Daily report for 20 May 1994

FINANCE: The paragraph-by-paragraph discussion on theChair's draft text took most of the day. In paragraph 1, the G-77and China suggested that emphasis be placed on the role of theintersessional ad hoc open-ended Working Group on Finance.The G-77 and China asked that paragraph 2 (provision of finances)be split into two sections to strengthen the discussion of the roleof the GEF. They also took issue with the reference to"insufficient provision of new and additional financial resources,"because this implies that there are additional resources. Theyrequested that the last sentence concerning the Uruguay Round bedeleted. The US, EU and Japan found the draft paragraph acceptable,but requested deletion of the reference to "a minimum acceptablelevel" of GEF funding. Canada and Australia, requested that theparagraph have a more balanced approach, which could be achieved bymoving paragraph 8 (national policies) here or including languageto that effect.

On paragraph 3 (ODA levels), the Philippines suggested that theidea of participation at all levels be tied into the treatment ofODA. Egypt noted that the efficiency in ODA use is important, andsuggested that countries offering ODA review the efficiency of useand possibilities for improvement and report back to the CSD. Indiacalled for a time frame of two or three years by which the targetof 0.7% GNP ODA levels will be reached. The G-77 and Chinarequested deleting the reference to increased private flows andadding a reference to "commitments of concessional funding."Austria asked that present financial flows be acknowledged, butalso suggested language to establish a link between these flows andadvancement of sustainable development. The US and Japan found thereference to private flows valuable. The EU noted that referencesto time frames would revive discussions that are not appropriate.

On paragraph 4 (desertification negotiations), Hungary suggestedadding a similar reference to the Climate Change Convention and theG-77 and China suggested adding reference to the Small IslandStates Conference. On paragraph 5 (role of public awareness),Austria and Canada suggested that the reference to the Commission'srole in promoting public awareness be replaced with more detailedlanguage. On paragraph 6 (trade liberalization), the G-77 and Chinaobjected to the words "ill-equipped" to compete in world marketsand requested that the reference be changed to developing countries"particularly in Africa." They also requested the establishment ofa diversification fund for African commodities, but in the face ofUS objection and no other support, the Chair requested that theywithdraw this amendment. Bangladesh suggested that the "leastdeveloped" countries be singled out for assistance in matters oftrade.

On paragraph 7 (debt), the G-77 and China suggested that thereference to the international debt strategy be removed. The US andthe EU disagreed. The US and the EU also announced they weresubmitting text for new paragraphs calling on UNEP to surveyprivate sector initiatives and calling for the integration ofenvironment and development strategies.

There was considerable disagreement on paragraph 8 (nationalpolicies). The G-77 and China proposed deleting the references tothe need for adequate national policies, replacing it with wordingthat indicates that such calls are attempts to divert attentionaway from the provision of new and additional financial resources.The US, Canada, the EU and Japan preferred the original text. TheUS also suggested adding a paragraph on national sustainabledevelopment strategies. Poland requested a reference to the uniqueproblems faced by countries with economies in transition. Japansuggested that the need for reducing military expenditures also beadded. Korea stated that this is a sensitive issue. France said theG-77 and China proposal changes the nature of the document andimpedes any attempt to reach consensus without explicitly notingeach side's understanding of the issue. The G-77 and China saidthey could compromise as long as the political commitment to Agenda21 and the Rio agreements do not fade.

On paragraph 9 (lending institutions), the G-77 and China suggestedincluding reference to grant capacities and regional banks. The USand the EU provisionally agreed. On paragraph 10 (innovativefinancing mechanisms), Austria noted that the text is pessimisticabout these options. Australia suggested that the text mentionincentives. The US agreed with the G-77 and China in the need forfurther examination of these mechanisms.

On paragraph 11 (financing sectoral clusters), India noted thatsectors should not be "lumped" together. The G-77 and China calledfor a matrix of policy reforms by developed countries. The US notedthat this proposal changes the meaning. China proposed a paragraph11 bis, which calls for the continuation of the<W2I> ad hoc<D>open-ended working group on finance. On paragraph 12 (steps toincrease effectiveness of the CSD), the G-77 and China called forthe deletion of the reference to greater involvement of privatesector and NGO experts and to informal expert group meetings. TheUS, Canada, and the EU objected. Malaysia called the delegates'attention to the fact that the working group on finance needs clearinstructions from this session of the CSD.

MAJOR GROUPS: During the short discussion of major groups,delegates generally expressed satisfaction with the Chair's drafttext. In the chapeau to paragraph 1, Australia and the Philippinessupported the special reference to the role of women. Benin wantedto refer to other vulnerable groups, including youth and the aged.Tunisia also stressed reference to youth and children. Austriaargued that the role of women is different than that of youth --women shape daily decisions at the household level on sustainabledevelopment whereas youth must be educated and trained. The Chairsaid that she would reformulate the chapeau.

Egypt proposed language calling for case studies on the involvementof major groups in different sectors. In paragraph 2, the EU, theUS and Australia wanted to ensure that the reporting requirementmentioned here is within the context of national reports and notmandatory. China had a problem with the reference to "local supportinstitutions" in paragraph 5,which calls on internationalorganizations to involve major groups in decision-making processes.

WORKING GROUP I

FINANCE: The paragraph-by-paragraph discussion on theChair's draft text took most of the day. In paragraph 1, the G-77and China suggested that emphasis be placed on the role of theintersessional ad hoc open-ended Working Group on Finance.The G-77 and China asked that paragraph 2 (provision of finances)be split into two sections to strengthen the discussion of the roleof the GEF. They also took issue with the reference to"insufficient provision of new and additional financial resources,"because this implies that there are additional resources. Theyrequested that the last sentence concerning the Uruguay Round bedeleted. The US, EU and Japan found the draft paragraph acceptable,but requested deletion of the reference to "a minimum acceptablelevel" of GEF funding. Canada and Australia, requested that theparagraph have a more balanced approach, which could be achieved bymoving paragraph 8 (national policies) here or including languageto that effect.

On paragraph 3 (ODA levels), the Philippines suggested that theidea of participation at all levels be tied into the treatment ofODA. Egypt noted that the efficiency in ODA use is important, andsuggested that countries offering ODA review the efficiency of useand possibilities for improvement and report back to the CSD. Indiacalled for a time frame of two or three years by which the targetof 0.7% GNP ODA levels will be reached. The G-77 and Chinarequested deleting the reference to increased private flows andadding a reference to "commitments of concessional funding."Austria asked that present financial flows be acknowledged, butalso suggested language to establish a link between these flows andadvancement of sustainable development. The US and Japan found thereference to private flows valuable. The EU noted that referencesto time frames would revive discussions that are not appropriate.

On paragraph 4 (desertification negotiations), Hungary suggestedadding a similar reference to the Climate Change Convention and theG-77 and China suggested adding reference to the Small IslandStates Conference. On paragraph 5 (role of public awareness),Austria and Canada suggested that the reference to the Commission'srole in promoting public awareness be replaced with more detailedlanguage. On paragraph 6 (trade liberalization), the G-77 and Chinaobjected to the words "ill-equipped" to compete in world marketsand requested that the reference be changed to developing countries"particularly in Africa." They also requested the establishment ofa diversification fund for African commodities, but in the face ofUS objection and no other support, the Chair requested that theywithdraw this amendment. Bangladesh suggested that the "leastdeveloped" countries be singled out for assistance in matters oftrade.

On paragraph 7 (debt), the G-77 and China suggested that thereference to the international debt strategy be removed. The US andthe EU disagreed. The US and the EU also announced they weresubmitting text for new paragraphs calling on UNEP to surveyprivate sector initiatives and calling for the integration ofenvironment and development strategies.

There was considerable disagreement on paragraph 8 (nationalpolicies). The G-77 and China proposed deleting the references tothe need for adequate national policies, replacing it with wordingthat indicates that such calls are attempts to divert attentionaway from the provision of new and additional financial resources.The US, Canada, the EU and Japan preferred the original text. TheUS also suggested adding a paragraph on national sustainabledevelopment strategies. Poland requested a reference to the uniqueproblems faced by countries with economies in transition. Japansuggested that the need for reducing military expenditures also beadded. Korea stated that this is a sensitive issue. France said theG-77 and China proposal changes the nature of the document andimpedes any attempt to reach consensus without explicitly notingeach side's understanding of the issue. The G-77 and China saidthey could compromise as long as the political commitment to Agenda21 and the Rio agreements do not fade.

On paragraph 9 (lending institutions), the G-77 and China suggestedincluding reference to grant capacities and regional banks. The USand the EU provisionally agreed. On paragraph 10 (innovativefinancing mechanisms), Austria noted that the text is pessimisticabout these options. Australia suggested that the text mentionincentives. The US agreed with the G-77 and China in the need forfurther examination of these mechanisms.

On paragraph 11 (financing sectoral clusters), India noted thatsectors should not be "lumped" together. The G-77 and China calledfor a matrix of policy reforms by developed countries. The US notedthat this proposal changes the meaning. China proposed a paragraph11 bis, which calls for the continuation of the<W2I> ad hoc<D>open-ended working group on finance. On paragraph 12 (steps toincrease effectiveness of the CSD), the G-77 and China called forthe deletion of the reference to greater involvement of privatesector and NGO experts and to informal expert group meetings. TheUS, Canada, and the EU objected. Malaysia called the delegates'attention to the fact that the working group on finance needs clearinstructions from this session of the CSD.

MAJOR GROUPS: During the short discussion of major groups,delegates generally expressed satisfaction with the Chair's drafttext. In the chapeau to paragraph 1, Australia and the Philippinessupported the special reference to the role of women. Benin wantedto refer to other vulnerable groups, including youth and the aged.Tunisia also stressed reference to youth and children. Austriaargued that the role of women is different than that of youth --women shape daily decisions at the household level on sustainabledevelopment whereas youth must be educated and trained. The Chairsaid that she would reformulate the chapeau.

Egypt proposed language calling for case studies on the involvementof major groups in different sectors. In paragraph 2, the EU, theUS and Australia wanted to ensure that the reporting requirementmentioned here is within the context of national reports and notmandatory. China had a problem with the reference to "local supportinstitutions" in paragraph 5,which calls on internationalorganizations to involve major groups in decision-making processes.

WORKING GROUP II

Working Group II met in an informal session to discuss the Chair'sdraft texts on: Protecting and Promoting Human Health; SustainableHuman Settlements Development; and Toxic Chemicals.

HEALTH: Paragraph 6 was not resolved. India noted that it isincorrect to say that high population growth causes a lack ofhealth care when the reverse is true. India also requested the twomain ideas in this paragraph -- poverty and population growth -- besplit into separate paragraphs. Greece, on behalf of the EU,disagreed since the text was already too long. After furtherdiscussion, the Chair requested that interested delegates work outa compromise.

Algeria requested that paragraph 8 acknowledge that consumptionpatterns "in developed countries" are the concern. India requestedreference to pollution caused by domestic animals. India, Norway,Algeria and China requested that paragraph 10 on the needs ofvulnerable groups be redrafted. Norway requested that women'shealth be addressed in its own paragraph. Belgium, Canada, China,Norway and India requested re-drafting paragraph 11, which listshealth priorities to receive particular attention.

Paragraphs 12 and 15 will likely be deleted, since they repeat thepriorities listed in paragraph 11. Columbia and India thought thatthe special report on community participation in the health sector(paragraph 17) was unnecessary. Canada suggested using successstories in national reports (paragraph 18).

Colombia suggested that paragraph 19 should ask governments,particularly from developed countries, to mobilize adequatefinancial resources. India requested that reference to indigenoussystems of medicine be included in the text and Norway requestedmore importance be given to reproductive and women's healthmatters.

The final point of discussion was on transfer of technology. Manydeveloping countries requested specific text on transfer ofpharmaceutical technology and medicines. Others argued that financeand technology transfer were being addressed in Working Group I andshould not be addressed here.

HUMAN SETTLEMENTS: Ecuador, the Netherlands, the UK, SriLanka, Canada and China suggested changes to paragraph 3,questioning if the right issues (land management, urbantransportation, access to shelter and solid waste management) hadbeen singled out for prioritization. They also noted thatconsideration should be given to the recommendations from HabitatII.

In paragraph 5, on refugees and migration, Algeria wanted referenceto refugees in Africa. Canada, supported by China, suggested thetext should reflect that urban growth is primarily from withincities and not due to rural migration. India, Pakistan, Nigeria andEcuador disagreed, believing that rural migration is an importantcause of urbanization. The EU suggested the final text reflectboth.

Sri Lanka and India requested wording in paragraph 8 calling forthe strengthening of the United Nations Center on Human Settlements(Habitat). In paragraph 14, the issues of transfer of technologyand finance were raised by developing countries. Others suggestedthat since these issues were being addressed in Working Group I,they should not be addressed here.

Paragraph 15, which contains 16 recommendations, was thought to betoo long and repetitive. There were several organizationalsuggestions in addition to noting areas that were repetitive orincorrectly positioned within the text. Antigua and Barbudarequested that 15(8) draw attention to the Programme of Actionadopted at the recent UN Global Conference on Small IslandDeveloping States. Delegates also requested clarification of theterm "brown agenda."

In 15(10), many countries were concerned about asking theSecretary-General to prepare an international report on localauthorities. China raised the issue of sovereignty and suggestedthat any reports of the local level should be prepared by nationalgovernments. In 15(12) India raised the rural versus urban debate,suggesting that this paragraph be expanded. Finland requested thata separate paragraph deal with transportation. The UK, Finland,Sweden and the Netherlands called for more emphasis on theforthcoming Habitat II Conference.

TOXIC CHEMICALS: Delegates found the Chair's draft text ontoxic chemicals generally acceptable. In paragraph 4, on theInternational Conference on Chemical Safety, Algeria wanted todelete reference to the 114 governments that attended the meeting.Denmark disagreed since listing the number of governments andinternational organizations gives dimension to the Conference.

Canada proposed a new paragraph 8 bis on long-rangetransportation of air pollution to the Arctic and other regions.Germany did not think this was appropriate in a decision on toxicchemicals and Canada withdrew the proposal. Antigua and Barbudaproposed a new paragraph 10 bis: "The Commission took noteof the relevant provision of the Programme of Action for theSustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS),which among other things called for appropriate assistance toenable SIDS to control the risk to human health and the environmentof their peoples." In paragraph 11, Egypt proposed that the CSDreceive reports on the successful use of economic instruments tostrengthen chemical management. The US proposed a paragraph 11bis that takes note of the severe health impacts of humanexposure to lead.

IN THE CORRIDORS

While delegates refer to the importance of the role of women insustainable development in their general statements, there are fewreferences to women in the documentation. NGOs and some delegateshave taken note of this and are working to ensure that the CSD'sdecisions accurately reflect the role of women in sustainabledevelopment. Women were only mentioned in the draft decision onhuman settlements when urging the international community toexplore joint programming options. In the draft on health, womenwere only mentioned as a vulnerable group that needed to berepresented in national decision-making. Norway, Senegal andINSTRAW have pointed out that this is insufficient. Women are onthe agenda of the High-Level Segment, however, one delegate notedthat ministers are not the only ones who have to recognize theimportant role of women.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

WORKING GROUP I: Working Group I is expected to begin thismorning with consideration of the Chair's draft text ondecision-making structures. The Group will then discuss the drafttexts on: transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperationand capacity building; trade and environment; and consumption andproduction patterns. This latter text will not be distributed untilthis morning. Also, look for revised drafts on finance and majorgroups.

WORKING GROUP II: Working Group II will first consider theChair's draft text on freshwater resources, followed by the textson hazardous wastes and radioactive wastes. Look for revised draftson health, human settlements and toxic chemicals.

NGO-GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE: Earth Summit Watch, NRDC and CAPE2000 will host a dialogue on the report, "Four in `94: AssessingNational Actions to Implement Agenda 21," in Conference Room 5 at6:15 pm.