Summary report, 9–18 January 1995

After the fierce pace of negotiations in Paris in June 1994, when the Convention toCombat Desertification (CCD) was adopted, the sixth session of the InternationalNegotiating Committee to elaborate an international Convention to CombatDesertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification,particularly in Africa (INCD) seemed to move at a snail"s pace. No longer faced withthe deadline for adopting the Convention, and satisfied that over 95 countries hadsigned the Convention and that the first instrument of ratification is expected soon,delegates deliberated carefully on the programme of work for the interim period.Discussions focused largely on the role of the Interim Secretariat and preparation forthe first Conference of the Parties. The ten-day meeting was characterized by shortPlenary sessions and numerous regional group and negotiating group meetings, whichresulted in the adoption of a resolution that establishes two working groups and setsforth the programme of work for future sessions of the INCD.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INCD

Desertification affects about one-sixth of the world"s population, 70 percent of alldrylands, and one-quarter of the total land area in the world. The most obvious impactof desertification, in addition to widespread poverty, is the degradation of 3.3 billionhectares of the total area of rangeland, decline in soil fertility and soil structure, andthe degradation of irrigated cropland.

While the idea of a convention to combat desertification was discussed during theUNCED preparatory process, it was only in Rio where language was adoptedrequesting the General Assembly to establish an intergovernmental negotiatingcommittee for the purpose of negotiating a convention. The General Assembly, duringits 47th session in 1992, adopted resolution 47/188 calling for the establishment of theINCD, with the aim of finalizing the Convention by June 1994.

The organizational session of the INCD was held in January 1993. At that meeting,delegates elected Bo Kjell‚n (Sweden) Chair of the Committee, elected the remainingmembers of the Bureau, adopted the rules of procedure, set the schedule of meetingsand established two working groups.

FIRST SESSION

The first session of the INCD was held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 24 May - 3 June1993. The first week of the session focused on the sharing of technical informationand assessments on various aspects of drought and desertification. Divided into sevensections, the information-sharing segment provided an opportunity for scientists,technical experts, delegates and NGOs to share relevant experiences and learn moreabout the scourge of desertification and its global dimensions. The second weekfocused on the structure and elements to be contained in the Convention. Delegatesalso exchanged ideas about the Convention and its objectives.

Negotiations stalled in Nairobi over the issue of related regional instruments, whilestill giving priority action to Africa. Kjell‚n proposed that an instrument on Africa,such as an annex, be negotiated once the main structure of the Convention had beendefined, and that similar instruments for other regions be negotiated subsequently. Thisproposal met with resistance from several countries in regions other than Africa. Theyfelt that their own problems with desertification deserved attention and that similarinstruments for their regions should be negotiated simultaneously with the instrumentfor Africa. The decision was deferred.

SECOND SESSION

The second session of the INCD met in Geneva from 13-24 September 1993. TheCommittee considered the compilation text of the Convention prepared by theSecretariat and agreed on the future programme of work of the Committee, includingthe elaboration of regional instruments for Africa, Asia and Latin America. At theconclusion of the second session, the two working groups completed their discussionof the Secretariat"s compilation text and identified areas of convergence anddivergence. There appeared to be consensus on the need for implementablecommitments that are central to the Convention and articulated at different levels(national, regional and international). Delegates stressed the need for a publicawareness strategy, improved education, and increased cooperation and coordinationbetween the North and the South, South and South, and among donors.

THIRD SESSION

The third session of the INCD was held at UN Headquarters in New York from 17-28January 1994. At this session the two working groups focused on the draft negotiatingtext of the Convention that was prepared by the Secretariat. By the end of the two-week session, the working groups were able to complete at least one and sometimestwo readings of each draft article. Progress was made in shaping the Convention andin identifying the areas of convergence and divergence. The INCD also discussed theregional instrument for Africa for the first time. After an initial discussion of thenature of this instrument and its relationship to the Convention as a whole, delegatesrequested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text for consideration at the fourth session.

FOURTH SESSION

The fourth session of the INCD was held in Geneva from 21-31 March 1994. The twoworking groups continued negotiating the draft text of the Convention. By theconclusion of the session the substantive problems that remained included: the needfor an article on principles in the text; all matters related to financial resources andmechanisms; categories of countries; subsidiary bodies; reservations or exceptionsopen to the Parties; and the obligations of a withdrawing Party.

The fourth session was also the first time that delegates formally considered theRegional Implementation Annex for Africa. In general, developed countries thoughtthat the annex was too long and contained a number of articles that were better suitedto or already contained in the main Convention. The Africans felt that the level ofdetail was essential, otherwise the instrument would not achieve its objective ofproviding priority treatment for Africa. The Asian and Latin American regional groupsalso produced their own draft regional implementation instruments. Although theseannexes were not discussed in detail, initial reaction was positive.

FIFTH SESSION

The fifth session of the INCD was held in Paris from 6-17 June 1994. During thissession, delegates worked through many long nights to negotiate the remainingbracketed text in the Convention and to finalize four regional implementation annexesfor Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Northern Mediterranean.They also adopted resolutions that recommended urgent action for Africa and interimarrangements for the period between adoption of the Convention and its entry intoforce, which could take at least two years. There were times during this session thatdelegates thought they would never reach agreement on the financial provisions of theConvention. After three all-night sessions capped by a closing Plenary that did noteven begin until 4:00 am, the Convention was finally adopted.

The Convention, which is the first post-Rio sustainable development convention, isnotable for its innovative approach in recognizing: the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects of desertification; the importance of redirecting technology transferso that it is demand driven; and the involvement of local populations in thedevelopment of national action programmes. The core of the Convention is thedevelopment of national and subregional/ regional action programmes to combatdesertification. These action programmes are to be developed by national governmentsin close cooperation with donors, local populations and NGOs.

SIGNING CEREMONY IN PARIS

The Convention was opened for signature at a ceremony in Paris on 14-15 October1994. Eighty-five countries and the European Union signed the Convention. A list ofsignatories can be found on page 11. The Convention remains open for signature atUN Headquarters in New York until 13 October 1995.

49TH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

General Assembly resolution 49/234, adopted on 23 December 1994, decided that theINCD will continue to function in order to: prepare for the first session of theConference of the Parties to the Convention; facilitate the implementation of theprovisions of resolution 5/1 of the INCD on urgent action for Africa, through theexchange of information and the review of progress made thereon; initiate measuresrelating to the identification of an organization to house the global mechanism topromote actions leading to the mobilization and channelling of substantial financialresources, including its operational modalities; elaborate the rules of procedure for theConference of the Parties; and consider other relevant issues, including measures toensure the implementation of the Convention and its regional annexes.

The resolution states that the INCD will have a two-week session in Nairobi from 7-18 August 1995, and, "pending the entry into force of the Convention, to hold furthernecessary sessions in 1996 and 1997, the venue and timing of which shall berecommended by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee."

The resolution also urges countries to sign and ratify the Convention. During theinterim period before entry into force, the resolution urges all relevant actors to takeactions and measures to implement the resolution on urgent action for Africa. TheSecretariat will continue to function and be funded through existing UN budgetaryresources and voluntary contributions.

REPORT OF THE SIXTH SESSION

The sixth session of the INCD began on Monday afternoon, 9 January 1995. Delegatesfirst adopted the agenda (A/AC.241/28) and the provisional programme of work forthe first week (A/AC.241/28/Add.1).

In his introductory statement, the Chair, Bo Kjell‚n, said that in this phase of theprocess, there is less pressure on texts, but it is now more important to translate wordsinto action. He stressed that the participation of NGOs has been essential, as well asthe contribution of the Panel of Experts and the scientific community in general,especially the social and economic experts. Kjell‚n noted that the Committee"s maintask at this session is to organize its work for the interim period. On substantiveissues, the main focus will be the work programme for the interim period and thepreparation for the first Conference of the Parties (COP). He asked the delegates tocomment on the document with respect to time schedules and organization of work forthe interim period, including the possible establishment of sessional working groups.On the resolution on urgent action for Africa, he noted that the statements made bygovernments at the signing ceremony are contained in documents A/AC.241/30 andAdd.1.

On behalf of the G-77 and China, Jos‚ Lino B. Guerrero (Philippines) said thatsubregional, regional and international collaboration is critical to arrest the causes ofdesertification and drought and to rectify their effects. Proof of internationalcommitment to combat desertification and drought may be expressed in terms ofcontributions to the Voluntary Fund and the Trust Fund and the mobilization offinancial resources.

On behalf of the 15 States of the European Union, Anne de Lattre (France) observedthat the large number of signatories to the Convention in Paris attests to theimportance of the CCD. For this Convention to be effective, affected countries shouldtake the initiative and establish medium- and long-term plans of action that involvelocal populations. She further noted that donors must act as true partners of affectedcountries. The EU believes that the role of the interim Secretariat should be facilitativeand not operative, as some of the documents suggest. The EU does not support theincreased funding requirements for the interim period, which assume that theSecretariat will be playing an operative role.

In other introductory remarks, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination andSustainable Development Nitin Desai noted that the successful conclusion of theConvention should not cause a loss of momentum, and reminded the Committee thatthe transition from policy development to policy implementation demands politicalcommitment. Anatole Tiendrebeogo, Minister for Environment and Tourism ofBurkina Faso and current head of the AMCEN, lamented that there seems to be a"backsliding" by affected countries, other Parties and the international community at atime when the issue of ratification is being raised. The Minister for Environment ofMongolia, Dr. Batjargal, stated that adopting this Convention is moving one steptowards the implementation of Chapter 12 of Agenda 21.

On behalf of the NGOs, Heinz Greijn (ELCI) reported that in November some 50NGOs from around the world met in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, to establish a globalnetwork on desertification called RIOD (R‚seau International d"ONG sur laD‚sertification) and to develop an action plan for the implementation of theConvention.

WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD AND PREPARATION FOR THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES

The Committee began its consideration of thework programme for the interim period and preparation for the first Conference of theParties on Tuesday morning, 10 January 1995. During the debate, many delegates,including members of the G-77 and China, and the Russian Federation, expressed fearthat the CCD had a lower status than the Framework Convention on Climate Changeand the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kjell‚n, the UK, the US and Japanassured them that this was not the case.

Most delegates agreed on the need to establish two working groups. They also agreedthat discussion of the implementation of the resolution on urgent action for Africashould take place in Plenary, since no resolutions or decisions would have to benegotiated on this matter. Yet, it soon became clear that there was disagreement on therole of the Interim Secretariat and the need for scientific and technical activities duringthe interim period.

The Group of 77 and China supported an active and operational role for the InterimSecretariat. They asserted that the most important functions of the Interim Secretariat"smandate should be: pursuit of urgent action for Africa; groundwork-laying fordeveloping countries to elaborate action plans; awareness-raising, capacity-building andtransfer of technology; preparation for the first COP; and response to emergencyrequests from affected countries. Benin, Burkina Faso and Mauritania supported theseviews. Senegal thought that the Secretariat should play a mediative role in thepreparation of national action programmes and facilitating scientific training indeveloping countries. Morocco, Ghana, Uzbekistan and Bolivia added that theSecretariat should play a role in information dissemination and public awareness.

The UK pointed out that the problem was in the proposed operational role of theSecretariat, which could amount to a duplication of activities already undertaken byother agencies. The UK also thought that some of the proposals by the G-77 andChina, such as responding to emergency relief and capacity building, were outside itsmandate. The US shared these concerns. Canada did not think that the Secretariatshould be involved in public awareness and capacity building since this should bedone bilaterally. Norway thought that the Secretariat should: draft the rules ofprocedure; prepare the background documents on financial arrangements for the COP,subsidiary bodies, and communication of information; and prepare a paper providing alegal analysis of the options and modalities of using existing organizations.Switzerland reiterated the fact that the Secretariat should play a facilitative andcoordination role, rather than an operative one.

PLENARY DISCUSSION:

The Committee began its consideration of thework programme for the interim period and preparation for the first Conference of theParties on Tuesday morning, 10 January 1995. During the debate, many delegates,including members of the G-77 and China, and the Russian Federation, expressed fearthat the CCD had a lower status than the Framework Convention on Climate Changeand the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kjell‚n, the UK, the US and Japanassured them that this was not the case.

Most delegates agreed on the need to establish two working groups. They also agreedthat discussion of the implementation of the resolution on urgent action for Africashould take place in Plenary, since no resolutions or decisions would have to benegotiated on this matter. Yet, it soon became clear that there was disagreement on therole of the Interim Secretariat and the need for scientific and technical activities duringthe interim period.

The Group of 77 and China supported an active and operational role for the InterimSecretariat. They asserted that the most important functions of the Interim Secretariat"smandate should be: pursuit of urgent action for Africa; groundwork-laying fordeveloping countries to elaborate action plans; awareness-raising, capacity-building andtransfer of technology; preparation for the first COP; and response to emergencyrequests from affected countries. Benin, Burkina Faso and Mauritania supported theseviews. Senegal thought that the Secretariat should play a mediative role in thepreparation of national action programmes and facilitating scientific training indeveloping countries. Morocco, Ghana, Uzbekistan and Bolivia added that theSecretariat should play a role in information dissemination and public awareness.

The UK pointed out that the problem was in the proposed operational role of theSecretariat, which could amount to a duplication of activities already undertaken byother agencies. The UK also thought that some of the proposals by the G-77 andChina, such as responding to emergency relief and capacity building, were outside itsmandate. The US shared these concerns. Canada did not think that the Secretariatshould be involved in public awareness and capacity building since this should bedone bilaterally. Norway thought that the Secretariat should: draft the rules ofprocedure; prepare the background documents on financial arrangements for the COP,subsidiary bodies, and communication of information; and prepare a paper providing alegal analysis of the options and modalities of using existing organizations.Switzerland reiterated the fact that the Secretariat should play a facilitative andcoordination role, rather than an operative one.

INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS:

The Plenary discussion on the workprogramme for the interim period concluded on Wednesday morning, 11 January 1995.On Friday evening, 13 January 1995, the Chair convened a small negotiating groupconsisting of the heads of regional and interest groups, to formulate a draft resolutionon the work programme for the interim period. The first draft, which was prepared bythe Chair on the basis of Friday evening"s discussion, was distributed to the smallgroup on the following Monday afternoon. Two working groups were proposed, butOECD member countries were not entirely supportive of having one working groupdiscussing financial matters and another addressing institutional matters. There wasalso discussion about whether the Secretariat should prepare documentation onscientific and technical cooperation. Members of the OECD group proposed, instead,that the Chair should make proposals to the Committee, at the seventh session, on theorganization of scientific and technological cooperation. G-77 members did not thinkthat this was the role of the Chair and proposed that the Secretariat should make theseproposals.

A new draft was circulated to the regional groups on Tuesday morning. The smallnegotiating group reconvened in the afternoon and reached agreement on the mandatesof the two working groups. With regard to the chairmanship of the working groups,the G-77 and China asked that one of its members chair the working group that wouldbe dealing with financial matters. After some discussion, delegates agreed and decidedto nominate Mourad Ahmia (Algeria) as the Chair of Working Group I and TakaoShibata (Japan) as the Chair of Working Group II. This, however, led to anotherproblem. Since delegates agreed that each working group would have one Chair andtwo Vice Chairs (two from Africa and one from each of the other four UN regionalgroups), was Japan considered a member of the Asian Group in the INCD? SinceJapan is geographically in Asia, but politically part of the OECD group, delegatesdecided that they would have three Vice Chairs in one working group to allow for twoAfricans, one from each of the other four regional groups and Japan.

With regard to the preparation of reports on scientific and technological cooperation,delegates agreed that the Secretariat, not the Chair, should be asked to prepare therelevant report. Delegates were not able to agree on the venue and timing of INCDmeetings in 1996 and 1997.

SUMMARY OF THE RESOLUTION:

Among the provisions in theresolution, the Committee decides to establish two working groups with the followingmandates:

Working Group I is responsible for the following issues: to initiate measures relatingto the identification of an organization to house the Global Mechanism to promoteactions leading to the mobilization and channelling of substantial financial resources,including its operational modalities; to make recommendations for the designation bythe Conference of the Parties of a Permanent Secretariat and arrangements for itsfunctioning; financial rules, programme and budget.

Working Group II is responsible for the following issues: organization of scientific andtechnological cooperation, in particular the terms of reference for the Committee onScience and Technology, the establishment and maintenance of a roster of independentexperts, and the terms of reference and modalities of work of any ad hoc panelsthat the Conference of the Parties may decide to appoint; rules of procedure of theConference of the Parties; procedures on questions of implementation; procedures forconciliation and arbitration; and procedures for communication of information for thereview of implementation of the Convention and its institutional arrangements.

In addition to the supervision of the two Working Groups, the Plenary is responsiblefor the following issues: facilitating the implementation of the resolution on urgentaction for Africa through the exchange of information, and the review of progressmade thereon; the promotion of action in other regions; the agenda for the firstmeeting of the Conference of the Parties; coordination with other conventions;cooperation with relevant bodies or agencies; and public awareness activities.

The Committee also requests the Secretariat to prepare documentation, including,inter alia, compilation of information and Governments" views, in order tofacilitate the deliberations of the Committee at the seventh session on the followingissues: identification of an organization to house the Global Mechanism; financialrules; programme and budget; designation of a Permanent Secretariat and arrangementsfor its functioning; scientific and technological cooperation; draft rules of procedure ofthe Conference of the Parties; procedures for communication of information andreview of implementation, as well as measures taken by Member States and relevantorganizations.

The Secretariat is also requested, subject to review at the seventh session, to preparedocumentation on the following issues with a view to facilitating the deliberations ofthe Committee at the eighth session: procedures to resolve questions onimplementation and draft annexes on conciliation and arbitration.

INCD members, UN programmes and agencies as well as relevant intergovernmentalorganizations are invited to submit to the Secretariat updated reports on measurestaken or planned for the implementation of the urgent action for Africa and action inother regions. The Secretariat is also requested to prepare a compilation of suchreports for the seventh session.

The resolution also calls for two sessions of up to two weeks each in 1996 and in1997, the venue and timing of which will be decided by the General Assembly onrecommendation of the Committee at the seventh session.

URGENT ACTION FOR AFRICA AND INTERIM ACTION IN OTHER REGIONS

The aim of the discussion was to show what activities have been initiated in responseto the June 1994 resolution on urgent action for Africa, as well as interim activities inother regions. Delegates went further and presented their views on what activities theInterim Secretariat should be involved in, in this respect. India stated that with regardto the sensitivities in the compilation of information and implementation of theresolution, five aspects should be considered: public awareness campaigns; training;capacity building; technology transfer; and people"s empowerment. Kazakhstan notedthat although it is natural to give priority to Africa, progress in other regions is alsoneeded.

From the reports, the activities already undertaken or planned can be broadlycategorized into: establishing coordinating mechanisms; seminars, forums, workshopsand conferences; public awareness raising and document preparation; training andresearch; preparation and implementation of national action programmes; the role ofthe Interim Secretariat; and resource mobilization.

ESTABLISHING COORDINATING MECHANISMS

Most of theinternational, regional and subregional activity has centered on establishing nationalstructures for coordination, consultative processes or partnership arrangements aimedat resource mobilization.

In Africa, subregional structures have been established. Algeria reported that theMaghreb Union has developed cooperative relationships with other African countriesand subregional organizations and began to work on an inter-Mediterranean frameworkfor the implementation of the Convention. IGADD is reviewing existing institutionalarrangements and is making an effort to work with developed countries. The OECDreported that it has designated the Club du Sahel as the institution"s focal point on theConvention. In February, the CILSS and the Club du Sahel will meet with donors torefine their joint programme of work, and the implementation of the resolution isexpected to be the subject of their next annual meeting in Canada. France stated that ithad started consultative processes aimed at developing national action programmes andhas participated in relevant meetings including those of the Club du Sahel andCILSS/ACCT.

The Central Asian states have set up a council and a fund on the Aral Seal, toundertake several programmes related to regional water management, including hydro-meteorological monitoring and restoration of land productivity. The Russian Federationand Kazakhstan have signed a treaty on the use of jointly-shared water resources.Kazakhstan has entered into bilateral agreements with other countries to solvedesertification problems. Israel reported that it is undertaking a joint project with thePalestinian Authority and Jordan to survey the risks of desertification in the RiftValley.

The Northern Mediterranean countries are planning the next steps in implementingtheir regional annex, including contacts with countries in the Maghreb and the MiddleEast. Spain is also supporting projects in the Canary Islands, Mauritania, Mozambique,Tunisia, Syria, Brazil, Peru, Dominican Republic, Mexico and the Philippines.

SEMINARS, FORUMS, WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES

Anumber of governments and organizations have held meetings to discuss technicalissues related to combating desertification and mitigating the effects of drought. TheMaghreb Union has held meetings on desertification, drought and food security. Japan,in cooperation with Indonesia and some UN agencies and the Global Coalition forAfrica, had held an Asia-Africa Forum aimed at promoting South-South cooperation.Israel held a workshop and seminar related to plant and land sustainability in drylandareas and is planning to hold a seminar on water management. The Russian Federationhas planned an international seminar, in September, on combating desertification.

Zambia aims at developing new programmes on range and livestock management andimproving the living standards of the local people. In this regard, a workshopinvolving local communities has been held in one of the target rural communities.

PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION

:IFAD said that the lack of awareness about the Convention may be the single-mostserious obstacle to its implementation. A few countries have initiated awarenessraising activities, aimed at their governments and the general public, on theConvention. Senegal has held national seminars and forums aimed at improving theunderstanding of the problems of desertification.

Mali has initiated measures to establish decentralized structures, and is establishing anew code on collectives and a new law on the taxation of collectives. Denmark hasstarted to provide information about the objectives of the Convention to its embassies.In addition to its national awareness programmes, Lesotho has planned seminars forpoliticians and policy makers on the implementation of the Convention.

Various forms of awareness campaigns, some involving the media, have been initiatedin Mali, Tunisia, Mauritania, the IGADD region, Iran and Armenia. Canada is alsosupporting anti-desertification and public awareness campaigns in the Sahel. ThePhilippines stated that awareness raising should be done within the UN system as well.

TRAINING AND RESEARCH

Few governments have initiated activitiesin this area. Finland"s planned activities include a scientist assistance programme, withparticular emphasis on building forest research capacities of young forestry scientistsin developing countries. The Russian Federation, with assistance from UNEP, hasstarted training specialists in the area of space monitoring of desertification. Sudan hasundertaken a GIS survey in the affected areas and is hoping to start a scientificsurvey.

PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL ACTION PROGRAMMES

IFAD stated that the preparation of national actionprogrammes (NAPs) cannot be hurried. NAPs must be dynamic and evolve asexperience is gained. Egypt cautioned delegates that, from its experience,desertification projects are usually expensive and may need to be implemented at theregional and subregional levels.

Algeria, on behalf of the Maghreb Union, reported that its subregional actionprogramme should be finalized soon. Burkina Faso called attention to its emergencyplan and national plan of action. Botswana is working on a national action plan and astate of the environment review, while Pakistan, with the assistance of UNEP, hasdeveloped a national plan to combat desertification. Spain has drafted threedesertification-related national plans. In March, Japan will send a mission to Senegalto discuss the development of a concrete pilot project that could be adapted for otheraffected African countries. CILSS is holding consultations aimed at developing asubregional programme of action and the IGADD is also focusing on actionprogrammes at the national and subregional levels.

In addition, concrete projects are already being implemented. Belgium is supportingreforestation programmes in Benin, Burkina Faso and C“te d"Ivoire. Morocco isfocusing on reforestation, soil and water conservation, mobilization of water resources,irrigation, dune stabilization and development of pasture areas, and has began to workon its national action programme. Iran is, likewise, involved in dune stabilization anddegraded land restoration.

Switzerland drew attention to the fact that some activities being outlined under theresolution on urgent action for Africa were prepared before the completion of theConvention and wondered whether new funds were required.

THE ROLE OF THE INTERIM SECRETARIAT

The Philippines, onbehalf of the G-77 and China, said that with respect to urgent action for Africa, theInterim Secretariat should focus on capacity building, training and promotion andelaboration of national, subregional and regional programmes. The Interim Secretariatshould also: collate relevant information from affected African countries; make thenecessary contacts with UN field agencies, multilateral organizations, localcommunities, the donor community and NGOs, to help implement this resolution; andshould also raise public awareness.

Niger requested that the activities should be coordinated by the Interim Secretariat,while IFAD suggested a small, dynamic and versatile, but strengthened, Secretariat.Bolivia said that reports on urgent action for Africa must be more specific. The ISshould compile and analyze this information and list institutions that are alreadyworking on desertification and how assistance is being channelled to Africa. CILSSrequested the IS to prepare a simplified version of the Convention to facilitate publicawareness.

RESOURCE MOBILIZATION: Several developed countries reported onfunding structures or resources that they have established to facilitate theimplementation of the resolution. France has authorized its missions to be attentive tonational requests and will continue to support the OSS. In addition, the EuropeanCommunity will continue to fund desertification activities in Africa, especially in linewith the 1989 Lom‚ IV Convention. The US said that although the budget climate inWashington is uncertain at the moment, it is still committed to providing US$500million in current or planned projects to support the Convention and the urgent actionphase. The US has instructed its embassies in Africa to support urgent action throughdialogue with African governments, donors and international organizations.

Germany said that since October 1994, DM3 million has been given to support theelaboration of national action programmes, coordination and capacity building inAfrica. A three-year grant of DM2 million has been given to support the developmentof a national action plan in Mali and DM5 million is supporting the NamibianGovernment"s elaboration and early implementation of the national action plan. Kenyasaid that in spite of financial constraints, it will provide seed money to the InterimSecretariat to assist in work related to the action programmes. Switzerland has releasedSFR1 million for relevant NGO activities. IFAD will assist in resource mobilizationand the co-financing of programmes linked to food security.

The Executive Secretary, Arba Diallo, pointed out that the Secretariat does not want totake the place of States and organizations, but in some cases States need support andperhaps the Secretariat could step in and identify the assistance needed.

In his summary, Kjell‚n said that the discussion shows that there is an impressiveamount of activity in Africa and other regions. Nevertheless, there should be nocomplacency since the situation in the drylands of Africa continues to be a cause forconcern.

REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

According to its multi-year thematic programme of work, the Commission onSustainable Development"s (CSD) third session in April 1995, will review theimplementation of all the Agenda 21 chapters that address land management. TheUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the task manager for Chapter 12(desertification) and has prepared a provisional version of its report to the CSD.Franklin Cardy of UNEP introduced this report and noted that it was prepared jointlywith all relevant UN organizations, NGOs and some government representatives. Heinvited delegates to comment on the report and inform UNEP if there were any factualmistakes. All written and verbal comments were then included and the report wassubmitted on Monday, 16 January, to the CSD.

The Chair will also be presenting a report from the INCD to the CSD in April. It willcover how desertification relates to land degradation, Agenda 21 Chapters 10-15, aswell as other elements of Agenda 21 in which such links can be made. He noted thatthis Convention supports Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration, which says people are atthe center of development, since the Convention concerns over 900 million people andis based on a bottom-up approach and partnerships. He also noted the efforts toimprove coordination of international assistance, and the integration and participationof NGOs in the process. Elements of the Convention that fit into the CSD"sconsideration of other chapters of Agenda 21 include: food security; land use; the useof plant genetic resources; dryland forestry; water resources; and energy. He noted thatwhen the Convention is examined in a broader framework, it has more stature andsubstance at the global level.

During the Plenary discussion, one delegate noted that the Chair"s report should alsodraw the linkages between this Convention, and the Climate Change and BiodiversityConventions and the Statement on Forest Principles. Another delegate called for theinclusion of the links to international trade, since obstacles to market access toaffected countries will hinder their efforts to combat desertification. Patterns ofproduction and consumption should also be mentioned. The G-77 and China addedthat priority should be given to: the prevention of land degradation in vulnerable areasand the containment of degradation where it has already taken place; the fact thatdesertification and drought are global problems, not local problems; links between landdegradation and climate change and biodiversity; and links to the mobilization offinancial resources, transfer of environmentally sound technologies; and capacitybuilding. Kjell‚n concluded that the reports by UNEP and the INCD to the CSD willsupplement each other.

SITUATION AS REGARDS EXTRABUDGETARY FUNDS

The aim of the discussion was to present a report on how funds have been spent, andto provide a projection on the funds required for the activities to be undertaken by theInterim Secretariat during the interim period.

The Executive Secretary, Arba Diallo, presented the review as contained in documentA/AC.241/31. He said the report covered the activities recommended by the INCD forthe interim period, and examines the status of the pledges and contributions to theVoluntary and Trust Funds. The first part looks at the Trust Fund through which theSecretariat"s expenses are met. The second part is on the Voluntary Fund to supportthe participation of the developing countries.

As of 31 December 1994, the Trust Fund had received US$1,958,297, of which theUS$200,000 for staff expenses is almost exhausted. The Swiss Government hasgranted an additional US$500,000 to cover information activities, NGO participationand one staff member. The WHO and FAO have supported a consultant and specialist,respectively. The Secretariat has 16 officials, seven of whom are funded throughextrabudgetary funds. Diallo said the staff is needed during the interim period in viewof the increased responsibilities given to the Secretariat. This will requireUS$1,720,000.

During the INCD sessions, the Secretariat will require consultants and may also needto compile and communicate reports on measures adopted by members during theinterim period. This activity is without precedent in other Conventions. Diallo notedthat in line with the 49th General Assembly"s programme budget implications (PBI)document, the cost of financing consultations will be revised downwards fromUS$417,000 to US$70,000.

He stated that the Secretariat, in collaboration with NGOs, will undertake publicawareness programmes that target both policy-makers and the general public in orderto ensure a better understanding of the Convention. In order to play a catalytic role,the Secretariat may, on request, facilitate the implementation of the resolution onurgent action for Africa by providing various forms of assistance at the regional,subregional and national levels.

There is a balance of US$500,000 from the US$2,169,859 contributed to the VoluntaryFund. While US$900,000 is required to finance 70 developing country participants, orUS$550,000 for a participant from each of the least developed countries, the fund onlyhas US$330,000, for this purpose.

Most of the developing countries endorsed the activities and budget proposed by theExecutive Secretary. Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that theSecretariat"s proposals were realistic given the activities assigned to it for the interimperiod. These tasks require a corresponding financial contribution. Algeria maintainedthat there is no intention of expanding the Secretariat"s mandate, but the INCD shouldnot lose sight of the future role of the Secretariat in assisting affected countries andplaying the role of facilitator. The Secretariat should use NGOs and others to facilitateinformation sharing. Mauritania sought an explanation on how the estimated US$1.389million needed for urgent action for Africa was defined. His government has estimatedthat US$450,000 is needed in Mauritania alone. Bolivia asserted that given that 900million people are affected by desertification, the Secretariat is bending overbackwards to get the job done with limited funds.

The developed countries were more cautious about the role of the Interim Secretariat,especially regarding activities that other institutions are currently undertaking or thatcan be adequately undertaken by other institutions. On behalf of the EU, France madefive comments on the document. 1) The INCD sessions should be financed from theregular UN budget and the Secretariat cannot allocate money to a scientific groupbefore the Committee has agreed on whether there should be one. 2) The Secretariatshould play a substantive role in public awareness, but funds are already availableelsewhere. 3) Regarding the implementation of urgent action for Africa, funds are alsoavailable from bilateral donors. UNDP could also support the Secretariat in the rolethat General Assembly resolution 49/234 has assigned to it. 4) Case studies should notbe funded, since there is no longer any need for them. 5) With regard to personnel, itwould be useful to give specific details on the staff funds required, what the donorshave specified and the type of staff that are currently available.

The US noted that when considering the budget: 1) due to the resource situation, theCommittee should be cautious about duplicating efforts; 2) activities related to thisConvention should be based in the field as much as possible; 3) caution should also beexercised when comparing this Convention to others, since this Convention has abottom-up philosophy; and 4) the more resources that are devoted to the center (ie.,the Secretariat), the less money is in the field. Regarding the scientific group, adecision is needed before allocating money.

Canada reiterated that budget estimates should correspond to the tasks given to theSecretariat. This Convention is different from others since it emphasizes decentralizedactivities. Canada will fund the Secretariat and countries for appropriate activities, andprovide support for the legal adviser. He pointed out that NGO support should beaccounted for under the Voluntary Fund, and not the Trust Fund. Burkina Faso saidthat just because the Convention has a bottom-up approach does not imply that theSecretariat should not have any money. Decentralization does not mean that all actionshould happen in the field while the Secretariat does nothing. Diallo pointed out thatsupport funds for NGOs cannot be placed under the Voluntary Fund since the GeneralAssembly resolution says that this fund is to support developing country delegatesonly.

Japan stated that the most important decision is that on the interim role of theSecretariat and the budget should be a reflection of that decision. He feared a "Catch22" situation. Some of the proposed activities can be implemented by bilateral ormultilateral organizations. He asked for an explanation regarding the discrepanciesbetween the INCD budget adopted by the General Assembly in December andA/AC.241/31, which was prepared in November. Australia supported the US and, likeJapan, requested that the linkage between A/AC.241/31 and the regular budget of theUN be shown and that there be some coordinated information on the contributionsfrom other agencies. Diallo responded that the proposals for the regular budget are inaccordance with the General Assembly resolution of 23 December 1994, and addedthat services budgeted for in the regular UN budget will not be covered by theVoluntary Fund.

Diallo stated that the Secretariat had hoped that, upon request, it could provide fundsto affected country Parties, however, they can direct them to the various donors.Tunisia stated that funding should not only be provided on a bilateral basis and urgedthe developed country partners to show renewed commitment to the implementation ofthe Convention during this interim phase. Benin expressed surprise at the apparentsuggestions to renegotiate a Convention in which multilateral agreements werealready covered. Niger proposed that there should be a special support fund for urgentaction for Africa, which could help NGOs and others. This could be a flexible fund sothat support could be requested when urgent action was needed and the Secretariatcould assist. The Secretariat personnel should not be reduced. Uganda expressed thehope that the pre-Convention political goodwill would prevail and that additionalsupport would be provided from the regular UN budget, to enable affected countries tolive up to their expectations.

The Republic of Korea noted that the proposed budget corresponds to the tasks givento the Secretariat and said that his country would be increasing its contribution.

Kjell‚n then summarized the discussion. 1) There was general appreciation of the workof the Secretariat. 2) The purpose of the discussion was not to agree on the budget,since these are voluntary funds. 3) This is an important period in the Convention andsufficient funds must be available. 4) While affected countries have indicated theaction needed, there are budgetary constraints. 5) It is necessary to determine a logicaldistribution of work to be done efficiently and specify who would do it. 6) Althoughthe Convention calls for decentralization, activities may need to be more centralizedduring the interim period. 7) There are divergent views on the document, butadditional information would be provided on the funds, since there have also beenindications elsewhere of the amounts. 8) The question of methodology in presentingthe report may also require consideration, an issue that can be also be raised at thenext session of the General Assembly.

Kjell‚n also noted that although delegates were not being asked to pledge funds, thediscussion was complex due to the fact that: the Secretariat document was preparedbefore the conclusion of the General Assembly"s discussions last December; thedelegates to the INCD and General Assembly were different; the decision makers onfinancial matters were in the capitals; the UN system has inherent weaknesses; andother UN agencies had made financial contributions during the negotiating process, butthe situation on further funding was still unclear.

AWARENESS BUILDING

During discussions in the Plenary, delegates described activities launched in theirrespective countries related to public awareness. In awareness building, it seemedimportant to consider three questions: what information should be provided; to whom;and by whom. The audiences will be found at the village level in affected developingcountries; within the governments of both the North and the South; and in the generalpublic in the North. There are variations in approach depending on the target group.More efforts should be made to show that desertification is a global problem. Theimportant role of NGOs in awareness raising was emphasized by a proposal toorganize a global NGO meeting before INCD-7, but the Chair did not think that therewould be sufficient time to prepare for such a meeting before August.

There appeared to be consensus on the fundamental need to raise the public"sawareness on the Convention in both developed and developing countries, as well ason the type of activities that need to be undertaken. Some had already been initiated,such as the preparation and dissemination of documents, but new ideas also came upduring the discussion, including: the commemoration of the World Day to CombatDesertification and Drought on 17 June; the awarding of a Desertification Prize; thecreation of a central information service to collect and disseminate information; issuinginformation bulletins and magazines; holding seminars for decision-makers,technicians, NGOs, local populations and bilateral cooperation agencies; and theinvolvement of other sectors of society, such as university institutions and intellectuals.

Developing countries wanted the Secretariat to have a strong active role in order tocatalyze action, especially in the least developing countries, without expropriating theroles of other groups. Developed countries preferred that national governments andother sectors play the key role, while a small Secretariat plays a limited role ofcompiling and disseminating the available documents to the Parties and grantingadvice upon request. NGOs and specialized agencies should be involved in informationdissemination. Given these proposals, the function of the Interim Secretariat would:supplement those of other institutions; involve mobilizing resources on behalf ofcountries that may not find assistance elsewhere; prepare reports, upon request, on theactivities it has undertaken, in order to ensure transparency; and set up a partnership tomeet the proposed needs, for which the Secretariat is awaiting guidelines from theINCD at the next session.

SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION UPDATE

On Monday, 9 January 1995, the Executive Secretary of the Interim Secretariat, ArbaDiallo, reported that 85 countries and the European Union had signed the Conventionin Paris on 14-15 October 1994. Ten more countries signed the Convention over thepast three months. These countries are: Namibia (24/10/94), Nigeria (31/10/94), SierraLeone (11/11/94), Nicaragua (21/11/94), Uganda (21/11/94) Paraguay (1/12/94),Uzbekistan (7/12/94), Philippines (8/12/94), Micronesia (12/12/94) and South Africa(9/1/95).

Diallo appealed to those who have not yet been able to sign the Convention to do soas soon as circumstances permit. Kjell‚n joined in this appeal and expressedhope that the Convention would have 100 signatories by the conclusion of this session.Although this goal was not attained by the conclusion of INCD-6, Malawi became the97th country to sign the Convention on Tuesday, 17 January 1995, and Ecuador wasexpected to sign the Convention on Thursday, 19 January 1995. For a complete list ofsignatories to the Convention, see page 11.

As of Wednesday, 18 January 1995, no country had submitted its instrument ofratification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the depositary for theConvention. However, according to an informal survey of delegations during INCD-6,it appears as though the first instrument of ratification could be deposited as early asFebruary 1995.

CLOSING PLENARY " PART I

On Wednesday afternoon, 18 January 1995, the Plenary met briefly at 4:00 pm toadopt the resolution on the work programme for the interim period (A/AC.241/L.24)and elect the Chairs of the two Working Groups. The Chair proposed that according toparagraph 3(a) of the decision, it would be desirable to underline the importance ofAfrica and have Africans on the bureaus of both Working Groups. Thus, WorkingGroup I will have three Vice Chairs and Working Group II will have two Vice Chairs.The Committee accepted this proposal and then elected Mourad Ahmia (Algeria) asthe Chair of Working Group I and Takao Shibata (Japan) as the Chair of WorkingGroup II.

Delegates then adopted the provisional agenda for INCD-7, which includes: adoptionof the agenda and organization of work; preparation for the Conference of the Parties;urgent action for Africa and interim action taken in other regions; status of signatureand ratification of the Convention; review of the situation as regards extrabudgetaryfunds; adoption of the provisional agenda for the eighth session; and adoption of thereport of the Committee on its seventh session. The Plenary then adjourned so that theWorking Groups could hold brief organizational sessions.

FIRST MEETINGS OF THE WORKING GROUPS

Mourad Ahmia called to order the first meeting ofWorking Group I and thanked all the members for the confidence vested in him andhis country, Algeria. The Working Group then proceeded to elect two of its ViceChairs: Erwin Ortiz (Bolivia) and Mohammad R.H.K. Jabbary (Iran). In the absence ofa nomination from the Western Europe and Others Group, the election of the thirdVice Chair was postponed until INCD-7.

The Chair then read out the list of issues to be considered by Working Group I, whichinclude: initiating measures relating to the identification of an organization to housethe Global Mechanism; making recommendations for the designation by theConference of the Parties of a Permanent Secretariat and arrangements for itsfunctioning; and financial rules, programme and budget. After the Philippines, onbehalf of the G-77 and China, congratulated the Bureau on its election, the meetingwas adjourned.

WORKING GROUP I:

Mourad Ahmia called to order the first meeting ofWorking Group I and thanked all the members for the confidence vested in him andhis country, Algeria. The Working Group then proceeded to elect two of its ViceChairs: Erwin Ortiz (Bolivia) and Mohammad R.H.K. Jabbary (Iran). In the absence ofa nomination from the Western Europe and Others Group, the election of the thirdVice Chair was postponed until INCD-7.

The Chair then read out the list of issues to be considered by Working Group I, whichinclude: initiating measures relating to the identification of an organization to housethe Global Mechanism; making recommendations for the designation by theConference of the Parties of a Permanent Secretariat and arrangements for itsfunctioning; and financial rules, programme and budget. After the Philippines, onbehalf of the G-77 and China, congratulated the Bureau on its election, the meetingwas adjourned.

WORKING GROUP II:

Takao Shibata called to order the first meeting ofWorking Group II and expressed his deep honor and appreciation for the trust andconfidence bestowed upon him to chair this working group. The Working Group thenelected David Etuket (Uganda) and Dr. Anatoly Ovchinnikov (Uzbekistan) as ViceChairs. The Chair then read out the list of issues to be considered by Working GroupII, including: organization of scientific and technological cooperation; rules ofprocedure for the Conference of the Parties; procedures on questions ofimplementation; procedures for conciliation and arbitration; and procedures forcommunication of information for the review of implementation of the Convention.After the Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, congratulated the Bureau onits election, the meeting was adjourned.

CLOSING PLENARY " PART II

At 5:30 pm the Plenary reconvened to take care of organizational matters and adopt itsreport. The Chair announced that during the intersessional period he would direct aletter to a number of international organizations that might be able to provide a homefor the Global Mechanism and ask them to express their observations. These letterswill be sent to UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, GEF and IFAD. He hopes to have theobservations of these organizations in time for INCD-7.

The Committee then adopted a draft resolution entitled, "Promotion of PublicAwareness: Observance of the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought"(A/AC.241/L.26). This resolution, which was negotiated on Wednesday morning in asmall group, recalls General Assembly resolution 49/115 of 19 December 1994,proclaiming 17 June as the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought. Theresolution: requests the Interim Secretariat, within its mandate and taking due accountof existing activities by other United Nations bodies, to promote public awareness ofthe Convention with a view to ensuring the success of the observance of the WorldDay; invites the Chair of the INCD to report to the next session of the Commission onSustainable Development on the arrangements envisaged by the Interim Secretariat;and invites the Executive Secretary to report to the next session of the INCD on therelevant arrangements.

The Committee then adopted its report (A/AC.241/L.25). The Chair noted that hisconclusions on urgent action for Africa and interim action in other regions(A/AC.241/CRP.13) and the review of the situation as regards extrabudgetary funds(A/AC.241/CRP.14) would be appended to the report.

In his closing remarks, the Chair expressed satisfaction that the Committee was able toconclude its work two days ahead of schedule. He thanked everyone for their spirit ofcompromise and noted that the Convention has had a number of additional signaturesin New York and a number of countries have started ratification procedures. Kjell‚nexpressed some of his own dreams about what this Convention should be, particularlythat the problems of the drylands should be recognized as global problems and thatthere will soon be new possibilities for financing that will facilitate implementation.He hopes that the Convention will be a demonstration that the world can have adecentralized system incorporating local systems and traditional knowledge, based onwell-functioning governments and regional cooperation. He also hopes that there willbe technological developments on water harvesting and genetic research, as well as thefull participation of women in the implementation of the Convention.

After closing statements by the Philippines (on behalf of the G-77 and China),Australia (on behalf of the OECD member States), India (on behalf of the AsianGroup), Kenya (on behalf of the African Group) and Bolivia (on behalf of the LatinAmerican and Caribbean Group), the meeting was adjourned.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF INCD-6

This session marked the beginning of a new phase in the INCD negotiating process.The first five sessions of the INCD, which met between May 1993 and June 1994,focused on the negotiation of the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). Nowthat the Convention has been adopted, it is time to turn to implementation. This newphase of the negotiating process is often referred to as "post-agreement negotiations."The purpose of post-agreement negotiations is to continue the dialogue to pushforward the development of the Convention and its implementation. These additionalnegotiations are often aimed at settling disputes, handling misunderstandings, dealingwith future adjustments to the Convention and the management of the day-to-daygovernance of the Convention among the signatories. The objective of thesenegotiations is to ensure that the negotiated outcome is well implemented.

While INCD-6 was more of an organizational session than anything else, it served twovery important purposes. First, the Committee reached agreement on the mandates ofthe two working groups and the Plenary, which will carry out the post-agreementnegotiations. Second, it has alerted delegates, the Bureau and the Interim Secretariat tosome of the challenges that lie ahead. These challenges include: reaffirming the equalstatus of the CCD with other environmental conventions; implementation of theresolution on urgent action for Africa; awareness raising; popular participation;preparation for the first Conference of the Parties; scientific and technical cooperationduring the interim period; and funding. While there is no denial that these challengesexist, INCD-6 also indicated some of the forces that may facilitate or hinder theprocess " the Interim Secretariat, NGOs and governments.

CHALLENGES FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD

One issue that was raised duringINCD-6 was the status of the Convention. Since the EU and other developed countrieswere stressing that the role of the Secretariat should be restricted to a facilitative one,the G-77 and China were concerned that the OECD countries were trying todowngrade the Convention to a lower status than the Framework Convention onClimate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Developing countriesfeared that conditionalities were being stressed beyond the spirit and provisions of theConvention and its regional annexes and, therefore, stressed that the Interim Secretariatshould play an activist role in ensuring the status of the Convention. Developedcountries responded that the CCD has the same status as other environmentalconventions and one delegate expressed the view that, in fact, the CCD was superiorto the others because of its bottom-up approach.

STATUS OF THE CONVENTION:

One issue that was raised duringINCD-6 was the status of the Convention. Since the EU and other developed countrieswere stressing that the role of the Secretariat should be restricted to a facilitative one,the G-77 and China were concerned that the OECD countries were trying todowngrade the Convention to a lower status than the Framework Convention onClimate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Developing countriesfeared that conditionalities were being stressed beyond the spirit and provisions of theConvention and its regional annexes and, therefore, stressed that the Interim Secretariatshould play an activist role in ensuring the status of the Convention. Developedcountries responded that the CCD has the same status as other environmentalconventions and one delegate expressed the view that, in fact, the CCD was superiorto the others because of its bottom-up approach.

URGENT ACTION FOR AFRICA:

The reports on the activitiesundertaken in response to the implementation of the resolution on urgent action forAfrica show that a vast amount of work has already been initiated in differentcountries. Both affected developing countries and donor countries have taken actionthat indicate positive attempts to ensure that target communities are involved in thepreparation of national action plans. Yet, during the course of INCD-6 a number ofnon-African developing countries expressed concern that the implementation of theresolution on urgent action for Africa has shifted donor focus away from their regions.Without the support of donors (agencies, banks and developed countries), delegatesfrom these countries are afraid that they will have difficulty convincing theirgovernments to sign and/or ratify the Convention. The challenge for the interim periodis to implement the resolution on urgent action for Africa, while at the same timeensuring that the affected countries of Asia and Latin America are not forgotten.

AWARENESS RAISING:

During INCD-6, delegates stressed the need toraise awareness about the Convention in both affected developing countries anddeveloped countries. However, it is important to recognize that awareness raising mayonly result in public knowledge of the existence of the Convention and may notgenerate the expected action. As such, the challenge for both governments and theCommittee is to not only raise awareness, but raise the consciousness of the targetcommunities as well as policymakers and NGOs in developed countries.

For example, a number of organizations, in addition to the CCD Interim Secretariat,are publishing popularized versions of the Convention. Camilla Toulmin of theLondon-based International Institute for Environment and Development, and a formermember of the International Panel of Experts on Desertification, has written a user"sguide to the Convention. The Swiss Government is funding the Geneva-based Centrefor Our Common Future to publish its own "easy-to-read" version of the Convention.In Nairobi, Econews Africa and ELCI are producing a guide to provide an entry pointinto the Convention by NGOs and community workers in the field. However, even ifthese efforts at spreading an understandable version of the Convention seem to beoverlapping, they are an important part of the much needed awareness raising on thisissue. The fact that several publications are being produced provides the opportunity toreach different audiences on different levels. In this respect, it is important torecognize the need to distinguish between materials for raising general awareness onthe Convention and those aimed at consciousness raising.

POPULAR PARTICIPATION:

Governments have also been involved insetting up structures at the national level that may facilitate the participation of theaffected populations and provide expertise from different sectors. The creation ofthese nationally-recognizable structures is useful in that they draw the attention of thepublic to the Convention and also raise the political profile of the Convention at thenational level. Yet to ensure real participation from the local populations in thepreparation of the national action plans, further decentralization of these structures isneeded. This process may require not only the creation of decentralized structures, butthe establishment of legal mechanisms to support these structures, as is the case inMali.

In spite of the progress that has been made, there is still cause for concern. Severalcountries have already prepared their national action programmes, while others expectto complete them soon. Notwithstanding the need to take urgent measures, thepreparation of practical programmes that will make a positive impact cannot behurried. In such cases, target communities may not have been adequately consulted orproperly informed.

Another concern is the tendency to superimpose old structures on a Convention thatproposes a different approach, both among the developed countries and in affecteddeveloping countries. In some instances, affected developing countries have simplygone ahead and implemented the programmes they had prepared prior to the adoptionof the Convention, while using the provisions of the Convention to solicit funds.Although previously prepared programmes could be implemented, it is likely that mostof them require modification, especially with regard to cooperation with the localcommunities.

PREPARATION FOR THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES

:During this session, the Committee identified the issues that must be discussed inorder to ensure a productive first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. If thesepreliminary discussions are any indication, several of these issues will pose achallenge during the upcoming negotiations.

Agreement on the operational modalities for the Global Mechanism may be thegreatest challenge. Except for the agreement that a Global Mechanism is to beestablished, it is still undefined. Such an institution has no precedent in otherconventions. The developed countries seem to view the institution as a coordinatingfacility, while the developing countries still hope that it can be a multilateral fundingmechanism. During the interim period, it will be necessary for delegates to clearlydetermine what role the mechanism will play and what organization could house it.

Another challenge is to reach agreement on the location and function of the PermanentSecretariat. The developing countries would prefer to have a new institutionestablished for the Convention, as is the case for the Framework Convention onClimate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, in the case ofdesertification existing institutions, such as UNSO and UNEP"s DC/PAC, havepreviously been involved in activities to combat desertification. The fact that UNSO"sscope has just been expanded beyond the Sudano-Sahelian region to include allcountries affected by desertification may also have an impact on this decision. Underthe circumstances, it is crucial that negotiations be focused not only on the need toconserve resources, but on how each potential institution will address the needs ofthose in the field in order to attain the objectives of the Convention.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION:

Since the mandate ofthe Panel of Experts has expired and the Convention provides for a Committee onScience and Technology (Article 24), the INCD has to deal with how to prepare forthe establishment of such a body. The resolution adopted at INCD-6 calls on theSecretariat to suggest to the INCD how it thinks that the interim work on scientificand technological issues should be conducted. The newly established Working GroupII has the mandate to deal with: "organization of scientific and technologicalcooperation, in particular the terms of reference of the Committee on Science andTechnology, the establishment and maintenance of a roster of independent experts, andthe terms of reference and modalities of work of any ad hoc panels that theConference of the Parties may decide to appoint." Nevertheless, there is still thequestion of the need for scientific and technical advice during the interim period.Some developed countries seem to be opposed to the establishment of an interimscientific and technological body. While there is precedent for such an interim body(the Interim Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC), which held onemeeting in support of the Biodiversity Convention), some believe that given the natureof the desertification and drought, such an interim body may not be necessary.Furthermore, given financial constraints, the question of the value of a scientific andtechnological body during this phase of negotiations must also be justified.

FUNDING:

Although the INCD"s discussion on financial issues was aimedat giving an indication of how much funding was needed by the Secretariat during theinterim period, problems that arose point to issues both governments and theSecretariat will have to address.

Prior to the negotiation of the Convention, little, if any, funding was provided forconsultation with local communities. On the other hand, while donor countries havesuccessfully argued for the need to use existing funding structures, some of thesestructures have not been reformed to correspond with the provisions of theConvention. This means that although the affected developing countries may have thegoodwill to prepare programmes that conform to the requirements of the Convention,their efforts may be frustrated if the funding structures themselves are not reorganizedto meet the requirements of the Convention.

The main challenge will be in the implementation of the resolution on urgent actionfor Africa and activities in other regions. The Convention provides clear guidelines, upto the completion of the national action programmes, on the process that governmentsshould follow. However, since the multilateral funding processes may not be fullyresolved until, at least, the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties, someaffected countries may find themselves short of resources. Bilateral funding is likely todominate during this period, but such funding mechanisms are often bureaucratic andentail requests for huge budgets. Awareness raising programmes in target communities,however, require small amounts of quickly accessible funding. This necessitates thatbilateral funders must establish mechanisms, in particular for the implementation ofthe resolution on urgent action for Africa, through which such funds could be madeavailable to both NGOs and governments. Any delay in accessing funds may causeaffected countries to cut short on processes that are crucial to implementation of theConvention .

FORCES INFLUENCING THE INTERIM PERIOD

The interim period will bestrongly affected by both the role of the Interim Secretariat and debates betweendeveloped and developing countries on what this role should be. Developing countries,which support an active Secretariat, expressed concern that the restrictive attitude ofdeveloped countries would deprive them of a much needed coordinator fordesertification activities and disseminator of information. Developed countries, fortheir part, seemed to emphasize that the Secretariat should play a facilitative role,fearing that the Interim Secretariat might become the big, central machinery that theConvention is trying to avoid in the promotion of a bottom-up approach. The questionof the role of the Secretariat has a direct bearing on the provisions of extrabudgetaryfunds. As long as developed countries are not satisfied with the role of the Secretariat,they may withhold contributions to the Secretariat Trust Fund. This could have a two-fold effect. First, it could reduce the effectiveness of the Secretariat in even the mostbasic tasks as its numbers diminish. Second, it could lead to prolonged discussionsduring every future session of the INCD, as developing countries plead for moremoney for the Secretariat and developed countries defend their positions.

ROLE OF THE INTERIM SECRETARIAT:

The interim period will bestrongly affected by both the role of the Interim Secretariat and debates betweendeveloped and developing countries on what this role should be. Developing countries,which support an active Secretariat, expressed concern that the restrictive attitude ofdeveloped countries would deprive them of a much needed coordinator fordesertification activities and disseminator of information. Developed countries, fortheir part, seemed to emphasize that the Secretariat should play a facilitative role,fearing that the Interim Secretariat might become the big, central machinery that theConvention is trying to avoid in the promotion of a bottom-up approach. The questionof the role of the Secretariat has a direct bearing on the provisions of extrabudgetaryfunds. As long as developed countries are not satisfied with the role of the Secretariat,they may withhold contributions to the Secretariat Trust Fund. This could have a two-fold effect. First, it could reduce the effectiveness of the Secretariat in even the mostbasic tasks as its numbers diminish. Second, it could lead to prolonged discussionsduring every future session of the INCD, as developing countries plead for moremoney for the Secretariat and developed countries defend their positions.

ROLE OF THE NGO NETWORK:

In November, some 50 NGOs met inOuagadougou, Burkina Faso, to establish a global network on desertification calledRIOD (R‚seau International d"ONGs sur la D‚sertification) and to develop an actionplan for the implementation of the Convention. Governments and UN agencies havereacted favorably to the establishment of RIOD and the fact that NGOs are alreadytaking positive action to implement the Convention. During INCD-6, NGOs had dailymeetings with representatives from donor governments and UN agencies to discuss themechanisms for getting funding for implementation of the NGO action programme,specifically for public awareness activities and the involvement of NGOs andcommunity-based organizations in the implementation of the Convention. Theestablishment of this NGO network, and the interest of donors in supporting its work,is an indication of the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS:

Finally, unless both developed anddeveloping country governments demonstrate the necessary political will, thechallenges of the interim period will not be met. All governments must endeavor tosign the Convention, if they have not already done so, and begin the necessaryratification processes so that the Convention will quickly enter into force. The averagelength of time between the date a convention is adopted and when it enters into forceis 32 months. For example, the 1973 CITES Convention took 28 months to enter intoforce, the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution took 40months and the 1989 Basel Convention took 38 months. However, the ratification ofthe two most recent environmental conventions on climate change and biologicaldiversity took only 22 months and 19 months, respectively. If there is sufficientpolitical will, and given the urgency of the matter, particularly in Africa, theConvention to Combat Desertification could enter into force before June 1996 andcontinue this trend.

Affected country governments can also demonstrate their political will by beginningthe process of developing national action programmes with the participation ofcommunity-based organizations and NGOs. Government assistance in raising publicawareness about the causes and effects of desertification is also important in bothaffected and non-affected countries. People in the cities, as well as those in remotevillages, must learn about desertification and how to combat it. Donor countries canalso show their political will by providing resources to affected developing countriesand NGOs for activities such as public awareness raising and the preparation andimplementation of national action programmes.

At the INCD, governments must demonstrate that they can continue to work togethereffectively to ensure that the interim period is a productive one. After all, the purposeof this Convention and the INCD is not to provide a forum for procedural wranglingand prolonged arguments over words. The Committee should be a place todemonstrate commitment and action to improve the situation of the nearly one billionpeople who live in the drylands.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

At its secondsession, the CSD agreed to continue the work of the ad hoc open-endedintersessional working group on finance and established a new working group toaddress the sectoral issues that will be examined by the CSD in 1995 (landmanagement, forests, desertification and biodiversity). The Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on the Sectoral Themes will meet from 27 February - 3 March 1995. The AdHoc Working Group on Finance will meet from 6-10 March 1995. Both meetingswill be in New York.

The third session of the CSD will meet from 11-28 April 1995, at UN Headquarters inNew York. Focus will be on the following cross-sectoral chapters of Agenda 21:poverty; demographics; integrating environment and development in decision-making;biotechnology; major groups; and information. Financial resources and mechanismsand the chapters on transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation andcapacity building, science and education will also be discussed. The sectoral cluster forthis session includes the chapters on land management, forests, desertification anddrought, mountains, sustainable agriculture, biological diversity and the ForestPrinciples.

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

At its secondsession, the CSD agreed to continue the work of the ad hoc open-endedintersessional working group on finance and established a new working group toaddress the sectoral issues that will be examined by the CSD in 1995 (landmanagement, forests, desertification and biodiversity). The Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on the Sectoral Themes will meet from 27 February - 3 March 1995. The AdHoc Working Group on Finance will meet from 6-10 March 1995. Both meetingswill be in New York.

The third session of the CSD will meet from 11-28 April 1995, at UN Headquarters inNew York. Focus will be on the following cross-sectoral chapters of Agenda 21:poverty; demographics; integrating environment and development in decision-making;biotechnology; major groups; and information. Financial resources and mechanismsand the chapters on transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation andcapacity building, science and education will also be discussed. The sectoral cluster forthis session includes the chapters on land management, forests, desertification anddrought, mountains, sustainable agriculture, biological diversity and the ForestPrinciples.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY:

The Council of the GlobalEnvironment Facility will meet three times during the INCD intersessional period: 30January - 2 February 1995, 3-5 May 1995, and 18-21 July 1995. All of these meetingswill be held in Washington, DC.

UNEP GOVERNING COUNCIL:

The UNEP Governing Council will meetfrom 18-26 May 1995, in Nairobi.

SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES:

In May 1995, the Secretariat will holdconsultations on awareness raising in Dakar, Senegal. There will also be awarenessmeetings in ten developing countries between February and August 1995. TheSecretariat is also expected to publish a simplified version of the Convention.

SUBREGIONAL AND REGIONAL ACTIVITIES:

Various organizationsand groups have activities planned for the intersessional period. The CILSSwill hold information meetings at the national level about the Convention in eachof its member countries. There will also be a regional meeting with all West Africanmember countries in May 1995. At the end of January or beginning of February 1995,there will be a meeting between the CILSS and the OECD on their jointprogramme of work. The OECD is also arranging meetings in cooperation with Clubdu Sahel with the national leadership of select countries. Club du Sahel"s 1995 annualmeeting will focus on the Convention.

The Arab-Mahgreb Union will hold a three-day consultative conference for its memberStates on the Convention and national action programmes at the end of April 1995,and will invite representatives from governments, NGOs, media, regional organizationsand international institutions.

The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) will host asubregional meeting for East and Southern Africa to discuss all subregional, regional,international and other Conventions of relevance to Africa. The meeting will assess thepolitical, legal and financial implications and benefits for African countries. Theprovisional dates are 8-10 March 1995, in Nairobi.

The Organization of African Unity (OAU) will host two meetings in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia, where the CCD is expected to be discussed. The Council of African ForeignMinisters will meet from 23-25 January 1995 and the African Heads of State areexpected to meet in June or July.

IGADD will host the Second Subregional High-Level Policy and Decision-MakersWorkshop, which will address the state of ratification of the CCD. The workshop isexpected to take place in April 1995. IGADD will also organize a subregionalworkshop in collaboration with NGO country representatives. The workshop, whichwill take place in June or July, will address several issues including awareness raisingand information dissemination.

NGO ACTIVITIES:

The NGOs are currently planning a meeting of AsianNGOs in Karachi, Pakistan, from 17-20 June 1995. This meeting is aimed atorganizing NGOs and raising awareness about the RIOD Network and Action Plan.NGOs hope to organize a similar meeting in Peru in July 1995. US NGOs will meeton 6 April 1995 in Washington, DC, to organize their own awareness-raisingcampaign. The organization Solidarit‚ Canada-Sahel is also planning to hold asubregional meeting in Western Africa.

EarthAction is developing a public awareness campaign in affected countries. This willinclude: action alerts for citizen groups to help them get involved in desertificationprogramme activities; media alerts to assist journalists in producing good news storiesand feature articles on desertification activities; and parliamentary alerts to raise issuesrelated to the implementation of the Convention in national legislatures worldwide.

A number of organizations are publishing guides to the Convention, including theCentre for Our Common Future, the International Institute for Environment andDevelopment, and Econews Africa/ELCI.

INCD-7:

The seventh session of the INCD will take place at UNEPHeadquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, from 7-18 August 1995. The two working groups willbegin their substantive work in preparation for the first Conference of the Parties andare expected to meet through most of the proposed two-week session.

SIGNATORIES TO THE CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION (as of 18 January 1995)

Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Bangladesh
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
CÙte díIvoire
Croatia
Cuba
Denmark
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
European Union
Finland
France
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Haiti
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Luxembourg
 Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mexico
Micronesia
Mongolia
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Portugal
Republic of Korea
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe