegates agreed thatexisting institutions should be strengthened before new ones areestablished. However, many developing country delegates continuedto support the creation of new institutions, while manyindustrialized countries did not. The question of centralizedversus decentralized institutions also arose. In the discussions ontechnology transfer, there was no agreement on the need to addressthe issue of alternative energy or demand-driven technology. Oninstitutions and procedural matters, divergent views were expressedon the establishment of subsidiary bodies: should there be ascientific and technical advisory board to advise the Conference ofParties; should there be a monitoring and evaluation institution;and who should establish these institutions, the Conference ofParties or the INCD.

The two areas that provoked the widest divergence of views werefinancial resources and mechanisms and regional instruments.Although there appeared to be agreement on the need for improveddonor coordination and more effective utilization of existingfunds, disagreement prevailed in a number of areas. These include:new and additional resources; establishment of a special fund; anew window in the GEF to fund desertification; and mandating thecontribution of 0.7% of GNP for development assistance. Certaindelegates appeared to have changed their positions since theNairobi meeting. In Nairobi, many more developing countries hadcalled for a new window in the GEF, whereas in Geneva the emphasisseemed to shift away from the GEF and towards the establishment ofa special fund.

As in Nairobi, the most difficult issue of the session was thepreparation of regional instruments and the future work of theCommittee. However, unlike Nairobi, the G-77 was able to meet andagree on a common position. Two factors enabled this agreement: thearrival of the delegate from Colombia and the agreement on aformula with regard to regional instruments. Colombia's absence inNairobi and Brazil's position of acting Chair of the G-77 proved tobe explosive once Brazil took the uncompromising position insupport of regional instruments for Latin America and Asia to benegotiated simultaneously with the instrument for Africa. InGeneva, when it appeared as though Brazil would be acting Chair ofthe G-77 once again, a number of delegations refused to allow theG-77 to meet. It was not until Colombia arrived and took the Chairthat the G-77 was able to meet, bridge regional differences andagree on a common position. The formula that facilitated G-77agreement ensured that the Convention and the regional instrumentfor Africa would be finalized by June 1994 and proposed schedulinga meeting during the interim period pending the entry into force ofthe Convention to review the situation regarding other regionalinstruments, thus allowing all necessary regional instruments toenter into force with the Convention.

At this point, however, difficulties developed between the G-77 andthe Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) over one major issue:the "global" nature of desertification. Some developed countrydelegates felt that the term "global" had specific connotationswithin the Climate Change Convention. In this regard, theresponsibility of developed countries had been established andcertain obligations assumed. At the INCD, developed countrieswanted to avoid any possible linkages that would alter the natureof future assistance, making it, in essence, an obligation. Inaddition, some delegates felt that by using the word "global" itwould allow for a claim to be laid to access GEF funds forcombatting desertification.

Despite this problem, most delegates left Geneva with a feeling ofoptimism. A great deal of progress had been made during thetwo-week session. As a result, the Convention is clearly beginningto take shape. In order for this positive atmosphere and feeling ofaccomplishment to continue, delegates must arrive at the nextsession in New York equally well-prepared and committed to the taskof elaborating a Convention that will combat desertification andmitigate drought. But perhaps most importantly delegates and NGOsmust bring a shift in thinking to New York. The time has passed forgeneral statements and the restatement of initial positions on thevarious aspects of the Convention. The time has come to explore thepositions of other regional and interest groups and determine whereand how consensus can be achieved toward a Convention that can makea difference in the battle against desertification and the effectsof drought.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

The current sessionof the General Assembly began on Tuesday, 21 September 1993. Theprovisional agenda for the session (A/48/150) lists 157 items.Consideration of the INCD is item 100(c), together with the reportsfrom the Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States and the Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks andHighly Migratory Fish Stocks. As the INCD is part of theimplementation of the decisions and recommendations of UNCED, itsreport will be referred to the Second Committee of the GeneralAssembly. It is expected that the Second Committee will take upthis item in mid-November.

The General Assembly will examine the reports of the first twosessions of the INCD and will have to approve the budgets for thethree sessions to be held in 1994. The General Assembly will alsobe presented with the decision taken at the second session on thefuture work of the Committee, which includes a draft resolution tobe adopted. This resolution, if approved by the General Assembly,will allow the INCD to hold one session after the adoption of theConvention, not later than 31 January 1995, and will allow theSecretariat to keep functioning through the interim period beforeentry into force. This decision is expected to facilitate thenegotiation of instruments for regions other than Africa, which hasbeen a major point of convention between regional groups.

48TH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES:

The Secretariat will have severalmajor tasks during this intersessional period. These include:preparation of the report of the second session that will betransmitted to the General Assembly; preparation of its formalbudget for the remaining sessions for General Assembly approval;and, perhaps the most daunting of all, preparation of the actualdraft text of the Convention. The latter is expected to be aconsolidated text that will serve as the basis for actualnegotiations at the January session.

Some of the key issues that the Secretariat will have to address inthe preparation of this text are as follows:

Definitions section: Since Working Group II did not formally take up this matter, the Secretariat will probably have to identify and elaborate those definitions that will be included in the Convention. At this point, it is expected that the list of definitions will be short. Most likely, they will include definitions of desertification, drought, combat and drylands.

Type of regional instruments: Will they be programme oriented or flexible enough to include the necessary main elements while leaving the details to be worked out within the regions themselves?

Financial resources and mechanisms: The Secretariat will have to address this issue with sufficient flexibility, in light of the fact that the global economic climate may change considerably between the signing of the Convention and its actual implementation.

Scope: In order to be successful, the Convention must be drafted in such a way that can be applied at the national level (by way of legislation, action plans, etc.) and at the local level (by way of concrete anti-desertification programmes). This dichotomy will have to guide the drafting exercise to ensure that the "bottom-up integrated approach" is fully incorporated.

Legally-binding obligations at the national level: There has been a continuing debate regarding the extent to which the Convention should actually set out concrete, legally-binding obligations at the national level. While the Chair has expressed his support for such a thrust, there are still numerous countries that prefer a less "dirigiste" approach. The challenge for the Secretariat will be to obtain an accurate reading of the "political landscape" and draft an instrument that best reflects the range of views on this matter.

Implementation: The Secretariat must address the question of what tools will be necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the Convention. While the primary tools are financial resources and technology transfer, it is apparent that the scope and type will have to vary from region to region.

CASE STUDIES:

The African case studies are due forcompletion well before the January session. They are being carriedout in Tunisia, Mali, Uganda and Botswana. All four are looking atthe specific needs as well as ongoing activities undertaken by thelocal populations to combat desertification. The studies are alsoassessing the national level policies that should be developed andthe specific areas of support that would be required from theinternational community. The Secretariat also expects the Asian andLatin American case studies to be completed before the Januarysession. All of the case studies will be brought to the attentionof national desertification workshops to help contribute greatercoherence to the process of policy formulation.

INTERNATIONAL PANEL OF EXPERTS:

The International Panel ofExperts on Desertification will probably meet in Geneva in lateNovember or early December. The Panel will most likely focus onsome of the key technical issues such as desertification linkagesto biodiversity, alternative energy, and socio-economic factors.The Panel has been organized into sub-groups to address theseissues. It is expected that the Panel will submit recommendationsbased on this meeting to the Secretariat to aid in the preparationof the consolidated text, which will serve as the basis ofnegotiation in January. Some delegations have expressed concernregarding the representativity and transparency of the Panel.Although the experts were chosen directly by the Secretariat on thebasis of their expertise, some delegates suggested that theBiodiversity Expert Panel is a better model since it provides fortwo representatives per region.

SEMINAR ON LEGAL ISSUES:

A seminar on the "Legal Aspects ofa Convention to Combat Desertification," is scheduled for 10-11November 1993. This seminar will be convened by the InternationalAcademy of the Environment in Geneva. With an aim towardssupporting and facilitating the INCD negotiations, a group ofinternational legal policy experts have been invited to discuss thelegal structure of the Convention and annexes with key secretariatstaff. The results of the seminar will be made widely available.

MIGRATION MEETING IN ALMER"A:

The Secretariat will convenea meeting of key experts and decision-makers in Almera, Spain on9-11 February, 1994 to address the topic of national, transboundaryand transcontinental migration. It is expected that several paperswill be presented by the experts on such topics as the problemgenerally, the different regional dimensions, as well as keystatistics. It is possible that certain NGOs will be invited intheir expert capacity.

MEDIA AND PUBLIC OUTREACH:

One of the biggest challengesfacing the Secretariat is how to engage sufficient interest aroundthe issue, and indeed the negotiations, among NGOs, the generalpublic and the media. Many NGOs, especially in the North, do notnecessarily understand the direct links to their own mandates andindeed their potential for influencing the decision-making of theirgovernments, especially the donors. Likewise, the general public inunaffected countries is not aware of the truly global implicationsof desertification and the extent to which desertification couldindeed touch their own lives. This lack of understanding is inlarge part due to the minimal press coverage of the desertificationissue in those regions. Awareness-raising must be in large partdirected to Northern journalists, to alert them to the issues, toengage their interest and indeed, to point out the possible newshooks and angles to ensure that news reporting on the issueimproves both in terms of scope and quality. Look for theSecretariat to begin to expend more energy in the areas of mediaand public outreach.

One such activity has already been scheduled. The EarthActionNetwork is hosting a one-day briefing for European NGOs on the INCDon Monday, 25 October 1993 in Brussels. The morning session willinclude a briefing by INCD Executive Secretary Arba Diallo. He willaddress: the importance of raising awareness about the Conventionamong NGOs; the multi-level causes of desertification; and NGOparticipation. The afternoon session will include a roundtablediscussion regarding NGO participation, information andskills-sharing, as well as NGO strategies for INCD-3 and 4. Formore information, contact Johannah Bernstein, EarthAction, BlvdBrand Whitlock 146, 1200 Brussels. Tel: (32) 2-736-8052. Fax: (32)2-733-5708.

Participants

National governments: UK; US
Negotiating blocs: African Group; African Union; Asian Group; Group of 77 and China; Latin American and Caribbean Group; Western Europe and Others Group
Non-state coalitions: NGOs