Summary report, 27 February – 3 March 1995

The Commission on Sustainable Development's Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Sectoral Issues opened on Monday, 27 February 1995. During the course of the week, delegates discussed the six reports of the Secretary-General on the sectoral issues that will be considered by the CSD at its third session in April 1995. These include: integrated management of land resources, forests, combating desertification, sustainable mountain development, sustainable agriculture and rural development, and biological diversity. During the first two days, delegates discussed the reports prepared by the Secretary-General. The latter three days were spent discussing the draft report of the Working Group. By the conclusion of a week that alternated between technical discussions and political maneuvering, sprinkled with a good dose of humor and more than the average amount of Latin phraseology courtesy of the Chair of the Group of 77 and the Chair of the meeting, delegates adopted their report, including a series of recommendations to present to the CSD.

OPENING SESSION

Martin Holdgate (UK), newly elected Chair of the Working Group, noted in his opening statement that this is not a negotiating or drafting meeting, but rather an opportunity to reach consensus on recommendations to be presented to the CSD on 12 April 1995. He urged delegates to discuss the papers prepared by the task managers for the Secretary-General in light of interlinkages between the sectors.

The Chair then turned to the adoption of the agenda and organization of work (E/CN.17/ISWN.1/1995/1). Tunisia commented that the agenda did not contain the CSD's decision to discuss transfer of technology as both a sectoral and cross-sectoral issue. Joke Waller-Hunter from the CSD Secretariat stated that the CSD's decision was that transfer of technology would be addressed within the context of the sectoral issues. Tunisia requested that the item be left open for further discussion to allow the G-77 and China to consult. The agenda was then adopted.

In her opening statement, Joke Waller-Hunter noted that the preparation of reports by the task managers indicated a deliberate step towards implementing sustainable development. The reports note that in some instances progress is slow, while in others, such as forests and mountains, work is moving quickly. Waller-Hunter said it is up to the CSD to monitor progress on implementation, to come up with appropriate guidance and to indicate the inter-linkages between the processes. The basic approach to land management is a prerequisite to be achieved under each of the other topics and, therefore, necessary to facilitate their implementation.

After the task managers presented their reports, the Working Group heard reports on the Biological Diversity Convention and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Amb. Bo Kjelln (Sweden), Chair of the INCD, presented views on the relationship between the situation in the drylands and other issues relating to land and land use. The Convention remains open for signature at UN Headquarters and the first Conference of the Parties is expected to take place in 1997. The Convention is firmly based on four pillars: the bottom-up approach; a determined effort to build partnerships and improve coordination between donors, affected countries and NGOs; an integrated, multidisciplinary method of work; and efficient use of science, research and technology. Kjelln then highlighted the links between the Convention and the other sectoral issues before the Working Group, including: the long-term food security of a growing world population; integrated land management; the use of genetic resources to assume reasonable livelihoods for marginal lands; the relationship between forests and desertification; lack of water; and energy use. These problems can only be solved by real people in the real world. Political support for early ratification and entry into force are essential, but urgent action for Africa cannot wait.

A member of the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties (COP) for the Biological Diversity Convention, A. Lazar (Canada), noted that biodiversity is one of the central criteria of sustainability. The Biodiversity Convention is about sustainable development and the COP believes that a cooperative, coordinated relationship with the CSD is important. He noted that a spirit of urgency and passion animated the COP meeting in December.

PANEL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR INTEGRATED LAND MANAGEMENT: J. Dhar of India introduced the report of the Panel and noted the need for a holistic and integrated method to address the multiple problems of land management. The report says that failure to develop suitable land management will lead to: permanent destruction of land; inefficient use of resources; accumulated impacts; and cumulative effects such as acidification, reduced water quality and mass migration. The constraints to integrated land management include: limited access to appropriate technology; a weak institutional infrastructure; unsustainable land use practices; and conflicts between different interest groups. The recommendations include: intra- and inter-governmental cooperation; developing public and private partnerships; targeted training and technical support programmes; and direct investment in resource protection. An agenda for the future entails: the provision of accurate information in a usable form; effective participation of all stakeholders; empowerment and commitment to sustainable land use practices; and a consistent supporting framework of regulations, market structures and sectoral agencies working towards similar goals at the national and regional levels. In addition, an international working group should be set up to provide further cross-sectoral guidelines.

ENERGY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A representative of ECOSOC's Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and Energy for Development presented the Committee's report. ECOSOC mandated the Committee to hold a special session to address the concerns raised in Chapter 14(k) of Agenda 21: to initiate and encourage a process of environmentally sound energy transition in rural areas; to increase the energy inputs available for rural household and agro-industrial needs; and to implement self-reliant rural programmes favoring sustainable development and improved energy efficiency.

The Committee made six recommendations for action by the year 2000, noting that priority action should be determined by the key players, including governments, NGOs and intergovernmental agencies. (1) The development and implementation of plans of action to fulfill the energy needs in rural areas. (2) Special attention, in national action programmes should be given to biomass as a source of energy for rural development. (3) A global initiative should be launched, with the assistance of UNDP, the World Bank, the GEF and other interested groups, to bring electricity to rural people, based on the success in renewable energy development. (4) A global initiative for the detailed mapping of renewable resources should be launched jointly by WMO, FAO, UNDP and UNEP, with support from others. (5) A network comprising centers of excellence for environmentally sound technologies should be established under the UN, through which energy technologies are developed and demonstrated. (6) There should be a focus on strengthening of sustainable energy activities in the UN. The Committee also provided an eight-point strategy to attain these objectives.

DISCUSSION OF THE SECTORAL ISSUES

At the beginning of the discussion, the PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, expressed concern at the lack of a separate agenda item on the transfer of technology, but refrained from further delving into the matter in the hope that broader discussion would ensue at the ad hoc working group on finance scheduled for 6-10 March 1995. He stated that while the reports emphasized scientific and technical issues, the human orientation of development, which encompasses capacity building and technology transfer, is essential. TUNISIA and BRAZIL supported the Philippines and argued that there is a need for institutional mechanisms for transfer of technology.

GENERAL COMMENTS: During the course of the two-day discussion of the task managers' reports, a number of delegates made general or cross-cutting comments. AUSTRALIA said that this Working Group should present the CSD with a range of options on these complex issues. The third session of the CSD may want to reinforce a number of key Agenda 21 themes, including the need for national plans to complement regional plans; community involvement; a focus on causes rather than symptoms; and recognition that there is no single solution to any given problem. He also stressed the importance of paying attention to the role of indigenous peoples.

NEW ZEALAND said that the CSD should seek to promote three key principles in relation to this sectoral cluster — coordination, consistency and effectiveness.

NORWAY drew the Working Group's attention to a recent meeting in Oslo on sustainable production and consumption, which took place from 6-10 February 1995, and had 300 participants. It addressed some of the driving forces behind many of the issues to be discussed by the CSD. The report from the Oslo Roundtable makes it clear that sustainable production and consumption requires change in economies and lifestyles.

SWEDEN made a number of comments of a cross-sectoral character, noting that the notion of land use in Chapter 10 provides a structure for the whole cluster. Agriculture, rural development and forestry (Chapters 11-14) are part of a flexible planning system (not in the sense of centralized planning). The special needs of the fragile ecosystems of drylands and mountains, as well as preservation of biodiversity, need to be accommodated. In organizing the treatment of these issues within the CSD context, there is a need for an integrated, holistic and people-oriented approach. Other considerations include the role of science and technology, financial issues, and the general economic environment.

PERU urged the need to comprehensively approach the themes on the agenda. However, he noted that other cross-sectoral issues that need to be addressed include: poverty alleviation; financial resources; transfer of technology; exchange and proper use of information and data; and institutions, participation, and human resources.

The UK made four general points. (1) The Secretary-General's reports were generally good, but proposals for action need to be more focused. (2) Since most activity is taking place at the national and local levels, there is need for national reporting and exchange of national experiences. (3) There is need to identify the important linkages across the issues with land use planning as being central to all. The question is at what level such integration should be done, although land use planning is often most appropriate at the local or community level. (4) Transfer of technology is vital to sustainable development and there is need to integrate it into concrete proposals.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA stressed that the six issues under discussion are interconnected and cannot be isolated from one another. A top-down approach that includes local people and NGOs is necessary when addressing these issues. FRANCE raised the issue of energy for rural development and noted that it has organized a series of seminars on rural electrification using sustainable energy sources. NORWAY supported the recommendations in the Secretary-General's reports. However, he was concerned that although an integrated approach is being emphasized, it is likely that it does not take place in the field due to fragmented planning at the national level, which is likely to cause enormous strains during implementation. The Commission should therefore send a strong signal to the various agencies in order to ensure coordination and avoid duplication of efforts.

BANGLADESH recommended that community and social forestry be included in the Task Manager's report on forests, and stressed the importance of external financial assistance, especially in targeting poverty alleviation. DENMARK said that the issue of consumption and production patterns affects land management and stressed that it is important to take an integrated approach to sectoral and cross-sectoral issues. Out of the six sectoral issues, the CSD should concentrate on land use, agriculture, mountains and forests, but remember that land use is at the heart of all of these issues. The CSD can give political momentum to existing conventions on biodiversity and desertification.

ALGERIA noted that in the more than two years since Rio, achievements have been short of the expectations of developing countries. Treatment of desertification, forests, agriculture and biodiversity should take into account socio-economic dimensions, especially poverty. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said the CSD should consider establishing a databank for agriculture and energy, especially renewable energy.

INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND RESOURCES (CHAPTER 10): Tim Aldington (FAO) introduced E/CN.17/1995/2 and drew attention to a recently concluded Workshop in Wagenigen, the Netherlands, in early February, which could provide additional material for consideration. He stated that land resources are important as they relate to all the other sectoral issues since it preserves natural habitats in the face of societally-induced land degradation. He noted the constraints of using fragmented scientific systems to sustain complex systems previously under traditional use. A new approach to land management, which integrates modern techniques, socio-economic, geographic and community involvement, is necessary. Local people should not only be involved in decision-making, they should have secure rights to use the land. This approach would address: (1) integrated land resource management; (2) national land use planning programmes; (3) cooperation of key actors in order to obtain stable land systems; (4) conflict resolution in peri-urban areas on land and water use; (5) intersectoral dialogue on land management; (6) collaboration in the development of essential tools including classification of land cover, agro-ecozoning and mapping; (7) information exchange and knowledge; (8) collaboration in promoting national and subregional action frameworks; and (9) the establishment of an international working group to facilitate the promotion of these activities.

The NETHERLANDS reported on a workshop on integrated planning and management of land resources held in Wagenigen, the Netherlands, from 20-22 February 1995. The workshop had two objectives — to formulate recommendations and policy options for the implementation of Chapter 10 of Agenda 21 and to exchange experiences on integrated land management. The workshop examined the following three themes: integration of objectives and policy formulation for planning and management of land resources in rural areas; management of a planning process for the use of land resources in rural areas, taking into consideration the interests of all stakeholders; and possibilities for sustainable economic development in rural areas, with emphasis on non-traditional land use.

SWEDEN made four observations: (1) socio-economic aspects that lead to land-degradation need to be addressed; (2) urban growth and land-use conflicts must be examined in order to develop an interface between the cities and land; (3) coastal areas and land use, including pollution of coastal areas through agriculture, should be looked at; and (4) and the use of advanced technology and land-use practices needs to be examined.

CANADA supported the establishment of a programme to achieve the objectives of Chapter 10, including promoting the application of appropriate tools for planning and management, the strengthening of information systems and enhancing the scientific understanding of the land resources system. Canada expressed caution regarding a covenant for good land use as applied to a national policy tied to land title deeds. There is a need to strengthen the coordination between existing sectoral data systems on land and land resources, as well as national capacity to gather and assess data and formulate complementary and mutually supportive policies.

POLAND commented on the paragraphs related to countries with economies in transition in the reports on Chapters 10 and 14. Transition in the agricultural sector is a major problem, since privatization and land redistribution have repercussions that must be voiced in the debate on land resources in Eastern Europe. JAPAN said it is important that every nation formulate and implement an effective programme of action for land management, including cross-sectoral exchange of information, monitoring of resources and promoting wider use of traditional wisdom.

GERMANY did not support the proposal to draw up a covenant for good land use or to establish a working group, as called for in the task manager's report. There is a need to speed up implementation of Chapter 10 by planning and managing land resources in a sustainable manner. Organizations, governments and the UN should collaborate on issues as needed.

MALAYSIA stated that it is the responsibility of each country to develop its own integrated framework of decision-making on land resources, taking into consideration the social and economic framework. The international community should not involve itself in this matter. Consequently, there is no need for the proposed working group to prepare a report by mid-1995.

CHINA stated that the Secretary-General's reports were useful, but made some observations on Chapter 10: land is a limited resource with an increasing demand, causing a challenge for its rational utilization; management relies on legislative and economic incentives that would promote sustainable development and it is necessary to share experiences on this; and the application of scientific and technological processes would be important, especially for countries that are dependent on land resources.

AUSTRALIA noted that it is expensive and time consuming to collect the data needed for a detailed inventory of land and water resources, and suggested setting priorities for information dissemination. Alternatives include developing a checklist for nations to develop their own land use programmes or developing a holistic framework for land use. Australia supported the task manager's proposals in Chapter 10, but would like to see greater emphasis on rural development.

COMBATING DEFORESTATION (CHAPTER 11) AND THE FOREST PRINCIPLES: David Harcharick (FAO) introduced E/CN.17/1995/3 and said his organization is interested in hearing recommendations on the FAO's appropriate role. The report considered recommendations from NGOs, IGOs, UN agencies and governments and covers activities that have been undertaken since 1992, including awareness raising, improvement of programmes, policies and management. He noted that progress in developing countries and countries with economies in transition has been slow. Different approaches and initiatives have been developed in different regions, and the FAO has sent experts to assist in their harmonization. He then outlined some issues of a political nature that the CSD could address: consensus building — defining the balance through which all the needs of the different interest groups can be met; consideration of the three options for the way forward — to maintain a non-legally-binding document, to move to a legally-binding document immediately or to prepare one in the medium- to long-term period; and to address environment and trade related issues on timber production. He added that the most critical issue is defining the balance between protecting and utilizing forests.

AUSTRALIA said that how forests are dealt with in the CSD will set the international framework for this issue. Existing fora and conventions should be used where possible to advance the debate. The work on criteria and indicators on temporal and boreal forests (Montreal and Helsinki Processes) has progressed to the stage where it could be considered by the CSD. The CSD could recommend that appropriate UN bodies develop a work programme to comprehensively address forest issues and that the Biodiversity COP include forest biodiversity in its work programme.

CANADA noted the various country-driven initiatives that have been undertaken to increase understanding of and cooperation on forests and to develop scientifically-based criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. In order to ensure a comprehensive, cohesive and holistic approach to forests, there is a need for a legally-binding instrument on all forests and all forest values, with particular attention to the variety of efforts undertaken related to forests, including those within the biodiversity, climate change and desertification conventions. Canada also recommended that the CSD shape a unified programme of work on key forest issues that would report in 1997 as part of the five-year review of UNCED.

GERMANY said that forest management implies that several cross-cutting issues need to be addressed by considering the social, environmental and economic aspects of the different areas. The CSD has a political role to carry forward the commitments of Rio, by reviewing progress and finding ways and means to further progress on these commitments. It is up to the CSD to decide whether there is need for a legally-binding document. He supported the establishment of an intergovernmental working group that would prepare the options and proposals for submission for review by CSD in 1995 and define the working programme to be established. The group would work under the CSD, but be mandated by the General Assembly.

The AFRICAN FOREST ACTION NETWORK, on behalf of an ad hoc group of NGOs, called for the establishment of an intergovernmental inter-agency group to coordinate and be regularly serviced by agencies active in these programmes. Such a group would include the FAO, UNEP, DPCSD and UNDP. The DPCSD should serve as the focal point. This group should be open, transparent and fully representative of a broad range of stakeholders including IGOs and NGOs. The mandate of the group would be to: (1) conduct a more comprehensive review and recommend specific actions to address the underlying causes of forest loss; (2) make recommendations on the potential of existing instruments as mechanisms to improve forest management; (3) assess and make recommendations on the potential roles and responsibilities of the various regional forest-related agencies; (4) develop a process to improve information dissemination on the status and availability of forest resources worldwide; and (5) recommend and assess the need for global or regional instruments, including new accords and protocols to existing agreements.

FINLAND stated that forest issues cannot be adequately addressed without taking into account its relationship with other land uses. An intergovernmental working group should be established under the CSD, but assisted by other agencies and organizations including the FAO. The output of this working group should be reported to the CSD in 1997. The mandate of the group would include: developing global criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of forests; certification of timber production; resource mobilization; and resources for capacity-building in the protection and management of forests. The Group should ensure the participation of all stakeholders and address, in an open and transparent manner, the necessity for a legally-binding instrument.

NORWAY agreed that there is need for an intergovernmental working group to address all forests, and look into: criteria and indicators for management; certification of trade in timber products; enhancing forest cover and forest use in meeting human needs; the importance of cross-sectoral integration; facilitating open and fair trade for the sustainable management of forests; recognizing and duly supporting identity, culture and rights of indigenous peoples, their communities and other forest communities; promoting a focus on the utilization of existing forest resources and increasing financial resources; capacity-building at all levels; emphasizing that the next CSD look closely at activities of organizations dealing with forest issues; and identifying where coordination is needed and what activities should be considered.

AUSTRALIA said that the criteria and indicators developed under the Helsinki and Montreal initiatives could be harmonized, and certification and labeling schemes could be developed. Other proposals include: develop a clear work programme under the aegis of the CSD, taking into account all existing efforts, but with clear and shared objectives and principles; avoid duplication of activities; set up an open-ended intergovernmental working group that is supported by the relevant UN bodies and the CSD; foster timber certification; address transfer of technology; develop an institutional framework on forests; provide an analysis of the full range of existing instruments and mechanisms to achieve integrated forest management, looking at gaps and cross-sectoral linkages including cooperation mechanisms; and examine possible mechanisms, including the legal, environmental and financial mechanisms, to determine the need for a legally-binding instrument.

The UK concurred on the need for an intergovernmental working group to: harmonize efforts on criteria and indicators; commission research on linkages between forests and other ecosystems; examine ecolabling initiatives; and discuss the desirability of a convention. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA said that consensus on sustainable forest management is needed and the CSD should accept more responsibility. Emphasis should be given to developing alternative fuel sources to reduce dependence on forests. SWITZERLAND raised the issue of mountain forests.

The IUCN highlighted issues that had emerged from an informal NGO/Government dialogue on Monday night. (1) The global community should not make premature decisions and should operate on a consensus basis, as it may not be the right time to make a definitive choice on legal instruments. (2) There is need for an independent assessment of existing agreements, processes and outcomes. (3) Regarding institutional arrangements, organizations should take the lead, but this should be a collaborative effort that includes major organizations. However, the CSD could help in identifying appropriate roles by coordinating the process or possibly establishing an intergovernmental working group on forests. (4) There is a common agenda in the various discussions on forests. (5) The discussion has become less political and more constructive, but an underlying sense of frustration threatens to undermine progress.

The US concurred on the establishment of a CSD working group, supported by UNDP, UNEP, FAO and other organizations, to carry the forest debate forward. This working group should address: national implementation of existing forest conservation policies; the need for new criteria and indicators and coordination of those already underway; the roles of existing organizations and coordination between them; research needs; a review of certification and labeling schemes in promoting sustainable forest management; how to inventory, assess and monitor forest resources; the role of assistance efforts; and the creation of an international network of protected areas. The working group could then assess the necessity of new international agreements on forests and submit a progress report to the CSD in 1996 and final recommendations in 1997.

FRANCE called for a permanent inventory of forest resources, aimed at emphasizing the trans-sectoral nature of forests. National forest action plans are useful to implement the Statement on Forest Principles and Chapter 11 in an integrated way, but they have to be flexible according to national priorities. France called for mobilizing all expertise in a coordinated and integrated way that would avoid competitiveness between UN and national agencies on forest management. With regard to the future programme of work, management criteria and indicators have to be established at the national level. Initiatives on international trade must avoid discriminatory practices and a trade war. Eco-certification must be clarified. There also must be an opportunity for a free and frank discussion on the timeliness of a legal instrument on all forests.

JAPAN said that the development of criteria and indicators is one of the more successful international initiatives in forest management since UNCED. The outcomes of the deliberations on criteria and indicators will affect the international framework on forest management and stimulate activities at the national level. Japan supported the proposal to establish a CSD working group on forests, however, before considering a legally-binding instrument, existing efforts should be evaluated in order to determine the necessary measures.

MALAYSIA supported the call for certification of timber products and stressed that the development of international criteria should be integrated and holistic, so as to cover all forests, through an intergovernmental process that involves all stakeholders. Malaysia did not support the recommendation in the task manager's report for a protocol to the Convention on Biodiversity. He also objected to the proposal for an eminent persons' group to work on forests, preferring an intergovernmental process, in order to ensure that national, not Northern, interests were represented.

CHINA said that the Statement on Forest Principles provides clear guidelines for conservation, management and sustainable development of forests, and a good basis for international cooperation. The necessity for a legally-binding instrument should be considered with the CSD playing a coordinating role. DENMARK and PORTUGAL also supported establishing an open-ended working group. ALGERIA thought that the idea of a legal instrument on forests is premature. The Biodiversity Convention is a useful instrument that embraces forests since it is about preserving ecosystems. The Biodiversity Convention must be implemented before the UN General Assembly can determine the need to prepare another legal instrument.

Bill Mankin, on behalf of the GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT, said that any future intergovernmental process to address forests should promote consensus building and be open-ended with full NGO participation.

NEW ZEALAND said that little is to be gained from producing a lengthy and unwieldy work programme for which sufficient resources are not available. He proposed the establishment of a two-year work process on forest issues. An initial progress report should be submitted to the CSD in 1996 and the outcome presented in 1997. The CSD should direct and oversee the process of work through the creation of an intergovernmental group, which is representative of regions and interests. The DPCSD should not be responsible for action, rather a team effort should be used involving FAO, UNDP, UNEP, ITTO and the Secretariats for the climate change and biodiversity conventions. All the relevant stakeholders must be involved, as appropriate.

Ian Fry of GREENPEACE suggested that the current discussion on establishing a working group on forests should include biodiversity institutions and other NGOs as support groups. Existing international instruments should be analyzed before creating a new one, especially since recent conventions have not had time to prove themselves.

COMBATING DESERTIFICATION AND DROUGHT (CHAPTER 12): Franklin Cardy (UNEP) introduced E/CN.17/1995/4 and noted that it is a joint effort by UNEP, other agencies working to combat desertification, NGOs and governments. After 15 years of effort on desertification following the 1977 UN Conference on Desertification, Chapter 12 of Agenda 21 brought the issues into better focus and changed the emphasis from the technical to the political level. Of particular importance was the political impetus to negotiate the Convention, which was completed on time on 17 June 1994. The Convention places responsibility for combating desertification squarely on governments, with the UN playing a supporting role. Origins, causes and solutions at the local level are more widely recognized and the linkages with biodiversity, water, population, resource consumption, trade, economics, and social and cultural efforts are clear now. The report recommends that the CSD should: encourage States that have not yet done so to become Parties to the Convention; ask all countries to provide support to affected countries in Africa; urge governments and agencies to support the Secretariat in preparation for the first Conference of the Parties; and urge governments to recognize the mutually supportive relationship between combating desertification and sustainable development. The report also recommends that governments set up institutions for implementing national strategies and action programmes and stresses the need to mobilize financial resources to assist countries in implementing the Convention.

CANADA has already begun to allocate financial resources towards combating desertification. The Convention's Global Mechanism will be an important means of promoting actions leading to the mobilization and channeling of substantial financial resources. The PHILIPPINES expressed appreciation for the recognition of land-degradation in all environments. He drew attention to drought-related degradation, and stressed the need to address problems in all drought-prone areas, including the humid tropics.

FRANCE said that desertification and drought cannot be discussed without considering forest management, food security, demographics, education, marginalization of women and children, and trade policies. One of the advantages of the Convention is that the desertification problem was not just tackled from an environmental standpoint, but also takes into account socio-economic aspects and stresses partnerships. The CSD must encourage countries to sign and ratify the Convention as soon as possible. The CSD can also play a role in dissemination of information about the Convention. Priority has to be given to Africa and the CSD might reflect on how to invite various African countries to report on the action they have taken and the problems they face.

The US said that the Convention places an emphasis on planning, donor coordination and a bottom-up approach. URUGUAY supported the Philippines concerning preventative measures against the loss of soil productivity in arid, semi-arid and dry, sub-humid lands. The CSD should also consider the topic of soil erosion. JAPAN agreed that desertification is an issue that should be tackled using a participatory, multi-sectoral, integrated approach. The Convention is the embodiment of such an approach. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA supported urgent action for Africa on desertification, but stated that other affected regions, including Asia, should not be neglected. ALGERIA said that desertification is a problem of a global dimension, like the ozone layer and climate change. The CSD should also promote action to observe the international day to combat desertification.

CHILE announced that it is about to sign the Convention to Combat Desertification. MEXICO noted that it has great experience in managing arid areas, including monitoring and preventing the advancement of deserts, and that it is willing to share this experience.

INCD Chair Bo Kjelln was pleased to hear delegates' support for the Convention to Combat Desertification and added that political support from the CSD is essential. He encouraged countries to ratify and implement the Convention as soon as possible. Soil deterioration in arid zones is a global problem, and Kjelln hopes that the CSD will raise public awareness about the Convention around the world.

SUSTAINABLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT (CHAPTER 13): Tage Michaelsen (FAO) introduced E/CN.17/1995/5 and noted that the existence of a special chapter in Agenda 21 provides an unprecedented opportunity to focus on mountains and related downstream areas. The main conclusion in the report is that there is agreement that awareness needs to be generated at the governmental level on the specificity of mountain issues. Sustainable mountain development must start with a change of attitude towards and treatment of indigenous people and mountain women, including recognition of the right to land, living conditions, protection from exploitation by drug dealers and tourist operations. The problems of mountain communities do not only stem from the lack of assistance, but also the lack of empowerment. The report recommends action in five areas: eradicating poverty; strengthening a global information network and database; strengthening country capacity; raising awareness through the preparation and organization of a world conference on sustainable mountain development; and formulating and negotiating regional or subregional conventions and possibly developing a global mountain charter.

SWEDEN noted: (1) the need to focus on water, and cultural and social patterns of mountain regions; (2) the difficulty of developing a global mountain charter due to these differences, and that regional action programmes may provide the best approach; and (3) the issue of tourism in such fragile areas needs to be addressed.

PERU underscored the need for governments to pay more attention to fragile mountains. Peru has begun work on a national programme on mountains relating to the Andes. Consequently, three meetings were held earlier this year, and one more is scheduled for April. He differed with Sweden on the need for a global mountain charter, which he views as necessary for proper management, hence the need for a world conference to address this matter. The US supported the need to provide assistance to facilitate the sustainable management of mountain ecosystems. There is a need to prevent soil erosion, promote sustainable tourism, environmentally sound mining and fishing, and mitigate the effects of natural disasters.

GERMANY stated that the expert meetings mentioned in the Secretary-General's report demonstrated the complexity of addressing sustainable mountain development as a global phenomenon. He noted that while mountain areas are faced with high risks that require prompt action, the need for a world conference on sustainable mountain development is questionable. Based on their experience in the alpine region, national, sub-regional and regional schemes including all stakeholders, rather than global initiatives, are more practical.

SWITZERLAND said that sustainable mountain development is a new subject that is not well outlined. Mountain regions are marginal in every sense of the word — economically, socially, politically and culturally. Mountains harbor colossal water, energy, biodiversity and other natural resources on which two billion people depend. It is imperative to combat poverty in the mountain regions, involve the full participation of the people concerned, address the question of land ownership and respect the capacity and allocation of public resources for mountain development. Diversity between and within mountains makes it important to plan mountain development at the national level. The CSD should formulate clear indications or guidelines.

According to JAPAN, mountain development must be tackled in an integrated manner to address living conditions and better utilization of mountain resources. AUSTRIA outlined the value of mountains and stated that transport development has contributed greatly to the threat to mountain regions. There is need for integrated approaches to problem-solving that are innovative, dynamic and flexible. A global conference may not be the best approach to address the issue.

The FAO clarified that the proposal for a "world conference" does not connote the specific meaning given to it in the UN. Rather, it suggests inter-regional approaches, and emphasizes regional, national and subregional level meetings, such as the Alpine Convention.

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CHAPTER 14): Tim Aldington (FAO) presented E/CN.17/1995/6 and reported that the proposals made by the FAO are not ideal, but correspond to what can be realistically achieved. The eight proposals contained in the report have the full support of the 107th FAO Council. He then outlined the conclusions of the Report. (1) Productive agriculture is important for sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) as it deals with poverty reduction. (2) Achieving SARD is complex and slow and requires sectoral policies that are coherent and mutually supportive to maintain momentum. (3) There is need for deeper and wider understanding of the social, gender and economic relations between the farmer, the environment, the household and the community. This would enable the development of policy interventions and simple indicators for use in measuring sustainability that are accessible to a wide range of people. (4) More emphasis should be given to strategic or problem-solving research, which has so far been underfunded. (5) There is need for more assessment of the impacts of agricultural trade on SARD in order to redress problems as they emerge.

INDIA noted that SARD is particularly important in poor nations with large farming populations. Solutions involve: the application of better technologies where they are needed most; the ability to undertake good advice, which depends on the availability of resources to local governments; assistance to local governments in devising public policies, while being sensitive to national sovereignty; and identification of the role of the private sector and provision of an international enabling environment for indigenous knowledge and local experiences.

AUSTRALIA, supported by URUGUAY, said there is a need to reform agriculture and trade policies that lead to poor agricultural practices and environmental degradation. The Uruguay Round outcome is important, but only a first step. CANADA noted its cooperative work with other countries and international agencies to develop agri-environmental indicators.

The US noted that SARD is a basic building block for sustainable development and that the pest management programme has saved money in fewer crops lost and increased agricultural productivity. Stronger public participation is a key to SARD implementation and, thus, there should be closer linkages between research centers and farmers to ensure such programmes are farmer-driven. He emphasized the importance of conservation and sustainable utilization of genetic resources and supported the FAO process on plant genetic resources.

NEW ZEALAND said that policy reform in OECD countries is essential to improve market returns for developing countries, thereby contributing to SARD, the alleviation of poverty and improved access to suitable and productive technology. Any review of the Uruguay Round should include an analysis of the benefits for SARD and the possible benefits that further reform might bring. He expressed concern about the FAO comments on animal genetic resources, since at this stage this issue does not merit institutional development at the international level.

The EC welcomed the Secretary-General's report and endorsed its proposals. Policy reform is fundamental in programmes and projects for SARD, and this requires an understanding of the objectives to be undertaken. While the report focuses on the role of the FAO in providing assistance, the EC and donors should also provide help for priority activities included in the report, such as programmes and projects in land and water management. Trade liberalization is a key issue. He called for a more open trading system that promotes the efficient use of resources in economic and environmental terms. Its effects, however, must be monitored in order to avoid undesirable social and environmental impacts. There is a need for environmental indicators, based on a multi-disciplinary and scientific approach that is practicable and effectively uses data to measure progress.

MALAYSIA said there are still problems on how to recognize and measure the value of indigenous knowledge. There should be compensation and protection of farmers' intellectual property rights. CHINA said that SARD requires emphasis on key elements, including the examination and verification of existing laws and policies and adjustment of agricultural structures

The OECD pointed out that finance and technology are critical areas not addressed in the report. She outlined the on-going efforts in the OECD to utilize cleaner technologies and reduce the use of pesticides. Environmental education, economic policies and consumption and production patterns are three crucial issues that need to be addressed.

The INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS stated that farmers should be considered the focal point of any discussion of land issues for sustainable development. In this respect, the CSD needs to address capacity- and institution-building for farmers, including: strengthening farmers' organizations; enabling a two-way dialogue in the articulation of the needs of communities; enabling them to identify problems and formulate solutions; initiating a dialogue with inter-governmental agencies; and enhancing capacity in training and extension work.

BIODIVERSITY (CHAPTER 15): H. Zedan (UNEP) presented E/CN.17/1995/7 and noted that biodiversity cuts across larger issues such as trade and the environment. Thus, it is essential to consider different issues that demonstrate the cross-sectoral nature of biodiversity. Two gaps in scientific research related to biodiversity involve determining the total economic and ecological value of biodiversity, and the total number of species on earth and the associated rate of loss. The report highlights the experiences of major groups, but lacks input on implementation by governments. It also touches on finance and technology issues. He noted the difficulty in establishing the amount of additional funding that has been realized as a result of the additional work organizations have undertaken. The key recommendations to the CSD are: (1) coordination with other action plans and strategies at the national level; (2) studies on the impact of existing land tenure practices to be undertaken in collaboration with indigenous and local communities; (3) financial resources from the UN; (4) baseline data to measure success or failure of programmes; (5) effective mechanisms to realize human and technical capacity in developing countries; (6) economic tools to measure sustainable development in realizing the four objectives; (7) data on the benefits arising from resource use; (8) restructuring of remuneration policies and incentive measures for existing or new legislation; (9) discussion and studies on intellectual property regimes for genetic material; and (10) assessment of the possible negative impacts of agro-trade systems.

SWEDEN said there is need for more emphasis on genetic resources and to go beyond the recommendations of the Convention in addressing economic sectors. AUSTRALIA said that the Biodiversity Convention provides a good basis from which to move forward. The CSD needs to ensure that biodiversity is integrated into the various UN agencies. CANADA emphasized the key role of the Biodiversity Convention COP in achieving the objectives of Agenda 21 and acknowledged the roles played by the GEF as the Convention's interim financial mechanism and the FAO as the venue for related agreements on biological resource issues, particularly the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources.

The US commended the work of the COP, called on those dealing with biodiversity to cooperate closely with one another, and urged all nations to ratify the Convention. JAPAN noted that Chapter 15 is multi-disciplinary and complex in nature and the CSD should promote interaction among the various intergovernmental fora. MALAYSIA said efforts must ensure that activities and programmes that are drawn up correspond to the Convention. The CSD should not take up issues that are outside the purview of the Convention. He noted that women in some parts of the world play a key role in ensuring sustainable land use, and expressed shock at paragraph 43, which misrepresents indigenous peoples.

CHINA noted the progress made at the first meeting of the COP, but added that some issues were still not settled. Although the developing countries are the main possessors of biodiversity, they still lack finances, have outdated technologies and lack human capacity, all of which should be addressed by the COP and the CSD. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA stressed the importance of information sharing and suggested that a clearinghouse mechanism might be established.

The NETHERLANDS COMMITTEE OF THE IUCN emphasized that biodiversity should be acknowledged as a cross-sectoral issue. The information from the COP should be taken into consideration. DENMARK said that the Biodiversity Convention needs additional ratifications. The cross-cutting nature of biodiversity should be considered at the national level. NEW ZEALAND said that the current work programme for the Biodiversity Convention is too ambitious and that the Secretariat does not have adequate resources to fulfill all expectations. Nevertheless, the CSD should support the Convention and ensure that all governments and international agencies work to support the Convention's objectives.

INTRODUCTION OF THE CHAIR'S REPORT

An informal paper was circulated Wednesday morning containing the outcomes of the previous two-day's discussions. Introducing the paper, Holdgate pointed out that the report is provisional, but provides a basis for further discussion. Part I covered the structure of the report and deals with organizational aspects and will take the form of the Working Group reports submitted to the CSD in 1994. Part II was on the interlinkages of the sectoral issues and highlights several aspects, including approaches to sustainable development, tools, finance issues, transfer of technology, cooperation and capacity-building and coordination with existing conventions. Part III contained the key proposals for action, highlighting proposals that the CSD might address. Part IV contained a summary of the comments on the Secretary-General's reports.

GENERAL COMMENTS: Several delegates said the Chair's paper provided a useful basis for discussion. The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said there are a number of important issues that should be contained in the text, including: national sovereignty over resources; cooperation between governments; the need to implement the relevant chapters of Agenda 21; CSD coordination of the implementation of Agenda 21; transfer of technology on preferential, concessional and grant terms; and the need to implement Chapter 33 of Agenda 21. The EU disagreed with the G-77 and China's proposal for additional items, since it would unnecessarily broaden the agenda.

Japan, supported by the US and Canada, suggested that the paper be restructured to start with the recommendations from the Secretary-General's papers, followed by the discussions of the Group and concluding with the proposals for action. Canada stated that the report should reflect the consensus of the Group, be coherent, people-centered and less technical. France, on behalf of the EU, suggested that paragraph 14 spell out how the recommendations could be addressed at the third session of the CSD.

II. COMMON ELEMENTS AND INTERLINKAGES

In this section, most of the delegates' comments addressed the paragraphs on finance and technology transfer.

Paragraph 9 (financing issues): The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said this paragraph should support all the provisions of Chapter 33 of Agenda 21. There should also be reference to the need for "partnerships" between developed and developing countries and cooperation among multilateral financial institutions, as well as recognition that the financial support is for developing countries. The US wanted to add a new sentence acknowledging that low-cost actions can now be taken at the national level. The EU, supported by New Zealand, stressed that this paragraph should be balanced and address both international financing and national resources. The EU also took note of the G-77's request to reference financial support for developing countries and mentioned the need for South-South-cooperation, to which the Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, responded that Chapter 33 of Agenda 21 is not about South-South cooperation. Malaysia objected as well, adding that this issue is addressed in other fora. This forum is relevant for North-South cooperation. China concurred stating that this agreement dated back to General Assembly resolution 44/228 and was based not just on financial ability but on historical responsibilities as well.

Japan agreed with the G-77 and China that elaborate discussion on financial issues will take place next week, and concurred with France and the US on the need to undertake financial mobilization at the national level. There is need to make reference to private sector financing as it is becoming an increasingly important source of funds. Canada suggested that while they were not opposed to making reference to Chapter 33 and 34, it is necessary that reference to technology should correspond to the sectoral issues.

Paragraph 10 (technology transfer): The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, thought that technology transfer issues should be implemented as they are described in Chapter 34 of Agenda 21. There also needs to be mention of capacity building for the recipients so they can use and develop technology. New Zealand thought that the reference to scientific research is too vague, and that the Group should develop some priorities.

Paragraph 11 (technology transfer): The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that indigenous farmers' technologies must be recognized within intellectual property regimes. The US preferred to say the "consideration" rather than the "protection" of farmers' rights. The EU said that any language here should be based on the Biodiversity Convention. New Zealand thought that the reference to the Mexico City meeting in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity was vague. Australia wanted to add references to monitoring biodiversity, land use, agriculture and forestry and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

Paragraph 12 (coordination of existing conventions and related processes): The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that the Climate Change Convention should be included. New Zealand and Norway said that there should be reference to coordination among international organizations in this paragraph. Benin said that the role to be played by other bodies in the UN system and their possible contributions to the conventions should be mentioned. Japan had no problem including the Climate Change Convention, but cautioned that it may dilute the emphasis on the biodiversity and desertification conventions. Canada emphasised that the recommendations should draw on the principles of the Convention and not suggest new action. Tunisia referred to paragraphs 33 to 38 of the report of the first CSD and pointed out that it was not within the CSD's mandate to coordinate any of the Conventions or agencies.

III. KEY PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

A few editorial amendments were made to the eight proposals for action. There were, however, a few proposals that generated substantive debate, including those related to technology transfer, forests, SARD and biodiversity.

The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, did not think that NGOs should be listed as equal partners with governments and UN agencies in developing tools for integrated land management. He proposed a new formulation that calls for appropriate contributions from NGOs. France maintained that the work of the OECD should be mentioned since it provides valuable lessons. Tunisia, on behalf of the G-77 and China, preferred the development of internationally agreed indicators, which are global in nature, rather than criteria. The US questioned why criteria and indicators on forests should be developed, when a recent FAO meeting concluded that it was impossible to develop global criteria. In any case the upcoming conference of Ministers in Rome, might be the appropriate forum to address this issue. China proposed that activities be undertaken "in an open and transparent manner, with the full and effective participation of developing countries," reflecting their specific conditions and needs.

There was debate on the need for an open-ended intergovernmental panel to address the issue of forests, under the aegis of the CSD. Following negotiations within a contact group, it was decided that such a panel be established. The CSD will determine its terms of reference and the modalities for its establishment.

The proposals by the Committee on New and Renewable Energy for Development also attracted debate. The US wanted to delete this reference entirely, while France, on behalf of the EU, had reservations due to the implied possibility of creating new institutions. He amended it so that action on energy is facilitated by relevant organizations and donor agencies, rather than establishing a network of centers of excellence. Subsequently, the US withdrew its objection.

The G-77 and China made a new proposal to encourage the Biodiversity Convention to immediately determine the ways and means to economically evaluate the knowledge of farmers and indigenous people and give adequate protection and compensation to farmers rights in the context of intellectual property rights. Australia and Japan reserved their positions on compensation to farmers, since farmers' rights differ from intellectual property rights. The US said that this topic is not appropriate for this forum and should be deleted. France, on behalf of the EU, said that intellectual property rights are governed by WIPO and the CSD may not be able to give directives to Parties to a convention.

Malaysia expressed surprise at hearing the strenuous objections to the basic rights of farmers. She pointed out that this issue is already on the agenda of the Biodiversity Convention COP and the recommendation is only asking the CSD to encourage the COP to carry out its work in this direction. Language on compensation and protection of indigenous knowledge and farmers rights is also contained in the Convention to Combat Desertification and was discussed at the biodiversity meeting in Mexico City.

India, supported the Philippines and Malaysia, noting that compensation for knowledge is now generally accepted. Hence, information on technologies developed by farmers should be fairly compensated and there should be a mechanism to address this.

Denmark agreed with France and drew attention to the Medium Term Programme of work adopted by the first COP to the Biodiversity Convention in the Bahamas, in which it adopted as the agenda for 1996 the knowledge, innovation and practices of local communities. He suggested that this be used as the compromise language. No agreement could be reached so the Chair adjourned the meeting and promised to craft a compromise proposal over night.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE SECRETARY GENERAL'S REPORTS

After protracted debate, delegates agreed to merge paragraphs 14 and 15 to include five ideas: (1) the Group had noted the detailed proposals for action in the Secretary-General's reports; (2) the Group welcomed many of the proposals but had reservations on some; (3) equal emphasis should be placed on action aimed at implementation at both the national and international levels; (4) there is need to further define the priorities of the different recommendations; and (5) the CSD and other appropriate implementing agencies should give further consideration to the detailed proposals as a basis for action.

Chapter 10 — The Integrated Planning and Management of Land Resources: This chapter covers issues related to national and subregional programmes on land use and management. The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, added reference to "the management of land and its resources" in paragraph 16. India wanted to include reference to the report on the Panel on Science and Technology for Development in the same paragraph.

Chapter 11 — Forests: Taking into account the delicate nature of this issue, France proposed establishing a small contact group to work on this section. This proposal was supported by all delegates and the contact group, including delegates from France (EU), Brazil, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Poland, the Russian Federation and China, met on Thursday afternoon. The Group's proposals were to be based on the comments made on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.

On Wednesday, all delegates agreed that the basis for any further work on forests should be Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and the Statement of Forest Principles. Canada was pleased to see recommendations for a two-year work programme, which should also stipulate the functions of the intergovernmental working group. Rather than have technical assessments, the proposed programme could deal with pooling together the existing initiatives. Brazil, on behalf of the G-77 and China, proposed the addition of "unfavorable terms of trade" to the factors that have adverse influence on forests. Brazil also proposed that instead of an inter-governmental working group on forests, a "panel on forests, under the aegis of the CSD," was a better option. The Group also wanted the tasks of the proposed panel drawn from the Statement of Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, rather than those proposed in the Chair's paper.

On Thursday, when the discussion continued, the Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, added that: there should be a reiteration of national sovereignty over resources; tropical forests are covered by the ITTA; and the terms of reference of the panel should be drawn from Chapter 11 of Agenda 21.

France, on behalf of the EU, said that some of the words, such as the establishment of a "panel" on forests, are ambiguous. The US preferred the establishment of a CSD ad hoc working group rather than a panel, modeled after the IPCC. The working group should be intergovernmental, open-ended, transparent and participatory, facilitated by the DPCSD, and draw on the expertise of relevant UN agencies, NGOs and others. The US, supported by New Zealand, added that if this Working Group does not come up with specific guidelines, it leaves itself open to action taken by the FAO ministerial meeting in mid-March.

Papua New Guinea expressed skepticism with regard to the establishment of an intergovernmental working group. Such intergovernmental panels emerge and then rapidly evolve into a "closed house scenario" where small countries are often marginalized. He added that a number of these working groups exist and since their mandates have not been exhausted, Papua New Guinea is not convinced that another "talk shop" is needed. There are no real experts in sustainable forest management because this is a new concept. Traditional land owners are often the true experts.

China warned against plunging into new exercises without giving the Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 a chance. He reiterated the need to be guided by some of the basic principles that emanated from UNCED, including an integrated approach towards environmental protection and economic development, with a proper balance between the management and sustainable development of forestry resources.

Canada reminded delegates that the work undertaken by the Intergovernmental Working Group on Forests, convened by Canada and Malaysia, is based on Chapter 11 and the Forest Principles and already involves 32 countries, five IGOs and 11 NGOs. In paragraph 21, Canada suggested that the working group or panel should draw upon the coordinating role of the DPCSD, assisted by the IACSD as well as other specialized agencies within their competence, including FAO, UNEP, ITTO, the World Bank and UNDP.

Australia and New Zealand wondered if the G-77 saw a difference in what either a panel or a working group could accomplish. Australia and Japan supported Canada in the need to recognize previous work in the forest debate. Australia also proposed that the CSD recommend that the COP for the Biodiversity Convention should consider adding forest biodiversity to its medium-term work plan. New Zealand questioned this proposal because the medium-term work programme is already overloaded. New Zealand did not agree with the G-77 and China's proposal to delete the list of the main elements of the activities of the proposed working group.

Chapter 12 — Desertification and Drought: The Chair's three-paragraph draft: emphasized the need for an early ratification of the Convention; recognized land degradation in the humid regions and drylands; proposed that desertification programmes be carried out in line with the Convention; and called upon the CSD to give political support to the Convention, assist in awareness raising, and urge early ratification and effective implementation, especially in Africa.

Burkina Faso, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that the text should call for support of the Resolution on Urgent Action for Africa and promote actions in other regions. Benin said that the phrase "although desertification by definition occurs in the drylands only" should be deleted because the definition of desertification in Agenda 21 and the Convention says that desertification occurs in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas. This paragraph should also mention that desertification has a direct impact on the loss of biodiversity.

The G-77 and China felt that in order to implement the Convention, the CSD should take a certain number of steps, including: observing 17 June, which is the international day for desertification; promoting awareness of parliaments and decision makers on the implementation of the Convention; encouraging workshops, seminars and other meetings; closely following and monitoring the preparation for the first COP; and contributing towards the mobilization of the necessary financial resources for the Convention.

Burkina Faso, on behalf of the G-77 and China, Uganda and Benin pointed out that the Secretary-General's paper acknowledges the interface between desertification and land degradation and biodiversity, climate change and water. Both documents also underscore the need for international cooperation and partnerships. These issues should be reflected in the report to the CSD. Uruguay and the Philippines welcomed the reference to land degradation in the humid regions and Uruguay amended the text to include land degradation in "humid and sub-humid regions," to extend the definition beyond that of the Convention.

Peru and India stressed the need to acknowledge that urgent measures are needed in other regions affected by desertification and that these references should be reflected in the text. France, on behalf of the EU, said that emphasis should be given to both the signing and ratification of the Convention, as well as the concepts of participation and partnerships on which it is based. In response, the Philippines stated that the G-77 and China believe that the COP to the Convention should play its appropriate role, but the CSD plays a vital catalytic role.

Chapter 13 — Sustainable Mountain Development: The draft noted: the social, economic and cultural aspects of human development in mountain areas; the emphasis on action at the local, national and subregional levels; the need to reduce poverty; the need for mountain development programmes with a participatory approach; the need for regional inter-governmental consultations and exchange of experiences; a world conference is unnecessary; and the CSD's role in encouraging subregional agreements, such as the Alpine Convention.

Peru, on behalf of the G-77 and China, stressed the importance of collaboration between international bodies, NGOs and governments in implementing Chapter 13. Regional action is also important, but it requires the support of the international community as well as the participation of local and indigenous communities and NGOs. He stressed that the proposed international meeting would facilitate the exchange of objectives, results and experiences derived from the on-going regional consultations. The EU suggested that regional instruments may be premature, but favored initiatives to formulate subregional agreements on mountains. Switzerland concurred with the G-77 and China, but stated that the role of the academia should also be noted. He preferred the use of the term "regional" to "subregional" instruments. Switzerland would be interested in a world conference, but not at Summit (Heads of State) level.

France, on behalf of the EU, preferred action to be taken at the local and regional levels, and did not support an international meeting. Consequently, the CSD should support the efforts of coordination for the preparation and negotiation of subregional and international initiatives.

Chapter 14 — Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: The Chair's paper stated that: SARD should have a balanced approach, which addresses food security and protection of resources, while addressing multiple objectives; SARD requires monitoring the social and environmental impacts of trade liberalization; and SARD also requires agri-environmental indicators to measure progress, attitude change, and the availability of energy for agricultural and agro-industrial productivity.

Argentina, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that mention should be made of the outcome of the Uruguay Round. The work of competent economic and environmental organizations, such as the WTO, UNCTAD and UNEP, should be noted. Uganda, supported by Malaysia, added that the social, environmental and economic impacts of trade should be monitored and evaluated.

The EC concurred with Argentina's proposals and supported developing criteria, not just indicators, to monitor the status of, and progress in, the transition to SARD. Malaysia, supported by China, objected to this proposal unless there was clarification whether the criteria were national or international, and as long as they applied to both developed and developing countries. Japan said it is premature to address the Uruguay Round before implementation of its agreements.

Malaysia objected to the mention of the WTO, arguing that a trade body cannot make recommendations on environmental matters. The EC noted that the WTO has a Committee on Trade and Environment, in which the CSD participates, hence it would be strange for the CSD not to recognize it.

Chapter 15 — Biodiversity: The Working Group supported the Chair's proposals, and made few amendments. The paper acknowledged: the value of the Secretary-General's report in making progress; the cross-sectoral nature of the biological diversity and link with the other issues under discussion; and the Convention as the principal mechanism for biodiversity conservation. Proposals to the CSD include: urging the ratification of the Convnetion; encourage the Convention to take a lead in exploring coordination of existing related global and regional agreements and cooperation mechanisms; and to integrate the Convention agreements into their national and related sectoral plans.

India, on behalf of the G-77 and China, proposed additional text: to promote fair and equitable sharing of benefits accrued from the profits of biodiversity. France, on behalf of the EU, emphasized that the Secretary-General's report provided a sound basis for the use and access to genetic resources. He said the report from the COP should also be noted by the CSD. He argued that coordination should go beyond national plans to cover "sustainable development, particularly in the sectors of forestry, agriculture, marine living resources, rural development and land use."

Peru said the proposal should: (1) recognize the important role of biodiversity in food security, agriculture and combating poverty; and (2) mention the need to protect the traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities. Malaysia concurred, and, supported by the Philippines, suggested that the text also reflect that the COP had already drawn up plans to discuss biosafety.

ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT REPORT

On Friday afternoon and evening the Working Group worked through the draft report paragraph-by-paragraph until the entire text was adopted at 9:30 pm. The following is a summary of the draft report, highlighting those paragraphs where lengthy debate ensued.

Introduction: This paragraph notes that the report of the Working Group is not a negotiated text, although its contents have been thoroughly discussed

II. COMMON ELEMENTS AND INTERLINKAGES

Paragraph 2 notes that Chapter 10 on an integrated approach to planning and management of land resources provides the overall framework for the implementation of the cluster.

Approaches: Paragraphs 3-6 note the following: respect for national sovereignty; the need for a comprehensive approach to the implementation of the Rio commitments; a people-oriented approach is central to sustainable development; any approach to the planning, development and management of land resources needs to address an array of cross-sectoral issues, including employment, poverty eradication, changing demographic patterns and unsustainable consumption and production; and governments, local communities and organizations and the private sector are all stakeholders in the development, use and management of land resources.

Tools: Paragraphs 7 and 8 note the importance of land assessment and evaluation methodologies and the need for human resource development for capacity building, awareness raising and empowering people.

Finance: Paragraph 9 notes that national efforts in developing countries to mobilize financial resources for full and effective implementation of Agenda 21 have to be supported by the international community. The US wanted to refer to the importance of implementing the financial "provisions" of Agenda 21, while the G-77 and China preferred mentioning the financial "commitments." The compromise text reads that it is imperative that all "financial recommendations and commitments of Agenda 21" are implemented.

Technology Transfer, Cooperation and Capacity Building: Paragraph 10 notes that technology transfer, as set out in Chapter 34 of Agenda 21, is a key element in the attainment of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 adds that the sharing of scientific knowledge and the transfer of environmentally sound technology, including on concessional and preferential terms in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 34 of Agenda 21, are crucial instruments for achieving the objectives of Agenda 21. Paragraph 12, which references safeguarding farmers rights led to a lengthy discussion. The US wanted the sentence to read "Matters related to farmers rights and indigenous knowledge were discussed." The G-77 and China insisted that the sentence refer to safeguarding farmers rights and mention that all of these issues were considered important. The final compromise was: "Matters related to safeguarding farmers rights, indigenous knowledge, innovation, and intellectual property rights were discussed and their importance was emphasized."

Relationship between existing conventions and other related processes: Paragraph 13 calls upon the CSD: to support the actions the COPs have planned to undertake; to urge governments to sign, ratify, accede and implement the conventions; to look into the relationship between the Convention and other on-going work on sustainable development; and to promote a coordinated approach towards implementation at all levels for efficient resource use.

PART III: RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORTS

Paragraph 14 takes note of the proposals contained in the Secretary-General's reports, some of which are welcomed, and recommends that the CSD determine future action based on the reports' recommendations as well as the views expressed at the intersessional meeting.

Chapter 10 — Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land Resources: Paragraph 15 acknowledges land and resource management as a matter for "national and subregional action," although the G-77 and China had wanted it to be recognized as "a national prerogative calling for national action." The results of the Wagenigen meeting, as well as those of the Commission on Science and Technology, were considered worthy of the CSD's consideration. Paragraph 16 underscores the necessity for an exchange of information and methodology, but the cost of data collection calls for a focus on priority topics. Paragraph 17 states that the proposals for a covenant on good land use and an international working group were not supported.

Chapter 11 — Forests: The proposals in this section were the results of negotiations within a Contact Group chaired by Amb. Bo Kjelln (Sweden). Paragraph 18 recognizes the need for the CSD to promote the efforts of Chapter 11and the Forest Principles, within the work of other UN agencies. If further options are to be considered, the preference is for an intergovernmental process. Paragraph 19 recognizes that addressing forest issues will require discussing cross-sectoral issues such as poverty, population growth, consumption and production patterns, and trade issues, as well as unsustainable policies related to agriculture, energy and trade. Paragraph 20 welcomes the progress by countries, and calls for further concrete action, some of which are outlined in the Secretary-General's report. In this connection, it requests the CSD to consider an intergovernmental panel on forests, under its aegis, which is open, transparent and has a participatory approach, to assess work already done and to propose further action, while drawing upon the expertise of relevant agencies and organizations. Paragraph 22 states that the CSD will determine the mandate and operational modalities for the proposed panel, and suggested that the terms of reference be drawn from elements in the Forest Principles, Agenda 21, other forest-related international initiatives, some of which are contained in Annex I. The panel will provide a progress report to the fourth session of the CSD and its conclusions to the fifth session.

Chapter 12 — Combating Desertification and Drought: The proposals in this section were largely accepted, the only contention being whether to limit its context to the Convention on Desertification. The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, stated that the Convention to Combat Desertification was limited to action in the drylands, while discussions within the CSD, the GEF and the General Assembly dealt with land degradation in a broader sense, covering the sub-humid and humid tropics. Hence "action on drought," and not just "mitigation of the effects on drought," was preferred. There was a lengthy debate on the reference to financial resources for the implementation of the Convention. After consultations, delegates called for "the mobilization of financial resources, inter alia, as called for by the relevant provisions of the Convention (Articles 6, 20 and 21) and needed for its implementation, particularly with regard to the Resolution on Urgent Action in Africa."

Paragraphs 23-26 urge the CSD to: give strong political support to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention as well as the Convention process; continue its catalytic role; take action on drought and recognize land degradation in the sub-humid and humid regions. In addition the CSD should promote: the observation of the international day for desertification; awareness raising among policy makers; an integrated approach to combating desertification; and the mobilization of finances and resources.

Chapter 13 — Sustainable Mountain Development: The only issue in this section that led to discussion was the need for an international meeting on sustainable mountain development. While most delegates agreed that they did not want a world UN conference, there was still the question about under whose aegis the meeting should be and if it would involve UN agencies.

Agreement was reached to say "A wider international meeting, possibly involving appropriate UN bodies, could facilitate the exchange of objectives, results and experience of sustainable development in different mountain regions." Paragraphs 27-31 also note: the active role played by NGOs and the academic communities in the follow-up to Chapter 13 of Agenda 21; the need for action at the local, national, subregional and regional levels to reduce poverty, diversify mountain economies and create new livelihood opportunities; the need to encourage countries to prepare and implement national mountain development programmes; and the CSD should support efforts to coordinate the preparation and negotiation of subregional international agreements on mountains.

Chapter 14 — Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: The only problem in this section was the reference, in paragraph 33, to intergovernmental processes on trade and the environment, including the WTO, the Final Act of the Uruguay Round and the Cairn's Group initiative. After protracted debate, numerous proposals and the Chair's patient reconstruction of text, agreement was reached. Paragraph 32 recognizes the need for SARD to improve and maintain food security as well as protect physical and biological resources. Paragraph 33 underlines the value of undistorted sectoral and economy-wide policy framework with environmental considerations. In this context it noted the work of intergovernmental fora directed towards reforms to reduce market distortions. It recommends that the impacts of trade liberalization in the agricultural sector, especially in the least developing countries, are monitored and evaluated. To this end, paragraph 34 calls for the need to develop internationally agreed agri-environmental criteria and indicators to monitor the status and progress towards SARD. Paragraph 35 outlines the strategies towards achieving SARD: adopting a systems approach; addressing attitude change; and developing policies and practices in line with SARD, while building the necessary capacity to establish and maintain them. Paragraph 36 recognizes energy as a prerequisite for SARD and urged the CSD to give consideration to the proposals by the Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and on Energy for Development.

Chapter 15 — Conservation of Biological Diversity: Although a number of amendments were made to this section, they were adopted with little debate. Paragraph 37 takes note of the Secretary-General's report. Paragraph 38 stresses the cross-sectoral nature of biodiversity and notes that biodiversity relates to issues of food security, the eradication of poverty and the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people. Paragraph 39 recommends that the CSD should: urge governments to ratify the Convention; encourage the Convention to take the lead in exploring means for coordinating relevant global and regional agreements related to biodiversity; urge Governments to integrate actions geared to conserving biodiversity; promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits accruing from the utilization of biological resources; and encourage the mobilization of the means of implementation. Paragraphs 40 and 41 promote human resource development and capacity building, and recommend the systematic consideration of biodiversity issues in all other relevant sectors.

PART IV: KEY PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

Paragraph 42 contains eight proposals for the CSD's consideration. Sub-paragraph (a) encourages the exchange of views by governments on integrated land management. Sub-paragraph (b) encourages the development of tools for integrated land management. Sub-paragraph (c), which necessitated additional informal consultations, urges the CSD to accord high priority to technology related issues, including taking action on capacity and institutional building and the establishment of inventories on eco-technologies in the sectors under consideration, particularly through the establishment of eco-environmental technology centers.

Sub-paragraph (d) urges States to sign, ratify, accede to and implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Sub-paragraph (e) calls on the CSD to establish an open-ended intergovernmental panel on forests. Sub-paragraph (f) encourages action by Governments for the sustainable development of mountain areas. Sub-paragraph (g) encourages Governments to integrate action on energy into their efforts for sustainable agriculture and rural development.

After lengthy consultations, sub-paragraph (h) was redrafted so that it: welcomes the decision of the COP to the Convention on Biological Diversity to include in its medium term programme consideration of knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities; takes note of the statement of the COP that it would also be desirable that future work on the protection of traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to conservation and sustainable use should be coordinated with relevant bodies; and welcomes the progress made in revising the international undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, which relates to outstanding matters concerning plant genetic resources, including access to ex situ collections and the question of farmers rights.

ANNEX I

The Annex provides a list of proposals from which the CSD could draw the terms of reference for the intergovernmental panel on forests. Delegates agreed not to negotiate the contents of this annex, but that any additional proposals would be added to the list. The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China, then proceeded to read out a laundry list of proposals suggested by members of his group. All of these proposals will be included in the final text of the report, which will be submitted to the CSD.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING

The success of any process can only be judged by assessing its output against its objectives. This session of the CSD ad hoc working group on sectoral issues was convened to provide governments with an opportunity to discuss the sectoral issues to be considered by the third session of the CSD and provide guidance and recommendations. In view of the fact that the Working Group had only one week to deal with six chapters of Agenda 21, the meeting could be considered a success since delegates were able to identify key proposals on which there is broad consensus. Among other factors, this success can be attributed to the Secretary- General's reports, which were focused and specific in their recommendations, as well as the procedure of work that the Chair adopted, enabling the Group to have two days of general discussion and three days of focused debate on the report and recommendations to the CSD.

Another aspect of the meeting's success was its ability to reach consensus. A report that lacked consensus would not only have been inherently weak, but would have led to yet another debate at the CSD, rendering the week's efforts a waste. No doubt the Chair's sense of humor and neutral stance as well as the high level of concentration contribued to the enabling negotiating environment.

Notwithstanding these successes, the Working Group's enormous workload prevented delegates from any detailed consideration of the issues. The Secretary-General's reports provided several proposals for action without providing a list of priority actions. Consequently, the Group's proposals do not necessarily reflect the priority or urgent action needed, but rather, the general recommendations that all delegates could agree upon.

Most of the recommendations demonstrate a positive step towards realizing sustainable development. Throughout the discussions, delegates regularly acknowledged the need to involve all stakeholders, including local communities, industrial interests, academia and NGOs, in order to better address these sectoral issues. This acknowledgement of the multi-stakeholder aspect of land management may have been a source of difficulty in deciding between an intergovernmental working group on forests, an eminent persons group, or an international panel of experts. It was appropriately recognized that no expertise exists on how to sustainably manage forests, hence, there is a need for an open, transparent and participatory body that is not merely composed of scientists. Notwithstanding this goodwill towards opening up governmental processes, the modalities of how to ensure both an integrated and transparent approach are still necessary. The CSD, as well as other UN agencies, needs to begin to address how to bridge the gaps in existing structures, especially in developing countries. How the expertise that is now widely recognized to be resident with local communities is to be drawn out is an issue that is not only relevant to forestry issues, but the overall implementation of Agenda 21.

As many delegations expected, the issue of forests dominated the discussions. The numerous post-UNCED intergovernmental initiatives on forests, including the Indo-British and Canada-Malaysia initiatives, as well as the Montreal and Helsinki Processes, also indicate a high level of interest in the issue. The fact that both the North and the South adopted moderate positions from the outset of the Working Group's discussions provided a constructive environment in which to address these substantive issues. Although negotiating a new legally-binding instrument on forests was considered premature, the positive atmosphere demonstrated during the Working Group meeting bodes well for the work of the proposed intergovernmental panel.

Degradation of forests, land and mountains and loss of biodiversity are closely related to current agricultural practices and although delegates recognized the integrated nature of these sectoral issues, it is surprising that integrated land management and sustainable agriculture and rural development did not emerge as the central issues. This indicates that the CSD, like the UNCED process before it, still has a long way to go before sectoral and cross-sectoral environment and development issues can be treated as an integrated whole.

Determining the overall success of this meeting calls for an assessment of the impact that the delegates' key proposals to the CSD will have on sustainable development. Given the general and non-binding nature of the proposals and Agenda 21, it is likely that the impact of these proposals will be minimal. In fact, in some instances, it was clear that some delegations tended to renege on previously agreed on commitments. Thus, unless the requisite pressure is generated at the national level, both in the developed and developing countries, the results of this meeting will only be worth as much as the paper they are printed on.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE CSD-3

PROGRAMME TO PROTECT MARINE AREAS FROM LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES: Government-designated experts will meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, beginning Monday, 6 March 1995, to review and revise the draft Global Programme of Action to Protect the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities at a one-week session organized by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The meeting's goal is to define concrete activities for the programme at the global, regional and national levels that will be reflected in the final document to be presented for adoption at an Intergovernmental Meeting in Washington, DC, in November 1995. This final preparatory meeting for the Global Programme of Action, hosted by the Government of Iceland, is part of a comprehensive, sequential and coordinated approach to alleviate environmental and health problems related to pollution of the marine environment caused by land-based activities, as proposed in Agenda 21 and approved by the 17th session of UNEP's Governing Council in 1993.

For more information, contact: Ministry for the Environment, International Affairs Division, Vonarstraeti 4, 150 Reykjavik, Iceland; tel: +354-1-609-600; fax: +354-1-624-566.

FAO COMMITTEE ON FORESTS: The FAO Committee on Forests (COFO) will meet in Rome from 13-16 March 1995. Its agenda includes: major issues for CSD attention related to sustainable management and development of forests; regional perspectives on implementation of UNCED agreements for the attention of the CSD; a summary of post-UNCED initiatives in forestry; efforts towards harmonization of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; and a review of advantages and disadvantages related to initiating the evolution of the Forest Principles into a legally-binding international instrument or convention on forests.

COFO will be preceded by a meeting with NGOs on 8-9 March and a meeting with the private sector on 10 March. Ministers responsible for forestry will meet on 17-18 March, in a high-level segment to search for agreement on major issues to be considered by the CSD. For more information, contact Richard Lydiker, Director of FAO's Information Division, at +39-6-5225-3510.

FAO COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: The FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) will meet from 27-31 March 1995 in Rome. The FAO representatives will report on the CSD ad hoc open-ended intersessional meeting on sectoral issues and the Committee is also expected to discuss UNCED follow-up and the issue of animal genetic resources. For more information, contact Richard Lydiker, Director of FAO's Information Division, at +39-6-5225-3510.

THIRD SESSION OF THE CSD: The third session of the CSD will meet from 11-28 April 1995, at UN Headquarters in New York. Focus will be on the following cross-sectoral components of Agenda 21: Chapters 3 (poverty); 5 (demographics); 8 (integrating environment and development in decision-making);16 (biotechnology); 22-32 (major groups); and 40 (information). Financial resources and mechanisms (Chapter 33) and the chapters on transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity building (34), science (35) and education (36) will also be discussed. The sectoral cluster for this session includes: Chapters 10 (land management); 11 (forests); 12 (desertification and drought); 13 (mountains); 14 (sustainable agriculture); 15 (biological diversity); and the Forest Principles.

At its meeting on 30 January 1995, the CSD Bureau agreed on a draft programme of work for the session. During the first two days, the reports of the two ad hoc intersessional working groups will be presented by the Chairs, followed by a panel discussion where people will react to the reports. The CSD will then move into the discussion of the other cross-sectoral issues on the agenda. There will also be a segment on local authorities, which is scheduled for 18 April. In the second week, there will be a new element — an exchange of experiences at the national level. A day will be devoted to sustainable development strategies and five countries will present national experiences, followed by a discussion. The second day will focus on agriculture and land management and five countries will present their national experiences. The Commission will then draft the decisions that the CSD will adopt. On Wednesday, 26 April, the High-Level Segment will begin. During this Segment there will be a panel on mass media and sustainable development and a panel on employment and sustainable development. On Friday 28 April, the report of the meeting will be adopted. For more information, contact the CSD Secretariat at +1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: dpcsd@igc.apc.org.