ENB:05:14
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND TECHNOLOGICAL PARTNERSHIP:
While many participants noted that the Working Group on finance would follow the Working Group on technology, and that this Group should confine its discussion to practical issues relating to mechanisms to support technology transfer, a number of participants returned to the language of Agenda 21 and the agreements reached in Rio. The developing countries were at pains to reiterate their interpretation of Chapter 33 -- industrialized governments had made commitments to finance sustainable development and technology transfer towards that end. Despite a downturn in the global economy since Rio, that commitment must still remain and developing countries cannot be expected to finance their development alone through mechanisms such as swaps and private sector stimulation. China complained of the conditions attached to many bilateral aid agreements where the donor country's technology must be used and where the price of such technology is inflated above the market price. A number of participants discussed the relative values of joint ventures and venture capital funds; debt for EST and sustainable development swaps; use of financial incentives; tax holidays and enterprise zones; and the establishment of an environmental property rights bank, which should be further studied. Many participants supported the BOT concept (Build-Operate-Transfer). Under this concept a private company builds a project, operates it long enough to pay back its debt and to achieve a return on equity and then transfer it to the host government. BOT is particularly appropriate for large scale plants such as municipal waste plants. Japan called for better donor coordination at the country level and suggested that a separate financial facility be created at country level for joint ventures and that the private sector be encouraged in this way.
At the conclusion of consideration of the main substantive items on
the agenda there was a discussion on the future of the working
group and intersessional work in general. A number of governments
supported the view that it was beyond the mandate of the experts in
this Working Group to recommend the future of intersessional work
and that this be left to the CSD itself. While almost all those who
spoke welcomed the Oslo and Cartagena meetings as models of
effective ways of working, a number of G-77 members were publicly
and privately concerned that these informal meetings not be the
only forum for continuation of work and that the intergovernmental
nature of the working group be preserved. Many of these governments
felt that the informal workshops excluded them to a greater degree
as they lack the resources to participate. Some governments
suggested that next time the Working Group on finance should meet
before the Working Group on technology next time to clarify the
parameters for their work. The Chair argued, however, that going
first meant that concrete recommendations could be made for the
Finance Working Group's discussion. A number of governments also
supported the idea of asking the private sector and other groups to
participate and be represented in future meetings. It was also
noted by Benin that time pressure had been increased by the
decision to restrict the meeting to three working days.
[Return to start of article]