Summary report, 14–25 June 1993

CSD-1

Jump to Analysis

One year to the day after the final gavel fell in Rio, the UNCommission on Sustainable Development (CSD) convened its firstsubstantive session to begin the process of monitoring theimplementation of the decisions taken at UNCED. Withrepresentatives from the 53 member countries and observers fromother nations, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies andother international organizations, the CSD spent two weeks at UNHeadquarters in New York, touching briefly on progress made andobstacles encountered in the year since Rio, but focussingprincipally on developing the mechanisms for effective review andmonitoring of the implementation of Agenda 21 and the other Rioagreements. Only now that the mechanisms have been established andset into motion, can the review of Agenda 21 implementationactually begin.

During the course of the session, the Commission addressed thefollowing items: adoption of a multi-year thematic programme ofwork for the Commission; issues relating to the future work of theCommission; exchange of information regarding the implementation ofAgenda 21 at the national level; progress in the incorporation ofrecommendations of UNCED in the activities of internationalorganizations and within the UN system; progress achieved infacilitating and promoting the transfer of environmentally soundtechnology, cooperation and capacity-building; and initialfinancial commitments, financial flows and arrangements to giveeffect to UNCED decisions.

After initial discussion of these items in Plenary during the firstweek of the session, the Chair, Amb. Razali Ismail of Malaysia,submitted six draft decisions to the two informal negotiatinggroups for consideration. Informal Negotiating Group I, chaired byGhazi Jomaa of Tunisia, was responsible for adoption of amulti-year thematic programme of work for the Commission; issuesrelating to the future work of the Commission; and exchange ofinformation regarding the implementation of Agenda 21 at thenational level. Informal Negotiating Group II, chaired by ArthurCampeau of Canada, was responsible for progress in theincorporation of UNCED recommendations in the activities ofinternational organizations; transfer of environmentally soundtechnology; and finance. On 23-24 June over 50 ministers gatheredto participate in the high-level segment and address a number ofissues related to the future work of the Commission andimplementation of Agenda 21.

On a sad note, during the first week, Amb. Razali announced thepassing of Amb. Hamadi Khouini, the Permanent Representative ofTunisia to the UN and Vice Chair of the CSD. Razali noted thatKhouini was a man of great energy, strong spirit and strong faithand that he made many things happen in the United Nations.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CSD

The idea of a Commission on Sustainable Development emerged fromwithin the negotiating chambers at UN Headquarters just over oneyear ago at UNCED PrepCom IV. While most of Chapter 38 of Agenda 21went "unbracketed" to Rio, the PrepCom forwarded two options forthe international institutional follow-up to UNCED: 1) a high-levelCommission on Sustainable Development that would report to theGeneral Assembly on matters of substance and to ECOSOC on mattersof coordination; or 2) the use of a revitalized ECOSOC with asubsidiary mechanism such as a third sessional committee or theutilization of its high-level coordination segments. During UNCED,in meetings of the contact group on institutions led by Amb. RazaliIsmail of Malaysia, a compromise was reached that called for theestablishment of a high-level Commission on Sustainable Developmentthat would be a functional commission of ECOSOC. The compromisetext also recommended that the 47th session of the General Assemblytake the decisions on the specific organizational modalities of theCommission, including the number of members and matters related tothe frequency, venue and duration of meetings.

During the 47th Session of the General Assembly (GA) the SecondCommittee decided to establish a special ad hoc working group underthe guidance of Amb. Razali to deal with the list of specificrecommendations made by UNCED to be considered by the GA, includingthe establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development.After one month of intense negotiations, the group completed a34-paragraph resolution that set out the terms of reference of theCommission, its composition, guidelines for the participation ofNGOs, the organization of work, the CSD's relationship with otherUN bodies, the high-level advisory board and Secretariat- supportarrangements.

This resolution, A/RES/47/191 "Institutional arrangements to followup the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,"was adopted by the General Assembly on 23 December 1992. In thisresolution, the GA requested that the Economic and Social Council,at its organizational session in 1993, set up the CSD as afunctional commission and that the Secretary-General submit to the1993 ECOSOC organizational session his proposals on the rules ofprocedure applicable to the Commission. The resolution alsorecommended that the Commission hold a short organizational sessionin New York to establish the Bureau and decide on the agenda forits first substantive session. It also called on theSecretary-General to establish, within the new Department forPolicy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), aSecretariat to provide support to the CSD.

The ECOSOC organizational session, which was supposed to meet from2-5 February, ended up lasting for two weeks. The ECOSOCnegotiations on the CSD took much longer than anticipated to reachagreement on the procedural arrangements for the participation ofthe European Economic Community. ECOSOC was able to take fourdecisions related to the CSD that: 1) established the CSD; calledfor election of the 53 members to be held on 16 February; set thedates for the organizational and first substantive session, andagreed on the provisional agenda for the organizational session; 2)established the rules of procedure for the CSD as a functionalcommission of ECOSOC, including supplementary arrangementsregarding the participation of specialized agencies, IGOs and NGOs;3) decided to conduct a review of current arrangements forconsultations with NGOs; and 4) requested that the regionaleconomic commissions submit reports to the CSD by 1994 on theirplans to implement Agenda 21.

The CSD held its organizational session from 24-26 February 1993 atUN Headquarters in New York where the members elected the Chair andother members of the Bureau; discussed the provisional agenda andorganization of work of the Commission at its first substantivesession; and approved an outline of a multi-year thematic programmeof work. Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia was elected the firstChair of the Commission. The Commission also elected the other fourmembers of the Bureau who will serve as Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur:Rodney Williams, Antigua and Barbuda's Minister for EconomicDevelopment, Tourism, Industry (and Environment); the late HamadiKhouini, Tunisia's Ambassador to the UN; Bedrich Moldan, Directorof the Charles University Centre for Environmental Scholarship andformerly of the Czech Ministry of the Environment; and ArthurCampeau, Canada's Ambassador for Environment and SustainableDevelopment.

The organizational session adopted three decisions. The first wasthe provisional agenda of the first substantive session. The secondwas a series of decisions relating to the future work of theCommission. These include: the Commission will establish informalnegotiating groups as needed at each session; the Commission willdecide which reports it will consider when preparing the agendasfor future meetings and how it will consider contributions fromentities outside the UN system, including NGOs; and the Commissionrequested the Chair to hold informal consultations on its work.These consultations took place in late March and were chaired byCSD Vice-Chair Hamadi Khouini. The last decision recommended aclustering of Agenda 21 chapters as the basis for the multi-yearthematic programme of work of the Commission.

THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CSD

The first session of the CSD was called to order on 14 June by Amb.Razali. In his opening remarks, Razali spoke of the understandingthat environment and development are both interrelated and mutuallyreinforcing. Sustainable development, achieved through partnership,is based on this collective understanding and the role of theCommission as a monitoring body depends on support from the publicto redirect resources under Agenda 21. He added that this meetingmust clearly produce results to signal that commitments given inRio remain strong.

Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and SustainableDevelopment Nitin Desai delivered a message from UNSecretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He said that the challengeis to give practical expression to the pledges made in Rio. Heemphasized the need to address the unsustainability of poverty andthe lack of development. The follow-up to Rio has been incorporatedwithin the current UN restructuring, adding that it needshigh-level positive guidance and financial support from memberstates.

Amb. Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg, Permanent Representative to the UNfrom Brazil, delivered a message fromBrazilianPresident ItamarFranco on the first anniversary of the Rio Conference. He said thatthe CSD pushes the process forward as it balances development andenvironmental concerns. The spirit of cooperation, represented bythe commitments undertaken, must be translated into a new globalpartnership. He stressed that the right to development must beensured.

US Vice President Al Gore recalled the Rio Conference and theshared understanding by the participants that they were committedto a common future. He discounted those who say that humans areexempt from the laws of ecology, emphasizing the Clintonadministration's commitment to join other governments in theleadership on a new course. He announced the US government's planto establish a National Council on Sustainable Development. Hespoke frankly on the issue of consumption, saying that developedcountry citizens have a responsibility to deal with theirdisproportionate impact on the global environment. While the CSDcan't do everything, it should seek to exert leverage on otherinstitutions. He said that it is a myth that industrializedcountries have a monopoly on ideas and that economic developmentand environmental responsibility are incompatible. He set out twoguiding principles in the pursuit of sustainable development:governments must take national responsibility for change; andpartnership is needed, both among countries and with the privatesector.

OPENING SESSION

MULTI-YEAR THEMATIC PROGRAMME OF WORK

The proposed programme of work through 1997 was presented indocument E/CN.17/1993/5. In each year from 1994-1996, the followingfive cross-sectoral clusters of Agenda 21 will be reviewed:

Critical elements of sustainability: Chapters 2 (international economic policies); 3 (combatting poverty); 4 (changing consumption patterns); and 5 (demographic dynamics and sustainability).

Financial resources and mechanisms (Chapter 33).

Education, science, transfer of environmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacity-building: Chapters 16 (biotechnology); 34 (technology); 35 (science); 36 (education); and 37 (capacity-building).

Decision-making structures: Chapters 8 (integrating environment and development in decision making); 38 (international institutional arrangements); 39 (international legal instruments and mechanisms); and 40 (information for decision-making).

Roles of major groups (Chapters 23-32)

In each year particular emphasis will be on different chapters ofAgenda 21 within each of the cross-sectoral clusters. The sectoralclusters will be reviewed in three phases, as follows:

1994: Health, human settlements and freshwater (Chapters 6, 7, 18 and 21); and Toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes (Chapters 19, 20 and 22).

1995: Land, desertification, forests and biodiversity (Chapters 10-15).

1996: Atmosphere, oceans and all kinds of seas (Chapters 9 and 17).

The 1997 session will have an overall review and appraisal ofAgenda 21 in preparation for that year's special session of theGeneral Assembly, as envisaged in resolution 47/190. The divisionof Agenda 21 into these clusters was discussed in great detailduring the organizational session in February and the proposedmulti-year thematic programme of work met with little opposition.

The final decision document, E/CN.17/1993/L.4, states that theCommission will ensure an integrated approach to environment anddevelopment, taking full account of the principles of the RioDeclaration and all other aspects of UNCED, paragraph 4 of GeneralAssembly resolution 47/191, as well as of the cross-linkagesbetween and among sectoral and cross-sectoral components ofrelevant chapters of Agenda 21. In carrying out its programme ofwork, the CSD will take into account the results of majorintergovernmental events and negotiating processes, with a view tointegrating these activities in the process of review of theimplementation of Agenda 21. The CSD will also take into accounttime-frames with regard to specific targets identified in Agenda21.

ISSUES RELATING TO THE FUTURE WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The Chair presented a draft decision (E/CN.17/1993/L.2) to thegovernments early in the session. This draft was the result ofinformal consultations conducted in March. The draft addressed suchissues as the establishment of informal negotiating groups, thedistribution of documents, the high-level segment, intersessionalconsultations, the participation of international organizations,reporting to the Commission and participation of NGOs.

The issue of pre-sessional consultations was one of the moredifficult ones to resolve. Originally, this paragraph stated thatthe Chair should conduct pre-sessional consultations on issues suchas the need for informal negotiating groups and other specificsessional arrangements for the Commission's work. Some countriesfelt that these consultations should be open to all UN memberStates and others thought that only members of the Commissionshould participate. Others did not think that there was a need forconsultations. After several attempts at modification, theparagraph was deleted, since many believed the phrase"pre-sessional consultations" could constrain the Bureau.

The discussion on the paragraphs related to the high-level segmentfocussed on the need to ensure that the segment was an integralpart of the CSD. Several countries, including the EC, China,Germany and Pakistan, proposed that the outcome of the high-levelsegment would be a concise agreed document. However, Australia,Mexico and Austria did not agree. Venezuela did not want theproposed document to lead to prolonged negotiations. The finalcompromise reads: "The result of the high-level meeting may be aconcise document, should the participants deem that appropriate."A number of countries supported a broader range of ministerialparticipation, to include ministers for environment, development orfinance. The final paragraph reads: "The Commission encourages theparticipation of ministers in its high-level meetings."

There was a lengthy discussion on the paragraphs requesting reportsfrom organizations of the UN system, including internationalfinancial institutions and the GEF, as well as international,regional and subregional intergovernmental organizations outsidethe UN system. Delegates expressed concern about a proliferation ofreports, the need to produce reports that were comparable, and thatthe report would be either too analytical or not analytical enough.Consensus was achieved on the addition of two new paragraphs. Onerecommends that the reports requested should be prepared on thebasis of comparability of information contained. The otherparagraph requests the Secretary-General to prepare analyticalsummaries of reports that the Commission may specifically requestfrom UN agencies, when such reports are highly technical orspecialized in nature.

The final decision, E/CN.17/1993/L.2/Rev.1, also says that theCommission will decide at each session on the need for and numberof informal negotiating groups as long as the number of groups doesnot exceed three during each session and no more than two groups beallowed to meet simultaneously. The Commission requested theSecretary- General to take all measures to ensure that the reportsare distributed in all official languages not less than six weeksbefore the Commission's meetings. The Commission should submit itsreport with agreed consolidated recommendations to ECOSOC and,through it, to the General Assembly. The report of the High-LevelAdvisory Board, containing its expert advice on issues related tothe implementation of Agenda 21, should be submitted to theCommission through the Secretary-General. Finally, theconsideration of NGO contributions should be based on CSDprocedural arrangements and the Commission may decide on specificarrangements for holding special informal meetings during itssessions in order to have a direct informal dialogue withrepresentatives of NGOs and major groups.

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

The Secretariat's document on this agenda item, E/CN.17/1993/6,said that experience gained from the UNCED process showed that theone-year period provided for preparation of national reports basedon suggested guidelines was insufficient. Format and size varied,and it was hard to extract information and maintain uniformity inthe analysis. The Secretary-General recommended that it would beuseful for governments to follow some standardized format inpreparing their reports/communications for the Commission,including: they must be in one of the official UN languages, notexceed 50 pages, refer to specific facts and data that wouldreflect improvements or degradation of situations, and be submittedto the Secretariat at least three months prior to the start of theCSD session.

During the discussion on this subject delegates raised a number ofconcerns about government reporting. Many developing countries wereconcerned that information provided by the governments should bevoluntary and the Secretariat should not set guidelines or astandardized format for these reports. Australia and the Nordicsbelieved that the national reports should be limited to theclusters of the multi-year programme of work being discussed ateach session and should be as brief and concise as possible. Thefinal paragraphs relating to government reporting state: it is upto individual Governments to decide on the degree of detail andregularity of their reporting to the CSD, however, the informationprovided should be relevant to the Agenda 21 clusters to bediscussed that year; it should be concise (no more than 50 pages);and it should be accompanied by an executive summary of no morethan 5 pages. To ensure a more focussed and coherent analysis ofthe information received by Governments, the Commission agreed onthe need for the Secretary-General to prepare reports using astandardized format, "which Governments may wish to follow," takinginto account the format of Agenda 21. Finally, Governments areencouraged to submit their information not less than 6 months priorto the Commission's session and, to facilitate the work of theSecretariat, Governments are encouraged to notify theSecretary-General of a point of contact that has knowledge of theinformation provided.

Paragraph 7 of the final document (E/CN.17/1993/L.3/ Rev.1) lists13 guidelines that the Secretariat should follow on preparing theinformation to be included in the analysis of information receivedfrom Governments. Debate on this paragraph focussed on the questionof whether Governments will be required to follow these guidelinesor if they are only for the Secretariat. There were also a numberof specific comments on the guidelines. The compromise text reads:"Governments, in providing information to the Secretariat, areencouraged to take into account the above guidelines, in order,inter alia, to facilitate the task of the Secretariat." The13 guidelines include:

Policies and measures adopted at the national level to meet objectives of Agenda 21;

Institutional mechanisms to addresses sustainable development issues, including the participation of NGOs and major groups;

Assessments of progress achieved to date;

Measures taken, including indicators, and progress achieved to reach sustainable production and consumption patterns and lifestyles to combat poverty and limit the demographic impact on the life-supporting capacity of the planet;

Impact of environmental measures undertaken on the national economy;

Experience gained (descriptions of successful policies/projects that can serve as models);

Specific problems and constraints encountered;

Adverse impact on sustainable development of trade restrictive and distortive policies and measures;

Assessments of capacity;

Assessments of needs and priorities for external assistance in terms of finance, technology transfer, cooperation and capacity-building and human resource development;

Implementation of Agenda 21 commitments related to finance;

Assessments of the effectiveness of activities and projects of international organizations; and

Other relevant environment and development issues, including those affecting youth, women and other major groups.

Paragraphs 9 and 10 of L.3/Rev.1 address the issues of Secretariatreports for future sessions of the CSD. A lengthy discussion ensuedduring which questions were raised about the number of reports theSecretariat was being asked to prepare and the guidelines orrestrictions being proposed. Egypt suggested that the Secretariatprepare only one report, whereas the EC said it was essential tohave an overview report and thematic reports relating to theprogramme of work. India proposed a compromise that reflectedconcerns about the analytical and substantive nature of the reportsas well as the need for separate reports. A number of countriesalso proposed amendments to the guidelines. The final formulationrequests the Secretariat to prepare: (1) an annual overview reporton progress made in the implementation of Agenda 21, which shouldfocus on the cross-sectoral components of Agenda 21 and thecritical elements of sustainability; and (2) thematic reports,corresponding to the Agenda 21 sectoral clusters to be included onthe agendas of forthcoming sessions of the Commission, inaccordance with the multi-year programme of work. This secondreport should include the following:

Progress achieved to date in the implementation of the objectives of relevant chapters of Agenda 21;

The main activities that countries are undertaking or planning in order to achieve those objectives;

Experience gained;

Assessments of developments in capacity-building;

Specific problems and constraints encountered by Governments at all levels;

Assessments of the availability of domestic human, technological and financial resources and of needs and priorities for external assistance; and

Assessments of specific expectations from international organizations, financial institutions and funding mechanisms.

Paragraph 11 addresses two issues: sharing of local, national,subregional and regional experiences on the implementation ofAgenda 21; and the elaboration of realistic, usable and easilyunderstandable indicators to provide a basis for assessment ofprogress towards sustainable development. When one delegatecommented that this paragraph was not clear, the Chair of InformalNegotiating Group I, Ghazi Jomaa, responded that this is consensuslanguage, which is not always clear, but the Secretary-General hasa large bureaucracy and they are certain to understand what thisparagraph means.

PROGRESS IN THE INCORPORATION OF UNCED RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE UN SYSTEM

The Secretariat distributed four documents on this agenda item:E/CN/17/1993/8, "Progress in the incorporation of UNCEDrecommendations in the activities of international organizations,"prepared on the basis of inputs received from agencies andprogrammes of the UN system, covers major areas of activitiesrelated to the implementation of Agenda 21, as well as newinitiatives and processes launched within the UN system toimplement the results of UNCED and incorporate sustainabledevelopment principles at all programme levels. E/CN.17/1993/9,"Improving coordination of programmes related to development datain the UN system," outlines current and prospective UN activitiesrelevant to the recommendations of Chapter 40 of Agenda 21. Thefirst section describes the nature of a possible "DevelopmentWatch" and the second section describes UNSTAT's proposals forintegrated accounting and indicators of sustainable development.E/CN.17/1993/13 contains information provided by the Trade andDevelopment Board of UNCTAD on the implementation of Agenda 21 andE/CN.17/1993/14 contains information provided by UNEP on theimplementation of Agenda 21.

During the discussion in Plenary, more than 22 UN agencies andrelated organizations gave presentations. A number of agenciesmentioned the need for greater coordination and cooperation withinthe UN system, as well as with NGOs and the private sector. Manyreported they are currently reviewing activities in relation toAgenda 21.

UNCTAD is working on linkages between commodity policy, environmentand development. UNICEF said that follow-up to the World Summit forChildren is encouraging. UNEP has placed its priorities in threeareas: capacity building and partnerships with other UN agencies,IGOs NGOs and the private sector; catalyzing responses toenvironmental problems by bringing governments together; andsensing the environment. The World Bank's actions on Agenda 21include: IDA replenishment; US$2.2 billion to 20 countries forenvironmental concerns; ensuring that lending is environmentallyand socially benign; and partnerships with other organizations andNGOs. UNDP described its new Sustainable Development Network andCapacity 21.

UNFPA is developing an analytical framework to guide linkagesbetween population, environment and development. WHO is developinga new strategy on health and the environment. UNESCO is promoting:education for sustainable development; ecosystem management; andsupport for training and capacity building. UNU is establishing awater resources center in Ontario and a center on governance inBarcelona. GATT said its priority is a successful outcome to theUruguay Round. UNIFEM called for gender balance in institutionsimplementing Agenda 21. ILO is collaborating on the programme onchemical safety, completing a convention on the prevention ofindustrial accidents and has developed its own Agenda 21. The IMOis focussing on degradation of the marine environment from offshoreoil and gas platforms and waste from ships. UNIDO is assisting inthe implementation of the Montreal Protocol and other conventions.IAEA is focussing on capacity building and IFAD is adjusting itslending portfolio in response to Agenda 21. IMF is introducingpoverty alleviation concerns into adjustment programmes. UN DrugControl Programme emphasized the relationship between the drugtrade and the environment. The World Food Programme is increasingassistance for disaster mitigation. OECD is focussing on sharingexperiences of OECD members in specific policy areas, peer reviews,and data indicators.

When Governments had the opportunity to comment, France, supportedby Nigeria and India, suggested that agencies make statementsduring the substantive discussions on issues that fall within theirmandates, rather than in the middle of an interminable discussionof agency activities. The US said the priority is to implement asystem-wide sustainable development strategy, includingrestructuring and reallocation of resources. The EC said thatfuture CSD sessions should allow more dialogue with the agencies.The Nordics suggested that inter-agency coordination would beenhanced if countries took a consistent position in governingbodies. Egypt said the IACSD should address the allocation of tasksand determine why there is overlap. China stressed increasedcoordination and cooperation on the basis of comparative advantage.Brazil stressed the crucial importance of liberalization of tradein the achievement of sustainable development. The NGO Task Forceon Legal and Institutional Matters said that the leading bodies ofrelevant treaties, organizations and the GEF should work togetherto ensure the implementation of Agenda 21. She stressed the needfor Secretariat and intergovernmental coordination; agency reportsshould follow a format with respect to specific informationregarding Agenda 21; and a framework should be established for NGOparticipation in intersessional consultations.

In the negotiations on E/CN.17/1993/L.6 that followed inInformation Negotiating Group I (due to the difficult negotiationson finance and technology transfer, the Chair decided to moveconsideration of this item from Group II to Group I), a lengthydebate ensued on paragraph 1. This paragraph notes initial measurestaken to implement Agenda 21 within the UN system, including theestablishment of the Inter-Agency Committee on SustainableDevelopment (IACSD). Some countries were concerned about ensuringthat the IACSD was effective and determining how the CSD couldmonitor its activities. A number of delegates said that the CSDshould also look at measures taken to implement the ForestPrinciples, the Rio Declaration and the conventions. The finalparagraph takes these matters into consideration and also requeststhe Secretary-General to continue to inform the CSD on measurestaken to ensure the effective functioning of the IACSD.

In paragraph 3, on the need for further measures to incorporate theprinciples of sustainable development in the UN system, Uruguay,Austria and the Netherlands favored a flexible system that wouldnot include the creation of a new body. The US cautioned againstinitiating a new reform study process. France said complementarityshould be stressed and overlap avoided. The final paragraph reads:"The Commission recognized the need for further enhancinginter-agency coordination in the UN system to ensure morecost-efficient, effective and result-oriented follow-up to theConference, to avoid duplication and to ensure more efficient useof resources in the implementation of Agenda 21."

Paragraph 4, on harmonization of governing body policies, invitesECOSOC and, through it, the General Assembly, to take intoconsideration the implementation of Agenda 21 in the context of theongoing process of restructuring in the economic, social andrelated fields. As proposed by the Nordics, paragraph 5 calls oncountries to maintain consistent positions in various governingbodies to achieve greater harmonization of policy direction.Paragraph 6 addresses the lack of funding to meet the new mandatesstemming from Agenda 21 and asks UN programmes to provideinformation regarding their financial needs and priorities that arerelevant to UNCED follow-up. Paragraph 7 mentions the importance ofenhanced cooperation between the UN system, NGOs and major groups.

Paragraph 8 requests all international organizations, includinginternational financial institutions, to report on their UNCEDfollow-up activities and ensure that the reports: assess theprogress achieved in implementation of relevant chapters of Agenda21; identify gaps and opportunities for cooperation, includingcooperation with NGOs and major groups; compare and assess therelevance, strength and usefulness of various programmes andactivities; clarify organizational responsibilities within the UNsystem; and assess the progress made in reducing unnecessaryduplication of efforts. The remaining paragraphs addressimprovement in the coordination of programmes related todevelopment data; discontinuing the reporting requested by theGeneral Assembly in resolutions 42/186 and 42/187, to avoidduplication of work; and incorporation of UNCED recommendationsinto programmes and processes within the UN system based on themulti-year thematic programme of work.

FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS, FLOWS AND ARRANGEMENTS

The Secretary-General's reports on this agenda item(E/CN.17/1993/11 and Add.1), provide information on initialfinancial commitments, financial flows and arrangements to giveeffect to the decisions of UNCED from all available funding sourcesand mechanisms. The report analyzes the agreement for the 10threplenishment of the International Development Association (IDA),discusses various issues related to the Global Environment Facility(GEF) and its restructuring and replenishment, and addresses recentdevelopments with regard to enhancing the flows of official andprivate capital to developing countries and debt relief. Add.1reviews information provided by governments, including officialdevelopment assistance (ODA) levels, debt relief, aid priorities,main activities and funding relevant to sustainable development andspecific contributions to environmental conventions.

The Plenary debate on finance highlighted many of the same concernsexpressed during the UNCED process: GEF restructuring andreplenishment; sources for the financial resources necessary toimplement Agenda 21; ODA levels; debt; commodity prices; conclusionof the Uruguay Round of GATT and the elimination of protectionisttrade policies; the need for a climate conducive to foreign directinvestment; IDA replenishment; and how to address the needs of thecountries with economies in transition.

GEF BRIEFING:

In Plenary, Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of theGEF, briefed the Commission on the status of GEF restructuring andreplenishment. In the question and answer session that followed,El-Ashry responded to a question from Egypt that the ScientificTechnical Advisory Panel (STAP) will evolve with the GEF, takinginto account other advisory boards that may be set up. US$1.3billion was the amount of the pilot phase and $2.4 billion is theamount for the next phase. A double majority system of voting wouldcome into play only when consensus could not be reached. TheRussian Federation asked if there is an intention to implement thestatus of economies in transition with the GEF, and did the GEFissue invitations to countries to join. El-Ashry replied that anycountry could join, and that an invitation had been sent to theRussian Federation to participate in the Beijing meeting.

India was concerned with linkages between the GEF and Agenda 21.El-Ashry replied that the GEF is only one of the financialmechanisms for environment and development. Uruguay wanted to knowabout the legal procedures and what the best relationship thegovernments could have with the GEF. El-Ashry said that in Abidjanthe legal status of the GEF after the pilot phase had beendiscussed, and the restructured GEF would be created by resolutionsadopted by the governing boards of the World Bank, UNEP and UNDP.

Poland asked about flexibility of resources in relation to theprovisions of the conventions. El-Ashry replied that it was hard tosay, since now there is only a concentration on programmes. Inresponse to Vanuatu, El-Ashry said that the GEF should have a clearmandate to deal with the global environmental conventions. Mexicosaid that records and reports are a two-way street between the GEFand the CSD. Cuba shared India's concern about the scope of thefacility. El-Ashry said that there was a narrow mandate becausethere are other funding institutions and facilities.

Canada asked if GEF funds actually sponsor work done in otherentities. El-Ashry stated that GEF funds sponsor only the programmeof the GEF. Benin wanted to know about possible inequities in thevoting of the Participants Assembly. It was explained that there isno final decision on what the constituencies look like. Malaysiaasked about linkages between the Montreal Protocol and the GEF.El-Ashry said that many countries did not qualify under theMontreal Protocol fund because the cut-off point related to eitherproduction or consumption, and that those countries would thenqualify for GEF funding.

NEGOTIATING GROUP II:

Negotiation of the draft decision onfinancial commitments, flows and arrangements (E/CN.17/1993/L.5)got off to a slow start in Negotiating Group II, led by CSDVice-Chair Arthur Campeau. The first draft of the document, whichwas circulated on Thursday of the first week, had not been seen byall delegates in time for the first meeting of the group, and theChair decided to adjourn early to allow the regional groups todiscuss the document. The following day, Friday, the G-77 had notprepared a response to the entire text and the session was spentdebating the first five paragraphs. Halfway through this session,the G-77 tabled its own draft of paragraphs 1-5, based on L.5, andthe delegates referred to both drafts in their discussion. Finallyon Saturday, the G-77 presented its complete draft and prolongeddiscussion took place on paragraph 6, which establishesintersessional working groups.

Colombia, on behalf of the G-77 and China, proposed that the CSDestablish an "intersessional intergovernmental ad hoc open-endedworking group" of experts to assist the CSD, coordinated by theBureau, with financial and technical support from theSecretary-General. Austria expressed concern that the CSD shouldnot give away its most important task of reviewing the adequacy offinancial resources by decentralizing it into a permanentconsultative process. The US, Japan, Australia, Norway and Icelandargued for flexibility to allow for innovation, effectiveness anda variety of approaches. The G-77 expressed concern that theconsultative process should not be delegated to the Secretariat,fearing that Governments would lose contact with the process and bepresented with surprises on the eve of the next session. The ECsuggested the possibility of regional consultative processes. Indiaresponded that the trend is toward globalization of decision makingrelated to sustainable development and there should not be regionalconsultations. Austria was concerned that the CSD would becomesuperficial if it met only once a year and supported the value ofregional inputs.

One question raised was whether the working group should beintergovernmental and, if so, would it take political decisions orbe technically oriented. The US argued for procedural guidelinesand time-frames within a non-exclusive intergovernmental processand asked about the need for additional resources for this process.The Philippines said that instead of amorphous consultationsorganized by the Secretary-General, an intergovernmental processwould be more transparent.

On Monday, 21 June, discussion of finance moved back into thePlenary under Amb. Razali. He resumed discussion of paragraph 6 ofthe G-77's draft and said there was a proposal that might allowresolution on intersessional meetings if the term"intergovernmental" was deleted. Colombia responded that the G-77has some difficulties removing the word "intergovernmental." Headded that no one was suggesting that this ad hoc committee becomea decision-making body, yet countries must have a way to speak onthe elements to be discussed. Colombia added that nominationsshould be made by CSD members and the Bureau can invite otherexperts to make contributions. Egypt proposed inserting a phrase toensure that the working group reports back to the Commission.Pakistan suggested: "The Commission decides to establish anintersessional ad hoc open-ended working group composed of expertsnominated by Governments of the Commission to undertake thefollowing tasks:..." Denmark, Australia, Norway, the US and theRussian Federation were able to support both of these proposals.

The final formulation agreed to in paragraph 7 of L.5/Rev.1 statesthat the Commission decided to establish an "intersessional ad hoc,open-ended working group composed of Governments", which wouldnominate experts in order to assist the Commission in the followingtasks: (a) monitor and review the requirements, availability andadequacy of financial resources for the implementation of differentclusters of Agenda 21; (b) monitor and analyze various factors thatinfluence the flow of financial and economic resources, such asdebt relief, terms of trade, commodity prices, market access andprivate foreign investment; and (c) develop a policy framework forthe mobilization of financial resources towards a balancedimplementation of all aspects of Agenda 21. Paragraph 8 requeststhe Bureau to coordinate the work of the open-ended ad hoc workinggroup and Paragraph 9 states that the Commission will decide on theagenda and procedures for the working group, which will report itsfindings to the Commission. Paragraph 10 ensures that the workinggroup will interact with NGOs and major groups.

One problem that persisted in both the negotiations on finance andtechnology was the treatment of countries with economies intransition. Consensus was finally reached between the G-77 and theRussian Federation on paragraph 2 of L.5 on finance, which dealswith ensuring a supportive international economic climate, nowconcludes, "The Commission highlighted in this context theimportance of making further progress in areas such as debt relief,in particular for developing countries, as well as encouraging freetrade and access to markets.... particularly for developingcountries and countries undergoing the process of transition to amarket economy."

The other paragraphs in the final document are as follows:Paragraph 1 stresses the need for effective and earlyimplementation of all commitments contained in Chapter 33 of Agenda21. Paragraph 3 stresses the importance of promoting sustainabledevelopment through trade liberalization and mutually supportivetrade and environment policies. It also mentions that structuraladjustment should not have a negative impact on the environment andthe social and economic situation of developing countries.Paragraph 4 welcomes the initiatives of some donor countries withrespect to debt relief. Paragraph 5 urges international financialinstitutions, regional and sub-regional banks and UN and otherinternational institutions to play an increased and more effectiverole in the provision of new and additional financial resources forAgenda 21 implementation. Paragraph 6 requests theSecretary-General to use OECD data on resource flows to fulfill itsresponsibilities in reviewing and monitoring financial flows.Paragraphs 11 and 12 address reporting by Governments andinternational organizations. Paragraph 13 stresses the importanceof several aspects of GEF replenishment and paragraph 14 addressesthe need to ensure that the programme budgets of internationalorganizations dealing with environment and development receiveadequate financial support.

TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY, COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING

Discussion on this item took place in Plenary on Friday, 18 June.The Secretariat had prepared document E/CN.17/1993/10, whichhighlights activities undertaken by UNDP and UNEP and other UNorgans, national governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOsand the private sector on the transfer of environmentally-soundtechnologies, cooperation and capacity building. The document alsolists a number of activities that the CSD may want to consider.

The Plenary discussion brought out the following concerns. A numberof countries said that the Secretariat's document insufficientlycovered government policies and the work of the private sector.Other issues included: the dissemination of technology; the removalof barriers to the free flow of technology; the provision offinancial support for countries that wish to purchase technology;the relationship between technology, employment and training; theimportance of efficient operation and maintenance of technologies;strengthening the capacity to develop and adapt environmentallysound technology; access to information on available technologies;a favorable business climate; greater policy coordination; andlocal capacity building. The Women's NGO Caucus and Senegal saidthat the vital socio-economic contribution of women and theindigenous sectors was omitted from the document and listed theways in which women should be involved in the planning, design andtransfer of appropriate technologies.

The US stressed an integrated approach to technology, includingdevelopment, transfer, needs assessment, institution and capacitybuilding. China, the G-77 and Malaysia supported the establishmentof regional centres for environmentally sound technology and Japandescribed the UNEP International Environmental Technology Centrethat was set up in Osaka last year. The UK described the GlobalTechnology Initiative launched in Birmingham last March thattransfers technology on commercial terms and provides information.

Negotiations on the draft decision on technology began in InformalNegotiating Group II on Monday, 21 June. After introducing theChair's draft decision, Vice-Chair Arthur Campeau asked for generalcomments and delayed a paragraph-by-paragraph review until the G-77had the opportunity to discuss the draft. Hungary said the draftdid not address responsibilities of national governments. Campeauresponded that paragraphs 3, 4 and 10 address elements of nationalresponsibilities. Japan commented that the CSD should avoidduplication of efforts of other UN bodies. He also mentioned thathe did not understand the reference to market and non-marketbarriers, as intellectual property rights promote, rather thanhinder, technology transfer. Korea said the draft missed threepoints made in Plenary: public owned technology, incentives andintersessional activities. Australia proposed an additionalparagraph on the importance of technology transfer on a commercialbasis and the need for a supportive legal environment in developingcountries. Sweden warned against unnecessary bureaucratization,meetings and reports at the international level and said that thetext should reference technology transfer and cooperation betweendeveloping countries.

The Russian Federation said that countries undergoing transitionto market economies should be mentioned. Sri Lanka noted theimportance of collaborative research. Denmark, on behalf of the EC,made a number of specific proposals to the text, including: supportfor UNDP and UNEP's initiatives on capacity building; developmentof a favorable environment for investment in developing countries;and avoiding proliferation of reports. The US proposed a newparagraph that would welcome the initiation of activities tofacilitate implementation of Agenda 21, including consultationsfocussed on issues to be discussed by the CSD, and encouragegovernments and NGOs to provide information to the CSD through theSecretariat. Norway suggested that the document reference privateincentives to transfer technology and that existing internationalorganizations, together with the Secretariat, be used in theconsultations and preparation for each session. Austria said thatin paragraph 5 the CSD is assigning itself the task of promotingenvironmentally sound technologies when governments should be doingit.

The following day Campeau introduced a revised draft based on thesediscussions. However, the G-77 and China also distributed their owndraft decision. Thus, one of the problems that plagued thenegotiations was how to deal with the competing drafts. Campeausuggested working off of Rev.1 of the Chair's text. Yet as soon asdiscussion began on paragraph 1, which mentions the criticalimportance of the transfer of environmentally sound technologies,cooperation and capacity building, Colombia, on behalf of the G-77and China, said that its paragraph 1 better reflected the Riomandate. The US was concerned with the phrase "operationalizingagreements and commitments made at Rio." Colombia explained thatthe idea is to put the agreements and commitments into practice.Campeau suggested that the US and Colombia discuss this further.

China requested a break to examine the two texts. Campeau agreedand the meeting adjourned for 20 minutes. Upon reconvening, thegroup discussed paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Rev. 1, in conjunctionwith the corresponding paragraphs of the G-77 draft. There was noagreement on the reference to countries with economies intransition in paragraph 2 and there was no agreement on using theChair's or the G-77's draft of paragraphs 3 and 4.

Campeau proposed that interested delegations meet during the lunchbreak to further discuss these paragraphs. However, when this smallgroup of delegates met they decided to redraft Rev.1 to encompassmany of the ideas expressed in the G-77 text, as well as otherproposals that had not been adequately addressed in either text. At 4:00 pm the small group finished and, while copies were being madeof the revised text, consultations took place among regionalgroups. When Negotiating Group II resumed at 5:00 pm, it waspresented with a new draft text, Rev.2.

Most of Rev. 2 was approved that afternoon and the Plenary resolvedall but one issue that evening. The final decision,E/CN.17/1993/L.7, addresses the following: Paragraph 1 highlightsthe critical importance of the transfer of environmentally soundtechnologies, cooperation and capacity building. Paragraph 2stresses the need to promote, facilitate and finance the transferof environmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacitybuilding. The reference to countries with economies in transitionwas deleted. Paragraph 3 urges bilateral and multilateral financialinstitutions and national governments to undertake certain tasks topromote and facilitate the transfer of environmentally soundtechnologies. Paragraph 4 requests the Secretary-General to prepareproposals on ways and means to implement elements of Chapter 34 ofAgenda 21 and paragraph 5 supports the establishment ofenvironmental technology centres. Paragraph 6 addresses theprovision of information on the implementation of science andtechnology provisions of Agenda 21.

Paragraph 7 establishes, on a trial basis, an intersessional adhoc open-ended working group composed of Governments that willnominate experts to assist in the task of assessing and suggestingspecific measures to support and promote access to transfer oftechnology as indicated in paragraph 34.18 of Agenda 21. Thelanguage in this paragraph reflects the consensus reached onintersessional work in the negotiations on finance. Paragraph 8addresses collaborative arrangements with intergovernmental bodies.Paragraph 9 emphasized the implementation of environmentalconventions with respect to technology transfer. Paragraph 10addresses the importance of dialogue with intergovernmentalorganizations, NGOs and the private sector.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The high-level segment of the CSD began Wednesday, 23 June, in theTrusteeship Council Chamber and continued through the followingday. The report by the Secretary- General (E/CN.17/1993/12)suggested that discussions focus on the critical dimensions ofsustainability such as an international economy supportive ofenvironment and development goals, changes in consumption patternsand measures to ensure compatibility between demographic dynamicsand sustainability. Further, the report noted that issues such asnational implementation and decision- making structures, includingpreparation of national reports and national coordinatingstructures for the follow-up of Agenda 21, financial resources,technology transfer, and UN system implementation should also bediscussed.

During the course of the segment, 38 ministers from CSD memberstates, 8 ministers from observer countries, 10 ambassadors and 4NGOs gave speeches. CSD Chair Razali opened the session and saidthat the high-level segment is an integral part of the Commission'swork and stressed the need to provide the political impetus topropel Rio forward. He noted the achievements of the CSD at thissession and said that it must not only monitor but serve as amechanism for problem solving. Adding that the CSD will notreplicate itself as just another UN commission, he said he hopedthat the high-level segment would build on the work of the sessionand that the ministers would reinforce that the commitments made inRio were still alive. He encouraged ministers to establish adialogue at this meeting and to give the CSD clear guidance for itsfuture work.

WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 1993

INDIA:

Minister for Environment and Forests Kamal Nath saidthat Rio was a good start, but some vital issues must still beaddressed. UNCED initiated a process of interaction among statesbest characterized by interdependence, but we lack the courage toact. The key to success is the resolution of cross-sectoral issues.He proposed that UNEP establish an intergovernmental working groupon drinking water. The role of the CSD should be to integratefinance, trade, technology, environment and development, as well toexamine ways UN agencies can get "maximum mileage" out of existingfinancial resources and improved coordination.

DENMARK:

Minister for Environment Svend Auken stressed thatthe CSD should be a political forum to give urgency to decisions onthe environment, where progress is depressingly slow. He said thatwe need to tell each other the truth -- things are getting worse.He said that Denmark is expanding its ODA to 1.5% of GNP and thatif all countries were to do so we would make some headway but wouldstill be short by billions of dollars. The enhancement of socialsecurity should be a priority since people in danger can'tcontribute to sustainability. Truth is not a danger to our work buthypocrisy is our enemy and we should tell the world how seriousthis is.

AUSTRALIA:

Minister for the Environment, Sport andTerritories Ros Kelly said that there is a growing sense ofdisillusionment in the community outside this room that thepolitical imperatives of Rio have been submerged in rhetoric. TheCSD must point out that we are all committed to implementing Agenda21 domestically and regionally. She urged the other ministers tosay that the CSD was their's and did not belong to the bureaucrats.There is the need to develop trust and an understanding to talkfreely about problems. To make this a success, ministers, NGOs,women and every layer of government must remain involved.

FRANCE:

Ministre de l'Environnement Michel Barnieremphasized that the CSD must let the press and the public know thatthese meetings are doing some good and that this meeting shouldissue an alert. He called for better functioning of existinginstitutions and mentioned the negotiations towards a convention ondesertification. He said that France would host a meeting in 1994on water quality and public health in the most underprivilegedareas. He announced that France was setting up a national CSD andsuggested that the Chairs of other national CSDs meet to exchangeexperiences.

GERMANY:

Federal Minister for Environment, Nature,Conservation and Nuclear Safety Klaus T”pfer said that for the CSDto be effective and to attract ministers, it must have a politicalprofile and accomplish more than just the redrafting of Agenda 21.He recommended that member States sponsor intersessional meetingsto address the clusters to be discussed by the CSD, in conjunctionwith the relevant cross-sectoral issues. He said that ifenvironment and development policies are not linked with economicpolicy, nothing will change.

EGYPT:

Mostafa Tolba agreed with Germany that the CSD musthave a political profile and with Australia that the meetings musthave concrete actions. He called for more information on naturalresource flows. He said that the types of technology needed by thedeveloping world must be identified and water should be discussed,particularly as a potential source of conflict.

MEXICO:

Subsecret rio de Relaciones Exteriores Andr‚sRozental suggested that to encourage dialogue rather thanpolitical, rhetorical statements, participants in the nexthigh-level segment should sit around a table. He said that the CSDneeds to examine the clusters from a multi-disciplinary approach,such as the relationship between freshwater, finance, technology,trade and potential international conflict. The proposed thematicconferences should be meetings of experts who would present theirfindings to the CSD at the highest political level as a plan ofaction to give a sense of direction to the CSD.

UNITED STATES:

Environmental Protection Agency AdministratorCarol Browner said that much has been accomplished since Rio and wemust remember that we are all in this together for the long term.She said that achieving sustainable development requires changes inthe way that governments, NGOs and the private sector relate to oneanother. She spoke of the new US CSD, which will assist in thedevelopment of new strategies to address these issues. She assuredthe developing world that the US was listening, particularly oncapacity building and resource mobilization. The US is reorientingdevelopment assistance programmes toward sustainable development.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH:

Chee Yoke Ling said one of the mostimportant outcomes of UNCED is the opening up of the UN system toNGOs. She said that finance and economic ministers also need toattend the CSD, as sustainable development encompasses theseissues. She noted that many "taboo" issues were now beingdiscussed, such as structural adjustment, debt, and commodityprices. Key issues for the CSD are: biotechnology and intellectualproperty rights; importation of toxic wastes; and integratingsocial equity and environmental concerns in the Bretton Woodsinstitutions. She appealed for a ban on the import of toxic wastesand said that the Bamako Convention could serve as a model forother regions.

NETHERLANDS:

Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and theEnvironment Hans Alders stressed the Dutch commitment to nationalAgenda 21 implementation. He said there needs to be a nationalcultural discussion on changing production and consumptionpatterns. The Netherlands needs help from all over the world forideas on how to decrease the use of energy. He announced aconference on drinking water in the Netherlands in early 1994.

JAPAN:

Parliamentary Vice Minister Kei Ooma said that eachnation needs to follow up UNCED and report to the CSD Secretariat.The CSD must maintain close contact and coordination with relevantUN organizations to ensure effective UNCED follow-up and to be aforum for collective dialogue on the promotion of sustainabledevelopment without idle polemics. The Japanese "Funds forDevelopment" initiative will provide approximately $70 billion inuntied ODA funds out of a total of $120 billion in financialcooperation to developing countries over five years. Japan isparticipating actively in the GEF, which should be the centralfinancial mechanism for the effort to tackle global environmentalproblems.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

Minister of Environment and NaturalResources Victor I. Danilov-Danilyan confirmed Russian commitmentto Rio and the CSD and acknowledged a great gap between Russiandesires for national sustainable development and the slow progressto date. Russia has set up an inter-departmental commission forimplementing a plan of action to be considered by the government.He noted the transboundary nature of problems and the globalbenefits of assistance for national action.

AUSTRIA:

Federal Minister for the Environment, Youth andFamily Maria Rauch-Kallat agreed with Australia on the importantrole of women and NGOs in implementing Agenda 21 and echoedGermany's call for a high political profile for the CSD. She saidthat the CSD must address changing consumption patterns, forestsand nuclear energy. Forestry policies are needed for all parts ofthe world, not just the tropical areas, and she called for movingthe issue of forests up on the CSD agenda.

TUNISIA:

Ministre de l'Environnement et de l'Am‚nagement duTerritoire Mohamed Mehdi Mlika called on donor countries to honortheir commitments. Tunisia is setting up a national CSD tointroduce new concepts in planning structures in partnership withsocial groups, NGOs and local communities. He noted two aspectsthat are vital for sustainable development: the recycling of publicdebt for environmental projects and accessible technology transfer.He noted Tunisia's efforts to set up a regional "technology bridge"by hosting a regional "ecotechnology centre." He agreed with USVice President Gore who called for concrete action on nationalresponsibilities and said in this new world we are advocating we nolonger need empty discourses.

ICELAND:

Minister for the Environment Ossur Skarphedinssonsaid the work of NGOs and major groups in the CSD's work is veryimportant. He supported Australia and Austria's emphasis on therole of women and Germany's comment on the world-wide recession.Employment and environmental sustainability go hand in hand, andconsumption patterns and sustainable lifestyles must figure highlyin the CSD's work. The CSD must assume the role as a catalyst andcharacterize proper action in governments at all levels. Heannounced Iceland's plans for assisting in the preparations for theupcoming Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States.

ITALY:

Minister for the Environment Valdo Spini mentionedthat developing countries must not repeat the industrializedworld's pattern of environmental depletion. The CSD must see arebellion of environment ministers against political inaction.Cooperation with Eastern Europe is essential, and he agreed withGermany that country- hosted thematic meetings will help facilitatethe CSD's work. He called on the General Assembly to establish aworking group to draft an international instrument for thedevelopment and conservation of world forests.

KENYA:

Minister for Environment and Natural Resources J.Sambu said that developing countries need new and additionalfinancial resources to implement Agenda 21. Poverty is linked tothe debt problem and is both a cause and an effect of environmentaldegradation. Overcoming obstacles to meaningful economic growth,including punitive environmental conditionalities attached tostructural adjustment programmes, is a prerequisite for thesuccessful implementation of Agenda 21. GEF restructuring must givegreater empowerment to the South.

MALAYSIA:

Minister of Science, Technology and EnvironmentHieng Ding Law associated himself with India who spoke on theconcerns of developing countries. He said that we are sufferingfrom a lack of ideas on how to forge ahead. He supported the ideaof country-hosted meetings on the clusters and said Malaysia wouldsponsor such a meeting. He mentioned the need for countries toemphasize their domestic resources, manage their own forests, andaddress trade and financial issues.

CHINA:

Amb. Li Zhaoxing said the CSD should examine bothsectoral and cross-sectoral issues, especially transfer oftechnology and finance. The CSD should be action-oriented andefficient. He mentioned that China has started to draw up its ownAgenda 21.

COLOMBIA:

Chairman of the National Institute of NaturalResources Rodriguez agreed with India that there must be a linkbetween global, national, and local environmental issues. Heassociated himself with the G-77 and China regarding the importanceof technology transfer. He lamented the little progress that hadbeen achieved on operationalizing agreements for developingcountries. He called for the mechanisms and resources for thedissemination of technologies.

BRAZIL:

Amb. Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg stressed that the CSDwas only just beginning its work and that long-standing negativetrends cannot be reversed in one year. He said the CSD should takeup each theme, including forests, in the order agreed upon in theprogramme of work. He stressed the intergovernmental character ofthe CSD but noted the importance of dialogue and interaction withNGOs and other major groups, participation of experts nominated bygovernments to work on finance and technology transfer, and CSDreliance on the best input and expertise possible. He said we muststrive to eradicate poverty, promote sustainable developmentthrough trade, and reaffirm the principles in the Rio Declaration.

NORWAY:

Minister of Environment Thorbj"rn Berntsenidentified environment and development as existential survivalissues, stressing the need for global partnership. Industrializedcountries must commit to ODA targets, new resources, debtreduction, fair trade, and predictable and monitored resourceflows. He proposed that the CSD focus on links between productionand consumption patterns and the environment and noted Norway'sfollow-up to UNCED. He announced that Norway will host a workshopon environmentally friendly technology in cooperation with UNCTADthat could bring strategic options forward to the CSD. Norway iswilling to host an expert meeting to assist in enabling the CSD tomonitor developments with regards to availability of financialresources for environment and development, including probes forinnovative financing.

BELGIUM:

Ministre de la Sant‚ publique, de l'Environnementet de l'Int‚gration sociale Magda De Galan stressed the need forglobal partnerships. She said that Belgium is in the process ofdecentralizing environmental responsibilities and bringingdecision-making to the local level. She announced that they havejust set up a national institution to continue the process ofcoordination at the local level. There is a need to address thelinkage between employment and the environment, and the ILO is themost appropriate forum in which to do this.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA:

Minister of Environment San-Sung Whangsaid sustainable development requires political awareness ofgovernments and people. Dissemination of clean technology is thekey to sustainable development, and sustainable development isprimary to national goals. She said that the CSD has a crucial roleto play in monitoring financial mobilization and welcomed theestablishment of the intersessional working groups. She announceda commitment of 30 million SDRs for the 10th IDA replenishment.

FINLAND:

Minister of Environment Sirpa Pietik„inen saidthere is a need to set concrete policy goals for the work of theCSD and to have an open dialogue among decision- makers. Shewelcomed the establishment of intersessional working groups andwelcomed Malaysia's offer to host a workshop on the sustainablemanagement of forests. She said that Finland has appointed anational CSD chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of 47members from government, NGOs and interest groups. New concepts ofproduction and consumption patterns should be based innature-oriented economies.

CUBA:

Presidenta de la Comisin Nacional de Proteccin delMedio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales Rosa Elena Simen Negrnsaid the countries of the South have a more uncertain future todaythan in Rio and the new international order is elitist and rejectsthe poor. There is concern over continued exchange of technology inthe North and to the countries with economies in transition.Patterns of production and consumption are causes ofimpoverishment.

SINGAPORE:

Minister of the Environment Ahmed Mattar agreedwith Australia and Germany that ministers should attend the CSD.Responsibility for implementation of Agenda 21 begins at thenational level and Singapore hopes to contribute to the transfer oftechnology in the Asia/Pacific region. Governments should workclosely with citizens and the private sector, both North-South andSouth-South partnerships are important, and technology transfer isa key component. He stated the need for an open trading system orelse the CSD will meet each year to talk of what to do to implementAgenda 21 at the national level.

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA:

Minister of Economic Development,Tourism and Industry Rodney Williams said the special problems ofsmall island states must be discussed in international fora.Measures taken to address global environmental degradation must beon a local and regional basis. He welcomed the role of NGOs, womenand other major groups in the achievement of sustainabledevelopment. He reiterated that the problems of his country requireactive support from all levels and he urged the internationalcommunity to support the various processes that will culminate inthe Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandsDeveloping States.

SOUTH-SOUTH CAUCUS:

A representative of this NGO caucus saidthat political determination can be expressed by an increase ofNGOs on official delegations. The Southern NGOs insist on the term"technology sharing," because there is an enormous amount oftechnology in the South. Issues of gender, trade, and militarismdraw resources away from sustainable development.

THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 1993

Minister of State for Environment SarwonoKusumaatmadja stressed that the CSD should employ a comprehensiveand integrated approach, particularly on the issue of forests,which should not be politicized or used as an instrument forconditionality. Intergovernmental consultations should beconsidered to strengthen the forest principles. He shared the viewof other ministers that the preparation for the CSD should takeplace well in advance of the meetings. He supported the idea ofsmall ad hoc working groups of experts and eminent persons toidentify relevant issues and draw out plans of action. Indonesiahas proposed that a quasi-autonomous NGO be established to mediateenvironmental disputes.

INDONESIA:

SRI LANKA:

Minister of Environment and Parliamentary AffairsWimal Wickremasinghe thought that the method of establishingtechnology centres should be discussed. Domestic initiatives areneeded to tackle issues of poverty, population, and consumptionpatterns. Enhanced environmental education and awareness isimportant and green auditing must be developed.

CANADA:

Minister of State for the Environment Mary Collinsstressed three themes: the CSD should be an inclusive politicalforum; it must emphasize the importance of national plans forsustainability; and it needs to look at innovative mechanisms inpreparation for the next CSD session. She suggested that next yearthe ministers should sit around a table and talk face-to-face. Shementioned that the IISD in Winnipeg is establishing an informalforum on environment and trade as a contribution to the CSD's work.She also announced the establishment of a Centre for SustainableCities in Vancouver. She said that all countries are "developing"and that at the next session we should share models from countriesand use the CSD to find new and innovative ways to move forward.

VENEZUELA:

Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs FernandoGerbasi supported Canada's call for the various actors in theprocess to have the opportunity to participate in the CSD.Governments need to promote their participation in the CSD withoutabrogating their responsibility as governments. He agreed withGermany on the importance of thematic meetings. Venezuela isestablishing a national commission on sustainable development.UNCTAD and GATT should ensure that ecology is not used forprotectionism. He said that an important topic is the generation ofnew, environmentally sound technologies and noted Venezuela'ssponsorship of the Bolivar Project that promotes nationaltechnological developments.

MOROCCO:

Amb. Ahmed Snoussi mentioned that despite somepositive events related to finance and debt, commitments are stillbelow hopes raised in Rio. He reiterated Morocco's pledge in Rio tohost a high-level meeting to deal with freshwater and hoped thatthis would be a valuable contribution to the second session of theCSD.

PHILIPPINES:

Congressman Miguel Romero said that a viabledebt relief management program is beneficial for all countries. AnEarth Increment is needed in IDA. He said that original sin andoriginal debt are a stigma for our children and he called fordeveloped countries to address debt relief.

SWEDEN:

Minister of the Environment and Natural ResourcesOlof Johansson said that the essence of the CSD is to givepolitical guidance and have open discussion. He called fordiscussion at the international level of "ecocycles," where aproducer is responsible for a product even when it has ceased toserve its original purpose. He supported the negotiations toward aconvention to combat desertification and confirmed Sweden's offerto host a forum on risk assessment and management of chemicals inApril 1994. Environmental security should be part of our concept ofsecurity. An "Agenda for Development" is needed as a second pillarin long-term UN action for world peace. He supported Germany, Italyand Canada in the establishment of an independent commission onforests.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:

Juan Prat from the Commission of theEuropean Communities, agreed with India, the Netherlands and USVice President Al Gore who said that concrete steps should be takenin the intersessional period to move projects forward. Theessential question for developing countries is trade liberalizationand he supported India, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela in the needto avoid unilateral trade restrictions. Trade and environmentshould be mutually supportive in terms of sustainable development.

POLAND:

Under-Secretary of State Michal Wilczynski,referring to Canada's notion of model sharing, offered hiscountry's experience as a model in decentralizing implementation ofAgenda 21. He supported regional cooperation, noting the Baltic Searescue plan, and regretted that intersessional activities were notgoing to be organized regionally. Attention should be paid toinnovative forms of financing, such as debt swaps, and reportingshould achieve comparability and include regional initiatives.

WOMEN'S CAUCUS:

Kwardua Vanderpuye said that poor andilliterate women were the caretakers of food crops and medicinalplants, the preservers of biodiversity, and carried knowledgethrough millennia. Women should be supported for their nurturingand sought after for their knowledge. New York should be the seatof the CSD to ensure maximum participation of NGOs as experts.

SWITZERLAND:

Federal Councillor Ruth Dreifuss said that theenvironmental aspects of trade should be considered and that changewill come through both official aid and ensuring good conditionsfor adequate private investment. Priority should be given torevitalizing existing institutions and that UN restructuring isimportant. Reports to the CSD should be standardized with averification machinery based on a transparent peer review system,perhaps in a regional framework. She called for a strengthening ofthe DPCSD. She said that Switzerland favors doubling the size ofthe GEF with institutional reform for greater participation ofSouthern countries.

GABON:

The representative said that responsibility ofimplementation of the Rio decisions is primarily at the nationallevel. Africa is ready to contribute active participation andsolidarity in implementing sustainable development. Any policyimposing special standards and norms on tropical forests andproducts derived from them would be an impediment to the developingworld.

BULGARIA:

Deputy Minister of the Environment Jordan Uzunovsaid that the countries with economies in transition should findconsideration in the work of the CSD. He suggested that the CSDlook at mechanisms for tackling environmental accidents andsituations. He stressed that technology transfer and capacitybuilding are important for overall development.

VANUATU:

Amb. Robert Van Lierop agreed with India on theinterrelationship between global benefits and local environmentalimpacts. Like Australia, he said that this is a political processand that we should look for political definitions of terms such asglobal benefits. For small island developing states, the CSDactually is an environmental security council. He said that theNorth did not need to lower its standard of living but its standardof waste.

DENMARK:

Minister for Development Helle Degn, speaking onbehalf of the EC environment and cooperation ministers, announcedan additional 120 million ECU for implementation of Agenda 21 andnew operational strategies to include a policy dialogue withrecipient countries for channeling funds to the poorest group. TheEC sees the status of women at the centre of sustainabledevelopment. She announced that Denmark offered to host anintersessional meeting on health.

SAUDI ARABIA:

President of the Meteorology and EnvironmentalProtection Administration Abdul ar Al-Gain said indicators of theenvironment are going from bad to worse. Environmental concepts areonly beginning in the South and sustainable development should bestressed as mutually supportive for both environment anddevelopment. An action plan for each issue, especially technologytransfer and capacity building, should be developed.

ALGERIA:

Rabah Hadid, the Deputy Permanent Representative tothe UN, stated that the success of the CSD depends on factors suchas: the initiation of a genuine North-South partnership; new andadditional financial resources for the South; and availability andaccessibility of environmentally sound technology. He shared theconcerns of other delegations that poverty and consumption shouldbe given urgent and in- depth consideration.

MALTA:

Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment StanleyZammit stated that the ministers should shoulder the brunt, butshare the burden with other ministers. He spoke of Malta's plansfor an environmental directorate. He stressed the role of regionalaction, noting the Mediterranean Action Plan and plans toincorporate Agenda 21 into the Barcelona Convention.

BARBADOS:

Minister of State L.V.H. Lewis said that the CSDdepends on comprehensive input on actions and constraints at thenational level and that the process of identifying these can assistin resource mobilization. He called for regional and sub-regionalconsultations as a compliment to national reports. He noted theGlobal Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States as one example of UNCED follow-up.

UNITED KINGDOM:

Secretary of State for the Environment JohnGummer said that as environmental concerns slip down the politicalagenda things are less "scare-driven." The CSD's concerns arebroader than each minister's portfolio. He stressed nationalstewardship for the environment, and the value of both sharingnational reports and working parties. He warned of the danger thatthe CSD would become the perquisite of clever civil servants andthat instead of speaking in a private language, the CSD should useordinary speech that communicates a passionate desire.

HUNGARY:

Minister for Environment and Regional Policy J nosGyurk stressed the need to strengthen bilateral and multilateralagreements, new financing mechanisms, transfer of environmentallysound technology and the necessary legal framework. Agenda 21cannot be seen in isolation, but is dependent on complex economicfactors.

URUGUAY:

Amb. Ramiro Piriz-Ballon spoke about his country'spublic outreach following Rio. Funds to implement Agenda 21 shouldbe based on the principle of shared but differentiatedresponsibility. He announced that the Ministry of the Environment,recently restructured with assistance from the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, has established a technical committee with NGOsand representatives from the agricultural sector, to coordinateimplementation of Agenda 21 at the national and provincial level.

CZECH REPUBLIC:

First Deputy Minister of the EnvironmentVladimr Novotny welcomed the CSD as a way to introduce Agenda 21into practical life. He highlighted Czech progress on environmentalissues and said that they are focussing on energy conservation,clean air, freshwater protection and chemical management.

PAKISTAN:

Amb. Munir Akram announced his country's five-yearaction plan to implement Agenda 21 in partnership with NGOs, theprivate sector and the media. He identified five areas in whichcooperation or lack of it determines the sustainable development ofall countries: financial flows, trade, technology flows,consumption patterns and population. Economic and humandevelopment, as well as environmental protection, are elements ofsustainable development. He said that the Secretariat shouldprepare a comprehensive report on sustainable development andtrade. He thought that the unilateral actions of countries hostingsectoral meetings should not determine the CSD's programme of work.

BENIN:

Amb. Ren‚ Val‚ry Mongbe stressed the importance ofcombatting poverty and success here depends on changing productionand consumption patterns. He hoped that the international communitywill contribute to the drafting of the convention to combatdesertification and will find the financial and technological meansto ensure its implementation. He welcomed the French and Dutchproposals to hold intersessional meetings. He mentioned that Beninis establishing a national CSD.

UNITED STATES:

The Hon. Timothy E. Wirth said that PresidentClinton has added four new elements to US global policy: democracy,environment, population and sustainable development. He said thatthe US wants to join in partnership with other countries in astrong intersessional effort and to confirm this commitment heannounced that the US is joining with Colombia to contribute topreparation for the intersessional working group on technologytransfer, cooperation and capacity building. COLOMBIAresponded that this is the best possible way to implement theSpirit of Rio and enthusiastically welcomed the new North-Southspirit and partnership for sustainable development.

CHILE:

Minister for Natural Resources Luis Alvaradomentioned Chile's awareness of the Rio commitments, passion indealing with these issues, and realism in facing environmentalproblems. What is lacking, he said, is the political determinationand creation of conditions for action. He expressed solidarity withthe countries in transition. The CSD is primarily a political bodyand should lay the groundwork for political consensus.

MALAWI:

Minister for Forestry and Natural Resources E.Y.Sambo listed problems that Malawi is facing, including tradeimbalance, poverty, hunger, disease and drought. Malawi ispreparing a national environmental plan.

FRANCE:

Ministre de l'Environnement Michel Barnier said workshould be done on the basis of comparable data. Therefore, we needadditional statistical tools and environmental accounting. Heagreed with Switzerland on the need for indicators. He announcedthat France will host a roundtable on water and health.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' CAUCUS:

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz stressedthree issues of specific importance to indigenous peoples:biodiversity, biotechnology and intellectual property rights. Sheproposed that the UN system and governments provide mechanisms sothat indigenous peoples can share their views with others on theseissues. She called for a halt to the Human Genome Diversity Projectthat has a pending patent application for 2500 human genes, andappealed to those who are convening conferences to include inputfrom indigenous peoples.

JAPAN:

Deputy Director-General of the UN Bureau, Mr. Kawai,stressed the importance of capacity-building. Human resourcedevelopment is the key for effective environmental policies.Regional cooperation is important. He also announced that Japan'scabinet will be taking a decision shortly on the Funds forDevelopment initiative.

NAMIBIA:

Minister of Wildlife, Conservation and Tourism NikoBessinger supported Germany's idea that the CSD should becomehighly political and Canada's idea to change the format of themeeting so ministers can sit around a table and pursue dialogue.The CSD needs discussion and exchange of ideas, otherwise themeeting will be reduced to the bureaucratic level.

ZIMBABWE:

Minister of Environment and Tourism Herbert M.Murerwa said the main dimensions of sustainable development arepoverty, population growth, and consumption patterns. He welcomedintersessional meetings. Better access to information on policiesand strategies is needed, and the CSD should explore ways forbilateral cooperation. He said that he hoped that the CSD couldestablish a framework for true global discussions.

At the end of the session, Razali distributed a Chair's Summary.This three-page document was not intended to be a negotiateddecision but rather a summary of the major points of the two-dayHigh-Level Segment. After Razali read out the text, a number ofdelegates took the floor to endorse the summary and congratulatethe Chair, the Bureau and the Secretariat on a job well-done. Thecommon thread in the closing remarks was that the High-LevelSegment had given direction and political impetus to the CSD.

CLOSING SESSION

On Friday morning, 25 June, the Commission adopted the followingdecisions:

E/CN.17/1993/L.2/Rev.1: Issues relating to the future work of the Commission.

E/CN.17/1993/L.3/Rev.1: Exchange of information regarding the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level.

E/CN.17/1993/L.4: Adoption of a multi-year thematic programme of work.

E/CN.17/1993/L.5/Rev.1: Initial financial commitments, financial flows and arrangements.

E/CN.17/1993/L.6: Progress in the incorporation of recommendations of UNCED in the activities of international organizations.

E/CN.17/1993/L.7: Progress achieved in facilitating and promoting the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacity-building.

E/CN.17/1993/L.8: The report of the Commission on its first session.

E/CN.17/1993/L.8/Add.1: Chairman's summary of the high-level meeting of the Commission.

E/CN.17/1993/L.9: Draft provisional agenda for the second session of the Commission.

After the decisions were adopted and the curtains in theTrusteeship Council Chamber were opened for the first time in yearsand the sun shone in (on the suggestion of Canada), the Chair andnumerous delegations took the floor to express their thanks andtheir hopes that the challenge of sustainable development and theCSD will turn into reality.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CSD

On 14 June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment came to a close in Rio de Janeiro. Now, 12 monthslater, many have begun to review the past year to determine if, infact, progress has been made toward making the commitments of Rioa reality. Much has been said about the inability or lack of willon the part of developed countries to find new and additionalfinancial resources, transfer environmentally sound technology,and change production and consumption patterns. Many have statedthat now, one year after Rio, developing countries are no betteroff, poverty is rampant, the industrialized world is in the midstof a recession, and we are no closer to putting sustainabledevelopment in practice. But at the same time, a number of smallsteps have been taken at all levels on the long road from Rio.

At the international level, the UN system has begun to reassessprogrammes and policies to ensure that they are consistent withAgenda 21. Preparations have begun on a number of Agenda 21follow-up activities, including negotiations on a convention tocombat desertification, a conference on high seas fisheries, andthe first global conference on the sustainable development of smallisland states, not to mention the establishment of the Commissionon Sustainable Development. GEF replenishment and restructuring arealso in progress. At the national level, many countries have puttogether national environmental action programmes, others,including the United States, Tunisia, Finland, Venezuela, Franceand Benin, are establishing national commissions for sustainabledevelopment. ODA is being redirected towards sustainabledevelopment.

At the local level, numerous projects are underway to putsustainable development into practice. The GEF small projects fund,administered by UNDP, is funding local initiatives in several dozencountries. Local organizations are developing their own Agenda 21sand governments, particularly in the negotiations for thedesertification convention and the International Conference onPopulation and Development, openly acknowledge the critical role oflocal organizations in sustainable development.

As the Commission on Sustainable Development held its firstsubstantive session in New York on the first anniversary of theEarth Summit, the time had come to assess the year'saccomplishments and determine just what role the CSD will reallyplay in monitoring the implementation of the Rio agreements.Expectations were high as delegates from the 53 member States ofthe CSD and many non-member states, hundreds of NGOs, and numerousrepresentatives of UN agencies and international organizationsgathered in New York on 14 June 1993. Many said that it wasessential that the CSD not become just another talk show. Othersspoke about the sense of ownership and pride of the many delegateswho created the CSD. The opening statements by CSD Chair RazaliIsmail, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination andSustainable Development Nitin Desai, and US Vice President Al Goreset a positive tone for the meeting, yet challenged everyone togive practical expression to the pledges made in Rio.

Yet when the discussions began in Plenary, it was almost as if theballoon of hope had suddenly deflated. The debate resembled thosethat have been heard throughout the UNCED preparatory process andfor years before that. Delegates seemed to lose sight of theenvironmental and development problems that are facing the worldtoday. Agenda 21 language was being recycled rather than enhancedin a tedious process of diplomatic exegesis. Dispirited NGOs anddelegates commented that maybe the CSD was not going to be specialand that the so-called Spirit of Rio had been lost in thebureaucratic morass.

Perhaps some of the discouragement was due to the fact that thisfirst substantive session of the CSD was a continuation of theorganizational session. Most of the agenda items dealt withorganizing the future work of the Commission: what chapters ofAgenda 21 would be discussed in what year; what reports would berequired and from whom; what are Governments' responsibilities interms of reporting on national implementation; how will thecritical issues of finance and technology transfer be addressed bythe CSD; and how will the CSD monitor Agenda 21 implementationwithin the UN system. The CSD was negotiating six proceduraldocuments, not examining Agenda 21 implementation. However, oncethe informal negotiating groups, under Vice-Chairs Ghazi Jomaa ofTunisia and Arthur Campeau of Canada, began their work, the moodshifted. Substantive negotiations led to the elaboraton ofmeaningful decisions that will, hopefully, set the CSD in motion.

The mood in the conference rooms and the corridors improvedfurther during the two-day High-Level Segment. Over 50 ministersparticipated in the segment that gave a boost to the decisionsadopted in Plenary. The summary of the high-level meeting, whichwas met with applause when read by Amb. Razali, highlighted thetwo-day meeting. The summary said that the ministers recognizedthat the primary purpose of the CSD is to give policy direction.There was an overwhelming sense of disquiet that the momentum ofRio had been lost and they stressed that much more needs to be doneto translate the Rio commitments into concrete action. They made anumber of specific suggestions for the work of the CSD, including:country-hosted intersessional meetings; holding the ministerialsegment around a large table to create an environment conducive todialogue; and recognizing that sustainable development is not justthe job of environment ministers, but that development, finance,economic and other ministers should participate in the work of theCSD as well. They underlined the dynamic role of the Commission asa central political forum for monitoring and review of Agenda 21and other outcomes of UNCED and they stressed the need to providefurther political impetus and profile to the activities of theCommission. Initiatives and programmes were announced to show howAgenda 21 was alive, not a document collecting dust on a shelf. TheUS clearly showed that a new spirit of North-South cooperation andpartnership has emerged out of the UNCED/CSD process when TimothyWirth announced that the US and Colombia will work together tocontribute to preparations for the intersessional working group ontechnology transfer, cooperation and capacity building.

Thus, with the endorsement of the ministers who took the time tocome to New York, the first substantive session of the CSD ended ona positive note. There was a sense of community and partnership inthe Trusteeship Council Chamber during the last session of the CSDon Friday morning, 25 June. The Spirit of Rio had returned and itappeared as though the CSD was on the right track.

The announcements of country-hosted intersessional meetings and theestablishment of ad hoc intersessional working groups on financeand technology mean that numerous processes throughout the yearwill enhance and facilitate the work of the CSD. The 2-3 weekannual Commission meeting will not be the only place wheresustainable development is discussed at the international level.Whether or not the Commission is able to maintain the highpolitical profile and continue to forge new partnerships and enableprogress and cooperation on environmental and development issuesremains to be seen. However the participants realized that they --Governments, NGOs, major groups, international organizations, UNagencies and programmes, international financial institutions --are responsible for ensuring that sustainable development becomesa reality and that there is positive progress to report at nextyear's session of the CSD.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

At its meeting in Geneva from 28 June - 31 July1993, ECOSOC will review the report of the CSD and consider thePBIs (Program Budget Implications) related to the activities of theCSD for the coming year. It is also expected that ECOSOC will setthe dates and venue for the 1994 meeting of the CSD.

In a related item, ECOSOC will also be reviewing the arrangementsfor consultation with NGOs. Document E/C.2/1993/L.2, "Review offuture activities: Review of the arrangements for consultation withNGOs," was considered by the Committee on Non-GovernmentalOrganizations at two meetings over the past few months. Proposalswill be made with a view to updating, if necessary, Councilresolution 1296 (XLIV), "Arrangements for consultations with NGOs,"of 23 May 1968. An open-ended working group will submit a progressreport to an intersessional meeting of the Committee onNon-Governmental Organizations and, through it, to ECOSOC'ssubstantive session of 1994.

Pursuant to paragraph 5 of L.2 (participation of NGOs inconsultative status in the work of the open-ended working group),NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC that wish to participate inthe open-ended working group will be accredited in accordance withthe provisions of Council resolution 1296 (XLIV). Other NGOswishing to be accredited may apply to the NGO Unit of theSecretariat for this purpose. Paragraph 6 of the resolution statesthat: "In recognition of the intergovernmental nature of theWorking Group, non-governmental organizations shall have nonegotiating role in the work of the Group."

ECOSOC:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

ECOSOC will submit the report of the firstsubstantive session of the CSD to the 48th General Assembly thisfall. General Assembly resolution 47/191 requests theSecretary-General to report to the General Assembly at itsforty-eighth session on the establishment and progress of theCommission on Sustainable Development. It is expected that UNCEDfollow-up and related issues will be dealt with by the GeneralAssembly as in years past, during one week, although informaldiscussions may continue throughout the session.

PROPOSED GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED INTERSESSIONAL MEETINGS:

During the coming months, individual governments will inform theCSD Secretariat of their plans to hold meetings that mightcontribute to the work of the CSD at its next session. During theCSD, the following governments announced plans to hold suchintersessional meetings:

France will host a meeting in 1994 on water quality and public health in the most underprivileged areas;

The Netherlands will have a conference on drinking water in early 1994;

Italy said that it would sponsor a meeting on one of the issues scheduled for next year's session but was not specific on the topic;

Malaysia announced that it would host a meeting as their contribution and while they did not mention a subject, Finland later welcomed Malaysia's offer to host a workshop on the sustainable management of forests;

Norway announced two meetings: 1) a workshop on environmentally friendly technology in cooperation with UNCTAD; and 2) an expert meeting to assist in enabling the CSD to monitor developments on the availability of financial resources;

Canada said that the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Winnipeg is establishing an informal forum on environment and trade;

Morocco reiterated its pledge made during the Rio Conference to host a high-level meeting to deal with freshwater;

Sweden will host a meeting in Stockholm 25-29 April 1994 on risk assessment and management of chemicals and offered to make funds available for the costs of holding the meeting and will contribute to the participation of developing country delegates; and

Denmark offered to host a meeting on health.

SECRETARIAT AND BUREAU ACTIVITIES:

During the intersessionalperiod the CSD Secretariat, within the Department of PolicyCoordination and Sustainable Development, will be busy as itfinally receives the necessary resources and personnel to servicethe CSD. Among its activities will be to work with CSD Chair Razaliand his Bureau to discuss the necessary arrangements for theintersessional period. The Secretariat will also be compiling thespecific details of the proposed country-hosted intersessionalmeetings, as well as making the necessary preparations for the adhoc open-ended intersessional working groups on technology andfinance.

The Commission requested that numerous reports be prepared by theSecretariat in the coming months. These include: an annual overviewreport on progress made in the implementation of Agenda 21;thematic reports, corresponding to the Agenda 21 sectoral clustersto be included on the agenda for the 1994 session: Health, humansettlements and freshwater (Chapters 6, 7, 18 and 21); and Toxicchemicals and hazardous wastes (Chapters 19, 20 and 22);corresponding reports on the activities of IGOs within and outsidethe UN system; a report on financial flows and mechanisms toimplement Agenda 21; and a progress report on the implementation ofparagraphs 34.15, 34.16, 34.17 and 34.26 of Agenda 21 on technologytransfer and facilitating such implementation.

Participants

National governments: Algeria; Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; Austria; Barbados; Belgium; Benin; Brazil; Bulgaria; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Cuba; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Finland; France; Gabon; Germany; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Kenya; Malawi; Malaysia; Malta; Mexico; Morocco; Namibia; Netherlands; Norway; Pakistan; Philippines; Poland; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Switzerland; Tunisia; UK; US; Uruguay; Vanuatu; Venezuela; Zimbabwe
Negotiating blocs: African Union; European Union; Group of 77 and China
Non-state coalitions: NGOs; Youth