Summary report, 16–27 May 1994

CSD-2

Jump to Analysis

Nearly two years after the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment opened in Rio de Janeiro, the second session of the UNCommission on Sustainable Development (CSD) determined thatalthough some progress has been made, until there is an increase inofficial development assistance and an improvement in theinternational economic climate, it will continue to be difficult totranslate the Rio commitments into action. Likewise, manyparticipants who attended the two-week meeting in New York agreedthat unless the CSD's format is changed it will be impossible toshift from rhetoric and speech-making to dialogue and action. TheCommission is supposed to enhance international cooperation for theintegration of environment and development issues indecision-making and examine the progress of Agenda 21implementation.

During the course of the session, the Commission, under its newChair, Klaus T”pfer, Germany's Minister for the Environment,examined the first cluster of issues according to its multi-yearthematic programme of work. Delegates discussed the followingcross-sectoral chapters of Agenda 21: Chapters 2 (acceleratingsustainable development); 4 (consumption patterns); 33 (financialresources and mechanisms); 34 (technology cooperation andtransfer); 37 (capacity building); 38 (institutions); 39 (legalinstruments; and 23-32 (roles of major groups). By the conclusionof the session, the Commission adopted seven decisions on:information provided by governments and organizations;decision-making structures; transfer of environmentally soundtechnology, cooperation and capacity-building; major groups; trade,environment and sustainable development; changing consumption andproduction patterns; and finance.

On the sectoral side, delegates examined the progress inimplementing the following chapters of Agenda 21: Chapters 6(health); 7 (human settlements); 18 (freshwater resources); 19(toxic chemicals); 20 (hazardous wastes); 21 (solid wastes andsewage); and 22 (radioactive wastes). By the conclusion of thesession, the Commission adopted six decisions on: protecting andpromoting human health; human settlements; toxic chemicals;hazardous wastes; freshwater; and radioactive wastes. TheCommission also adopted a decision on intersessional work, whichcalls for the establishment of a new ad hoc open-endedintersessional working group to examine the sectoral issues thatwill be addressed by the Commission at its 1995 session (lands,desertification, forests and biodiversity).The session concludedwith a two and a half day High-Level Segment, attended by over 40ministers and high-level officials.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CSD

The idea for a Commission on Sustainable Development emerged duringUNCED PrepCom IV. The Commission was called for to ensure effectivefollow-up of UNCED, to enhance international cooperation andrationalize the intergovernmental decision-making capacity for theintegration of environment and development issues, and to examinethe progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national,regional and international levels.

In 1992, the 47th session of the UN General Assembly set out theterms of reference for the Commission, its composition, guidelinesfor the participation of NGOs, the organization of work, the CSD'srelationship with other UN bodies, the high-level advisory boardand Secretariat arrangements, in resolution 47/191.

The CSD held its first substantive session at UN Headquarters inNew York from 14-25 June 1993. Amb. Razali Ismail (Malaysia) waselected the first Chair of the Commission. During the course of thesession, the Commission addressed the following items: adoption ofa multi-year thematic programme of work for the Commission; issuesrelating to the future work of the Commission; exchange ofinformation regarding the implementation of Agenda 21 at thenational level; progress in the incorporation of recommendations ofUNCED in the activities of international organizations and withinthe UN system; progress achieved in facilitating and promoting thetransfer of environmentally-sound technology, cooperation andcapacity-building; and initial financial commitments, financialflows and arrangements to give effect to UNCED decisions. On 23-24June 1993, over 50 ministers gathered to participate in theHigh-Level Segment and address issues related to the future work ofthe CSD and implementation of Agenda 21.

The CSD held two ad hoc open-ended working groups onfinancial flows and mechanisms and technology transfer andcooperation, which met from 22 February - 2 March 1994. Althoughthe two working groups succeeded in preparing lists ofrecommendations to be submitted to the CSD, these lists are notnearly as concrete and forward-looking as some delegates andobservers had hoped. Some government- nominated experts complainedthat the discussions were not technical enough due to the largenumber of representatives from UN missions who participated in themeeting. NGOs commented that the discussions repeated much of thewell-worn rhetoric from Rio and other intergovernmental fora.Delegates noted that smaller fora, such as the government-sponsoredmeetings, are often more productive than all-inclusiveinter-governmental working groups. Most delegates agreed, however,that little progress was made towards resolving the North-Southdifferences on these critical issues.

INTERSESSIONAL HIGHLIGHTS

The Government of Norwayand UNCTAD co-sponsored this workshop in Oslo from 13-15 October1993. The workshop, which was attended by more than 40 experts, wasstructured around four themes: general technology- environmentissues; supply side issues; demand side issues; and newinitiatives. The participants noted the following: (a) a number ofproposals for action are currently stalled because the relevantdecision-makers in government and industry do not have sufficientempirical evidence of the realities of the situation to make adecision or because there is no consistent view on the nature ofthe problems involved; (b) a number of apparently successfulinstitutional innovations need to be documented and tracked overtime. Benchmarking and other best practices could be disseminatedto inspire innovations elsewhere; and (c) there are weaknesses inthe methodological approaches to a number of environmental issues.

WORKSHOP ON THE TRANSFER AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND TECHNOLOGIES:

PREPARATORY MEETING ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, COOPERATION AND LOCAL CAPACITIES:

The United States and Colombia co-hosted thismeeting in Cartagena, Colombia, from 17-19 November 1993.Representatives from 16 countries, the European Commission, andfive UN agencies focused their discussions on two technologysub-sectors -- liquid waste and energy technologies. The discussionon technology transfer for handling liquid waste recommended thefollowing: improving access to information; monitoring dischargesand assessing the risk they pose; improving regulatory frameworks;financing the acquisition of technology; strengthening institutionsin receiving countries; improving public awareness and support forneeded actions; lowering technological risks; and minimizing legalobstacles and trade barriers. The discussion on energy technologiesrecommended the following: promoting and facilitating policyreforms that accelerate the introduction of energy efficiencytechnologies, practices and systems; fostering and financing thedevelopment and commercialization of energy efficient technologies;promoting, facilitating and financing international disseminationof information; promoting donor collaboration and coordination; andworking directly with recipient nations in developing the necessarycapacities to use these technologies.

SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION:

The Symposium onSustainable Consumption was held in Oslo, Norway, from 19-20January 1994. The Symposium confirmed that international agreementexists on the need to change unsustainable patterns of productionand consumption. There was broad support for a detailed analysis ofthe relationship between production and consumption patterns andtheir environmental, economic and social impacts. The Symposiumproposed that the CSD consider: establishing a network amonginterested countries for exchanging information on practicalexperience in promoting sustainable consumption; and establishinga task force of experts designated by interested governments torecommend ways and means to achieve more sustainable patterns ofproduction and consumption in both the public and private sectors.

PREPARATORY MEETING ON FINANCE:

The Governments of Japan andMalaysia co-sponsored a preparatory meeting on finance from 2-4February 1994, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was organizedas an informal open exchange of views and ideas around the specificissues of: the international policy environment and economicinstruments conducive to mobilizing domestic and external financialresources to implement Agenda 21, including matters related toterms of trade, commodity prices and access to markets, variousforms of debt relief, and the feasibility of international fees,taxes and gradable permits; the national policy environment andeconomic instruments conducive to mobilizing domestic and externalfinancial resources to implement Agenda 21, including economic andfiscal incentives and mechanisms; promotion of foreign directinvestment; and new schemes for fundraising and voluntarycontributions through other private channels, including NGOs.

ROUNDTABLE ON WATER AND HEALTH IN UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN AREAS:

This roundtable was held in Sophia Antipolis, France, from21-23 February 1994. France offered to host this meeting to helpmobilize decision-makers and others working on this importantissue, which has resulted from rapid urbanization in developingcountries and countries with economies in transition. Topics ofdiscussion at the roundtable included the examination of:institutional problems; health, sanitary education and publicinvolvement; appropriate technologies and know-how; and financialmeans.

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON HEALTH, THE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

This workshop was held in Copenhagen,Denmark, from 23-25 February 1994. Participants recommended thatthe CSD: promote awareness and commitment to the close andfundamental relationship between health, the environment andsustainable development; convince governments of the need forpolitical commitment to integrate these three issues; encourage acarefully planned redirection of national and internationalresources towards health and the environment; encourage relevantactors to participate in the sustainable planning process; andensure at the national and local levels that major groups are givenbetter opportunities to be involved in decisions and action toprotect and promote health. The participants also suggested themeans towards achieving these recommendations, including:institutional capacity building; collaboration between UN agencies,international bodies and NGOs; formulation of policies andprogrammes in multilateral and bilateral cooperation agencies; thepromotion of research; and the use of economic instruments andinformation dissemination.

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON DRINKING WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION:

This ministerial conference was held from 22-23March 1994, in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. Recommendations to theCSD included: support strategies to assist the underprivileged thatare cost-effective, based on the real needs of communities, anddesigned to protect critical aquatic ecosystems and water sourcecatchment areas; reduction of the high levels of water wasted inmany cities, agriculture and industry; promotion of waterconservation through recycling and reuse; and application of soundeconomic principles in water allocation and pricing, based on theprinciple that water is a social and economic good, whilerecognizing that it is a basic human need. Governments shoulddevelop the legal and institutional framework to supportparticipation and partnership, provide access to information, andsupport public education and capacity building programmes.Governments should also preserve the natural quality of bothsurface and groundwater.

SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:

This symposium took place in Baden bei Wein, Austria, from14-16 April 1994, where approximately 40 experts developed a seriesof recommendations for the CSD. These included: internationalenvironmental law should contribute to the objectives ofsustainable development; soft law should be considered as animportant interim step; equity is an important instrument to attainenvironmental justice; incentives are better than sanctions formonitoring and compliance control; compliance depends on nationalcapacities; dispute avoidance provisions should be given preferenceover dispute settlement provisions; and measures dealing withinternational trade and international environmental law shouldinvolve greater cooperation between the World Trade Organizationand environmental conventions. Delegates expressed skepticism aboutbringing convention secretariats together under an umbrellaorganization. No consensus was reached on the utility of principlesin international environmental law.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY:

UNEP, the ILOand the WHO convened the International Conference on ChemicalSafety, which was held at the invitation of Sweden, in Stockholmfrom 25-29 April 1994. Representatives from 114 countries, UNbodies, specialized agencies and NGOs agreed to establish anIntergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. The functions of theForum will be to: identify priorities for cooperative action onchemical safety; advise and recommend concerted internationalstrategies for hazard identification and risk assessment ofchemicals; secure the collaboration of national, regional andinternational bodies in the field of chemical safety; promote thestrengthening of national coordinating mechanisms and capacitiesfor chemicals management; promote international agreements;identify gaps in scientific knowledge; and review the effectivenessof ongoing activities. All Member States of the UN, its specializedagencies and the IAEA are invited to participate in the Forum.Relevant UN bodies and agencies and NGOs are also invited toparticipate, without the right to vote.

REPORT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE CSD

Outgoing Chair Amb. Razali Ismail (Malaysia) opened the meeting andnoted that steps to implement Agenda 21 have been taken at theinternational and national levels, but not with equal effect in allregions of the world. Adequate financing has not been mobilized toattain the CSD's objectives. He called for the CSD to move from therole of consensus builder to agent of change. The CSD should lookat cross-cutting issues and linkages with other conferences andinternational organizations. He introduced Dr. Klaus T”pfer, theGerman Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation andNuclear Safety, who was then elected as the new CSD Chair.

T”pfer recommended that to ensure concrete results the CSD must:analyze the implementation of the results of Rio; identifyshortcomings in implementation; develop possible solutions;designate responsible actors at national, regional andinternational levels; and determine political priorities.

Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination andSustainable Development (DPCSD), queried the rumors that the Spiritof Rio is disappearing given the substantial action in areas suchas the GEF, small island developing States, straddling and highlymigratory fish stocks, coastal zone management and environmentalconventions. Governments have set up mechanisms to addresssustainable development issues. Desai asked delegates to addresshow assistance can be provided to NGOs to support their manyactivities.

After hearing reports on some of the government- sponsoredintersessional meetings, delegates elected the remaining members ofthe Bureau and adopted the agenda (E/CN.17/1994/1). The members ofthe Bureau, in addition to T”pfer, are: Ms. Savitri Kunadi (India);Amb. Tunguru Huaraka (Namibia); Dr. Maciej Nowicki (Poland) andMinister Sergio Florencio Sobrinho (Brazil).

OPENING SESSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON PROGRESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGENDA 21

The Commission began its substantive work with a two-day generaldiscussion on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21. Thediscussion, which concluded on Tuesday, 17 May 1994, includedstatements from 33 countries, three regional groups, five UNagencies and intergovernmental organizations, and eight NGOs.During the discussion, a number of countries highlighted nationalactivities to implement Agenda 21. Uruguay has developed anelectronic system for the exchange of information on theenvironment. The Philippines has set up a Council for SustainableDevelopment and a National Action Plan for Sustainable Development.Hungary has also established a national Commission on SustainableDevelopment. China has developed a ten-point strategy. Venezuelahas developed a national environmental plan and has adopted newtechniques for toxic waste management.

The need to change patterns of production and consumption was oneof the most common themes of the discussion. The European Union,Korea, the US, Colombia, Poland, Norway, Australia, Austria, SriLanka, the Women's Environment and Development Organization, andthe Alliance of Northern People on the Environment all stressed theneed to accept that consumption and production patterns,particularly in the developed countries, have been a major cause ofenvironmental deterioration.

The relationship between trade and the environment was mentioned byAustralia, Austria and Mexico, among others. Some delegations,including the European Commission and Switzerland, said that theCSD should outline certain basic orientations to guideinternational discussions on trade and the environment. The GATTwill be holding a public symposium on trade, the environment andsustainable development in June. UNCTAD and the UN RegionalEconomic Commissions also described their work in this area. TheNordic countries called for close cooperation between UNEP and thenewly established World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan suggestedmore successful rule-making with regard to trade and theenvironment could result from providing input to the WTO.

The G-77, Brazil and China expressed concern that the Spirit of Riois fading since the new and additional funding that was promised tosupport implementation of Agenda 21 has not materialized. TheRepublic of Korea, Indonesia, China, Colombia, Malaysia and theThird World Network all commented on the international economicsystem, particularly the need for supportive trade policies, traderather than aid, the debt crisis, commodity pricing and greateraccess to markets.

Another recurring topic was how to manage the CSD's intersessionalwork. The G-77 and Brazil called for the establishment of a newad hoc open-ended working group on the sectoral issues to beconsidered by the CSD in 1995 (lands, forests, desertification andbiodiversity). The EU, France, Austria and the Russian Federationsupported the government-hosted intersessional meetings on specifictopics, rather than the establishment of this large UN workinggroup. The US, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Switzerland all calledfor simplified reporting procedures. The Czech Republic, Canada andthe US mentioned the need to develop indicators for sustainabledevelopment.

WORKING GROUP I

Working Group I, chaired by Savitri Kunadi (India), addressed thecross-sectoral clusters of the CSD's multi-year thematic programmeof work. These issues fell under Agenda Items 3 (General discussionon progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, focusing on thecross-sectoral components of Agenda 21 and the critical elements ofsustainability), 4 (Financial resources and mechanisms), and 5(Education, science, transfer of environmentally soundtechnologies, cooperation and capacity building). After a two-daydiscussion of these issues, the Working Group had three days toconsider the Chair's draft decisions.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MECHANISMS:

On Wednesday, 18 May,Working Group I discussed financial resources and mechanisms(Chapter 33 of Agenda 21). At its first session, the CSDestablished an intersessional ad hoc open-ended workinggroup on finance. The report of the intersessional working group(E/CN.17/1994/10) was presented to Working Group I by Dr. LinSee-Yan. He recommended that delegates: strengthen the capacity ofinternational financial institutions; draw up a matrix of theoptimal mix of instruments for each of the sectoral clusters; andallow the intersessional working group to continue. Other reportspresented to the Group included: a report of the Secretary-General,"Financial resources and mechanism for sustainable development:overview of current issues and developments"(E/CN.17/ISWG.II/1994/2), and a report of the intersessionalworkshop on finance co-sponsored by Malaysia and Japan.

During the opening discussion, general questions of the level andefficiency of financing revealed distinct North-South differences.The G-77 and China expressed concern that while developingcountries had joined the global partnership for sustainabledevelopment on the explicit understanding that additional resourceswould be provided, this aid has not been forthcoming. Japan and theNordic countries were sympathetic, noting that they had kept theirfunding levels high and calling for renewed efforts to close thegap between the goal of 0.7% of GNP and present levels of officialdevelopment assistance (ODA). The EU, the US and Australia calledfor increased efficiency in the use of aid, which is to be achievedin part through reformed national policies and improvedmacroeconomic conditions. Germany called for increased public andprivate savings, sound pricing policies and the removal ofsubsidies. The G-77 and China, however, were concerned that thecall for reordering priorities or greater efficiency in the use ofaid is an attempt to divert attention from the issue of primaryimportance -- the provision of aid.

The developed nations looked positively on other financingmechanisms. The GEF and its recent restructuring and replenishmentwere the subjects of praise from all delegates. Japan suggestedthat the GEF play a more important role as the financial mechanismto fund Agenda 21 activities. Colombia, India, and others commentedthat the GEF is an important mechanism, within its limited scope.The EU highlighted the benefits that are expected to come from thecompletion of the Uruguay Round, and also noted that foreign directinvestment (FDI) flows are at record levels, due in part to theincreased attractiveness of developing countries for investment.India noted that trade liberalization and other measures will taketime, while immediate concerns should be addressed by this Group.Morocco pointed out that some African nations will suffer from theUruguay Round decisions and that African nations are not among thesignificant recipients of FDI.

Tradeable permits, emission taxes and air travel taxes were amongthe innovative financing methods mentioned during Wednesday'sdiscussion. Egypt tabled a proposal for a panel of experts to studythese innovative financing methods. Brazil and several otherdeveloping countries voiced concern about the incompleteinformation on these methods, noting the need to examine themclosely. Pakistan proposed that emission taxes be levied onnon-renewable resources, and Japan agreed that this method would bepromising in the long-run. Venezuela cautioned the delegates thatthe burden of implementation should not fall on energy producingnations.

The Chair attempted to reconcile these positions andrecommendations in a draft text. The paragraph-by- paragraphdiscussion on the Chair's first draft text took most of Friday, 20May. The G-77 and China took issue with the reference to"insufficient provision of new and additional financial resources,"because this implies that there are additional resources. Indiacalled for a time frame of two or three years by which the targetof 0.7% of GNP for ODA will be reached. The EU noted thatreferences to time frames would revive discussions that are notappropriate.

There was considerable disagreement on the importance of adequatenational policies. The G-77 and China proposed deleting thereferences to the need for adequate national policies, replacing itwith wording that indicates that such calls are attempts to divertattention away from the provision of new and additional financialresources. The US, Canada, the EU and Japan preferred the originaltext. France said the G-77 and China proposal changes the nature ofthe document and impedes any attempt to reach consensus unless thetext is to explicitly note each side's understanding of the issue.The G-77 and China said they could compromise as long as thepolitical commitment to Agenda 21 and the Rio agreements do notfade.

TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY, COOPERATION AND CAPACITY- BUILDING:

On Thursday, 19 May, Working Group I beganits discussion on Agenda Item 5, Education, science, transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacitybuilding, which referred to Chapters 34 (Transfer ofenvironmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacitybuilding) and 37 (National mechanisms and international cooperationfor capacity building in developing countries) of Agenda 21.Working Group I benefitted from the following documentation: Reportof the Intersessional ad hoc open ended working group ontechnology transfer and cooperation (E/CN.17/1994/11); theSecretary-General's report on "Transfer of environmentally soundtechnology, cooperation and capacity building" (E/CN.17/ISWG.I/1994/2); and the Task Manager's "Report on the transfer oftechnology."

During the general discussion, the G-77 and China requestedfacilitation of finance, access to and transfer of environmentallysound technologies (ESTs) and training on favorable terms. Theybelieved that undue emphasis has been placed on national policyadjustment, and suggested a focus on: case studies; clearinghouses; information systems; EST centres; and biotechnology.Germany clearly stated many developed countries' concern thatgeneral discussion on this issue has come to a dead-end and furtherprogress can be made only in the context of addressing specificsectors. The Nordics recognized the importance of medium- andsmall-sized enterprises in developing countries. Egypt concurred,and suggested that international organizations assist theseenterprises. Poland noted that technology transfer is an acuteproblem for countries with economies in transition. Moroccounderscored the unique constraints on African countries. The G-77and China supported the continuation of the ad hoc workinggroup on technology transfer, but many developed countriesdisagreed.

On the question of diffusion of ESTs, the developed countries foundit necessary to rely mainly on the private sector, while thedeveloping countries called for a government role. The US believedthe role of the private sector is critical for EST diffusion.Germany stated that the private sector should accept moreresponsibility in EST transfer, but also stated that sound nationalpolicies in recipient nations are important. Switzerland alsoemphasized the importance of market conditions and regulatoryframeworks. The G-77 and China suggested that the Secretary-Generalconduct a study on how to facilitate access to and transfer of ESTsin the public domain.

All delegates agreed that capacity building is an important processin technology transfer. The discussion on information systemsstressed accessibility. Germany noted general problems in accessand availability of information. The Czech Republic proposedestablishing a task force of experts to facilitate theimplementation of an INTERNET-based information system about ESTs.Switzerland suggested using existing information rather thancreating new systems, and the EU and the US called for anassessment of existing systems.

During the discussion of the Chair's draft text, a number of issuesproved problematic, including: institutionalizing theintersessional working group; protecting intellectual propertyrights as well as the needs of developing countries; and the needfor ESTs in countries with economies in transition. The problemwith the intersessional working group was resolved by a contactgroup that had been established to deal with future CSDintersessional work. This group agreed that the new intersessionalwork programme will not include an ad hoc working groupspecifically devoted to technology transfer issues. With regard tocountries with economies in transition, delegates agreed to add thephrase "such measures could also be considered for countries witheconomies in transition."

MAJOR GROUPS:

The discussion on major groups focused onChapters 23-32 of Agenda 21 that address the following majorgroups: women, children and youth, NGOs, local authorities, tradeunions and workers, business and industry, scientific andtechnological community, and farmers. The major concern was thelevel of accessibility and recognition that NGOs should enjoy.During the UNCED negotiations, NGOs enjoyed unprecedented access tomeetings, documents and delegates. Now, the CSD is trying toidentify the role of major groups in the CSD process. The originaldraft text called for ways in which major groups could submitinformation on their activities to the CSD so that they couldbecome part of the CSD's monitoring process on Agenda 21implementation. The text also addressed the issue of access ofmajor groups to the CSD's work throughout the year.

On May 20, Working Group I had a short discussion on the drafttext, and most delegates expressed satisfaction with it. Egyptproposed language calling for case studies on the involvement ofmajor groups in different sectors. The EU, the US and Australiawanted to ensure that the reporting requirement on theparticipation of major groups in national level implementation ofAgenda 21 mentioned was within the context of national reports andnot mandatory. China objected to the reference to "local supportinstitutions," which called on international organizations toinvolve major groups in decision-making processes.

DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURES:

Discussion on this issue wasaided by several preparatory documents: Part IV of theSecretary-General's overview of cross-sectoral issues(E/CN.17/1994/2); and the Task Manager's report on decision-makingstructures of the Interagency Committee on Sustainable Development.The Austrian-sponsored symposium on "Sustainable development andinternational law" also provided recommendations.

During the negotiation of the Chair's draft text, the G-77 andChina proposed deleting references to effective machinery andprocedures for treaty implementation and the promotion of disputeavoidance procedures. They proposed replacing this language with arequest for UNEP to study the concepts and implications ofsustainable development and international law. Other delegationspreferred the original text, or recommended the inclusion of bothproposals. The EU proposed a new paragraph supporting developingcountries in strengthening capacity to develop environmental impactassessment procedures and participate effectively in thedevelopment of international law.

The G-77 wanted to delete paragraph 9 (non-legally bindingagreements), since it has "dangerous implications." The Netherlandssuggested replacing the text with reference to the use ofpartnerships with business and NGO communities as a first step tothe development of legally-binding instruments. The G-77 alsowanted to delete paragraph 10 (improved coordination amongconvention secretariats), since the CSD's role and the conventionsreferred to were not clear. Australia supported the existing textand added language on co-location of Secretariats. The finalcompromise text, however, referred only vaguely to the "need forcoordination and more efficient structural arrangements amongsecretariats of conventions related to sustainable development."

TRADE, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

During thediscussion of this topic, the delegates considered the CSD's roleand its relationship to the other international organizationsinvolved with this issue -- UNEP, UNCTAD and Committee on Trade andthe Environment in the newly created World Trade Organization(WTO). The relationship between trade, the environment andsustainable development, and relevant actions desired on thenational level, were also discussed.

The following issues were raised during the discussion of theChair's draft text: the internalization of costs, taking intoaccount the level of development and without distortinginternational trade and investment; the importance of an openmultilateral trading system; and the focal point for furtherdiscussions on this issue.

The final round of negotiations on this text took place in aclosed, informal session, which extended into the early morninghours of 25 May. Many felt that it was a significant step for theCSD to take a stand on this issue at the time when the WTOCommittee on Trade and Environment was being launched. The finaltext calls for the CSD, UNCTAD and UNEP to be represented at themeetings of the WTO Trade and Environment Committee. It also notesthat the CSD will annually review "developments in the area oftrade, development and environment with a view to identifyingpossible gaps and to promote cooperation and coordination."

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS:

TheCSD is charged with monitoring progress made to implement Agenda21, and it, therefore, needs information from governments regardingnational progress. The Secretariat issued guidelines for the formatin which such information should be provided to the CSD, but manycomplained that it was overly complicated. Working Group I firstdiscussed the Chair's draft text on this issue on Tuesday, 24 May.The text called for simplified guidelines and welcomed the offersof some nations to provide assistance for the preparation of thesereports.

The G-77 suggested that the title be "Information provided byGovernments and organizations." The Czech Republic, Finland and theUS, suggested that reports include information on indicators, sincethe draft text on indicators for sustainable development would notbe discussed. The G-77 stated that many delegations had advised theChair not to take up this issue. Japan suggested that theSecretariat's format be developed by the end of August 1994.

The final text (E/CN.17/1994/L.7) recommends: the development ofsimplified guidelines for the preparation of reports, which couldbe organized in tabular form; countries may wish to includerelevant national indicators already in use; and relevantorganizations within and outside the UN system and donors couldprovide technical and financial assistance to countries in thepreparation of national reports and national Agenda 21 actionplans.

CHANGING CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION PATTERNS:

Theintersessional Symposium on Sustainable Consumption, sponsored byNorway, served as preparation for the discussion of this delicateissue within Working Group I. The Chair distributed a 25-paragraphdraft text entitled "Changing consumption patterns" on 23 May. Thefollowing day, the Chair opened discussion on the draft text and itquickly became apparent that it would need major redrafting. Duringthe short discussion, consensus was reached on one point -- thetext was too long.

After hearing general comments, the Chair decided that delegatesshould indicate the paragraphs they felt were redundant as well asthe important elements that should remain. The EU noted that:unsustainable production patterns should also be considered; theneed to change production and consumption patterns detrimental tothe environment must be reaffirmed; and the responsibility ofdeveloped countries is important. The EU also suggested deleting 10of the 25 paragraphs. The G-77 proposed deleting 17 paragraphs, 6of which were the same as the EU's proposed deletions. The G-77 andChina also mentioned the importance and vital role to be played bythe issue of changing consumption patterns and a recommendation forfurther studies.

The negotiations on the Chair's revised 16-paragraph draft texttook place during an informal, late night session on 25 May,chaired by Amb. Tunguru Huaraka (Namibia). Given the initialreactions to the original text, some were apprehensive as to theoutcome, but the revised text was more manageable and one delegatereported that there was a sense that "consensus was in the air," itwas just a matter of determining what that consensus was andputting it on paper. The text was reported to be "one that we canlive with" and "more than some expected but less than otherswanted," but most agreed it was a step forward. Many delegatesbelieved that all nations moved closer to accepting theirresponsibilities for action to change consumption and productionpatterns.

During the negotiations, the developing countries stressed: theneed to identify the "differentiated" responsibilities amongcountries; recognition that measures taken for environmentalpurposes might affect vulnerable groups, in which case off-settingmeasures should be taken; and that special attention should begiven to the situation and needs of developing countries. Thedeveloped countries emphasized the need to: promote theinternalization of environmental costs and the use of economicinstruments; and recognize the work that OECD has done in thisarea.

INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

The Chairdistributed a draft text on indicators on 21 May. The textrecommended that: the Secretary-General "undertake methodologicalstudies aimed at further refining the concept of sustainabledevelopment;" governments aim at the harmonized development of asuitable set of sustainable development indicators compatible withthe pressure-state-response-framework; countries include relevantnational indicators already in common use when providinginformation to the CSD; and the System of Integrated Environmentaland Economic Accounting (SEEA), proposed in the UN Handbook(UNSTAT), be developed and implemented in national accounting.

The developing countries felt such a discussion of indicators waspremature. Brazil expressed concern that it is not certain thatpresent indicators measure what they are said to measure, in whichcase their use not advisable. The developed countries, on the otherhand, said that the identification of several indicators is anessential ingredient for carrying out the CSD's role of monitoringprogress on Agenda 21 implementation. Further debate, however, wascarried out only in the corridors and through privateconsultations. On May 24, the Chair of Working Group I notified thedelegates that the Bureau had decided that the draft text on"Indicators for sustainable development" would not be considered inWorking Group I, although it was on the agenda for the High-LevelSegment. The Czech Republic, the US and Finland subsequentlyrecommended that countries include relevant national indicatorsalready in "common use" when providing information to the CSD beadded to the text on "Information provided by governments andorganizations." They were successful, although the term "commonuse" was deleted due to opposition from G-77 and China. During theHigh-Level Segment, several speakers commented on the need for orundesirability of indicators, but there were no concrete decisionsfor further action.

WORKING GROUP II

Under the chairmanship of Dr. Maciej Nowicki (Poland), WorkingGroup II reviewed the sectoral clusters under Agenda Items 6(a)(health, human settlements, and freshwater) and 6(b) (toxicchemicals and hazardous wastes). Sectoral cluster 6(a) was based onAgenda 21 Chapters 6 (Protecting and promoting human health), 7(Promoting sustainable human settlement development), 18(Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources) and21 (Environmentally sound management of solid wastes andsewage-related issues. Sectoral cluster 6(b) was based on Agenda 21Chapters 19 (Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals,including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic anddangerous products), 20 (Environmentally sound management ofhazardous wastes, including prevention of illegal internationaltraffic in hazardous wastes) and 22 (Safe and environmentally soundmanagement of radioactive wastes).

Reference to the nascent controversial issues -- finance andtransfer of technology -- were, for the most part, excluded fromthese discussions, leaving relatively few substantive areas fordisagreement. Hence, negotiation of the decision documents wasrelatively noncontroversial.

The substantive content of the texts varies between the sixdocuments. The texts advance the Agenda 21 language and, while theymay not contain dramatic and memorable calls for action, they docontain specific recommendations and priorities to whichgovernments can be held accountable. An examination of the textsreveals that the areas that had received attention prior to the CSDsession produced more comprehensive and substantive texts. Forexample, the International Conference on Chemical Safety held inSweden in July 1994 established an intergovernmental forum anddetermined Priorities for Action, both of which were endorsed bythe Commission and appear in the annex to the final text on toxicchemicals.

HEALTH: The discussions on health began with the presentationof two documents: the Report of the Secretary-General, "Progress inprotecting and promoting human health" (E/CN.17/1994/3); and theTask Manager's report "Background Paper on Health, the Environmentand Sustainable Development." The Task Manager's report wasprepared by WHO, in cooperation with partner agencies.

The final text (E/CN.17/1994/L.2) underlines the recommendations ofthe Intersessional Workshop on Health, the Environment andSustainable Development held in Copenhagen in February 1994. Therewas general support for the text's emphasis on prevention measures,support for vulnerable groups and the linkage between health andpoverty. The final text includes Sri Lanka's concerns aboutincreasing public awareness for health aspects (such as nutritionand communicable diseases) and India's concern that poor healthcare results in increased population growth, just as highpopulation growth causes a lack of health care.

Finance and technology transfer issues were also raised. Developedcountries attempted to have all reference to these issues deletedfrom the text because they were being addressed in Working Group I.However, developing countries fought to have some referencemaintained. The compromise reached was to refer to the relevantprovisions of Agenda 21. For example, paragraph 22 reads, "TheCommission stressed the need for full implementation of theagreements on technology transfer contained in chapter 34 of Agenda21..."

Paragraph 15(c), regarding reproductive health issues, was hotlydebated. To appease all concerns the paragraph approves what wasdecided in paragraphs 6.25 and 6.26 of Agenda 21, without prejudiceto the outcome of the International Conference on Population andDevelopment.

HUMAN SETTLEMENTS:

The discussion on human settlements beganwith an overview of the Secretary- General's report(E/CN.17.1994/5) and the background paper prepared by the TaskManager, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat),on promoting sustainable human settlements development. Both theSecretariat and Habitat were highly praised for the quality ofthese reports.

The Chair's draft text reflected the strong support for theforthcoming United Nations Conference of Human Settlements (HabitatII). The rural-urban debate that had been addressed last month atthe Habitat II Preparatory Committee meeting emerged again whenChina noted that urban growth is primarily from within cities whileIndia noted the opposite -- that rural migration to urban areas wasan important factor. The final text addresses both rural and urbanproblems. India, with 80% of its population in rural areas, managedto shift the focus substantially to "small and medium-sizedsettlements in rural regions."

UNICEF, India, the Nordic countries, Australia, Kenya and manyNGOs' strong support for local authorities and community-basedorganizations is reflected in the text. However, the suggestionthat the international community develop joint programmes withlocal authorities and groups raised sovereignty issues with severalcountries (including China, Algeria and Pakistan) and, accordingly,the text now specifies that this should be done "throughappropriate channels."

FRESHWATER:

Discussion on freshwater began with theintroduction of the Secretary-General's report (E/CN.17/1994/4) andthe inter-agency Task Manager's report presented by the FAO. Thereports of the intersessional meetings also contributed to thesubstantive discussion. They included the International MinisterialConference on Drinking Water and Environmental Sanitation, hostedby the Netherlands in March 1994, and the Roundtable on Water andHealth, hosted by France in February 1994.

There was little debate during the discussion of the Chair's drafttext. There was general support for the role of women in theplanning and management of water resources, and the focus onpollution prevention. There was also support for the development ofindicators, although this is not reflected in the final text.Pakistan suggested the creation of a fund to identify, develop andshare water related technologies, however, this was not supportedand the final text asks governments to mobilize finances within theframework established by chapter 33 of Agenda 21.

The final text (E/CN.17/1994/L.5) urged that special attention begiven to: integrated management of water, river and lake basins;the involvement of people that are most directly affected by watermanagement strategies in the planning of water infrastructureprojects; implementation of the polluter pays principle;encouragement of partnership projects between all partiesconcerned; promotion of a gender perspective in water resourcesmanagement; promotion of education programmes; promotion of greaterefficiency of sustainable water use; promotion of afforestation tohalt soil degradation and increase moisture retention; and the useof environmental impact assessments.

HAZARDOUS WASTES:

The two background documents to thisdiscussion were the Secretary-General's report on hazardous wastes(E/CN.17/1994/7) and the Task Manager's report coordinated by UNEP.There was substantial praise for these reports.

Given the considerable overlap between the objectives of the BaselConvention and the recommendations in Agenda 21 relating tohazardous wastes, it is not surprising that the Convention isreferred to frequently in the final text. The Commission welcomesthe progress achieved by the Basel Convention, urges governments toratify or accede to it and to support the fund established by itscontracting parties. The Commission also invites the Parties to theConvention to ask the Basel Secretariat to develop non-complianceprocedures and to undertake case studies of illegal traffic inhazardous wastes.

Malaysia and Australia's concerns about the disposal of tankersludge and ballast waters appears in paragraph 8 and Sweden and thePhilippines' concerns about the military's production and disposalof hazardous wastes is addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11. BothPoland and Germany have offered to host international conferenceswithin the next year (paragraphs 17 and 18).

Many developing countries supported the proposal to request theParties to the Basel Convention to develop non-complianceprocedures. Malaysia proposed that a protocol on liability shouldbe called for, however, this was not reflected in the text.Instead, the final text "invites" Parties to the Basel Conventionto consider "developing non-compliance procedures."

TOXIC CHEMICALS:

Discussion began with theSecretary-General's report on toxic chemicals (E/CN.17/ 1994/6),which notes that 13 million chemicals have been identified and upto 1000 new chemicals enter the market each year. UNEP presentedthe Task Manager's report citing two major concerns: a fundamentallack of knowledge of the risks associated with chemicals and aserious lack of capacity to manage this risk, particularly indeveloping countries.

The Commission endorsed the Forum established by the InternationalConference on Chemical Safety held in Sweden in July 1994 and itsPriorities for Action, in particular the targets and timetables. Itwelcomed the invitation of Governments to host intersessionalmeetings of the Forum (both the US and Australia have offered) andinvited the Forum to report to the Commission on its work beforethe special session of the General Assembly in 1997.

At Egypt's request, the text calls for the development ofpreparation for a legally-binding instrument for the mandatoryapplication of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure on aglobal level. The text also identifies "lead" as a particularlyharmful chemical. It noted the severe health impacts of humanexposure to lead and endorsed ongoing work on that issue. The USproposal to make specific reference to phasing out leaded gasolinewas not accepted and does not appear in the final text. Likewise,Canada's request for special reference to long-range transportationof air pollution to the Arctic was not accepted.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES:

The two background documents for thediscussion of radioactive wastes were the Secretary-General'sreport on radioactive wastes (E/CN.17/1994/15) and the TaskManager's Report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA.) While the IAEA's report was praised, there were severalcriticisms of the Secretary-General's report. Delegates complainedthat it was distributed late, resulting in insufficient time foranalysis, and that parts of the report were incorrect.

The Chair's draft text was the least controversial of all thesectoral texts. Each reading was very quick and there was agreementon all issues. The final text (E/CN.17/1994/L.6) urges governmentsto promptly begin the development of an international convention onthe safety of radioactive waste management. At Sweden's request,the Commission has addressed the decommissioning of nuclearfacilities and the need to address radioactive defense wastes thatare often outside the mandate of national safety agencies. The textalso supports the November 1993 decision of the London DumpingConvention to convert the voluntary moratorium on ocean dumping ofradioactive wastes into a binding prohibition. The text notes thatthe export of radioactive wastes to countries without thetechnical, economic, legal and administrative resources for theirmanagement is inadmissible.

MATTERS RELATED TO THE INTERSESSIONAL WORK OF THE COMMISSION

The issue of how to facilitate the CSD's consideration of thesectoral themes for 1995 -- forests, biodiversity, desertificationand land management -- quickly became a divisive issue alongNorth-South lines. The G-77 supported the establishment of anintersessional ad hoc open-ended working group to considerthese issues. Many developed countries, however, supported thecontinuation of government-sponsored expert meetings because theyprovide better opportunities for concrete discussion of issues onthe CSD's agenda. Brazil and others claimed that this "growingproliferation of fora" harms the legitimate participation ofdeveloping countries.

Informal-informal sessions on this matter, chaired by Amb. TunguruHuaraka (Namibia), began on Monday, 23 May, to determine thestructure of the CSD's intersessional work for the coming year.During the initial discussions on finance and technology transfer,the developing countries proposed that the mandates of the adhoc open-ended working groups on finance and technology berenewed. The areas of agreement seemed to include: support forgovernment and IGO sponsored initiatives; the ad hoc workinggroup on finance should adjust its focus, but continue its work;and a second working group should be established to prepare for theCSD's consideration of the clusters of sectoral issues in 1995.Areas needing clarification included: the mandate of the secondgroup; measures to insure universal participation and transparency;and ways to coordinate information on the plethora of processes.

The group met again on Tuesday, 24 May, to discuss new EU and G-77proposals on intersessional activities. During a subsequent eveningmeeting, the Chair presented his text, which the group agreed toadopt "unopened," with minor amendments. The draft recommended thecontinuation of the finance working group and the establishment ofa new working group to: examine next year's sectoral issues; takestock of intersessional activities; group together initiativesunderway on a particular sectoral theme; and convey the results ofthe relevant work to the CSD. The ad hoc working group ontechnology transfer will be discontinued, but the issue oftechnology transfer will be taken up by the working groups onfinance and sectoral issues, which will meet for one week each.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

The High-Level Segment opened on Wednesday afternoon, 26 May 1994,with over forty ministers and high-level officials in attendance.The original plan for the High-Level Segment was to hold a generaldiscussion on the issues before the Commission on Wednesdayafternoon, followed by more specific discussions on Thursday andFriday. On Thursday, the ministers were supposed to addresseconomics and sustainable development in the morning and trade andsustainable development and production and consumption patterns inthe afternoon. On Friday, the topic was supposed to be enhancingthe role of the Commission, major groups and indicators. In spiteof the good intentions of the Chair, the High-Level Segment wentastray almost from the beginning. So many ministers had preparedopening statements that the general discussion lasted throughoutthe two and a half day meeting.

In his opening statement, CSD Chair Klaus T”pfer suggested thatnext year's meeting include more time for dialogue. He noted theneed to discuss how well everyone is sticking to their Riocommitments. He stressed the right to development. He suggested theneed to: identify the means to find new, additional and innovativefinancial resources; achieve a balance between trade andenvironment and sustainable development; and give the CSD thepolitical weight and profile to achieve effective work.

UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted that it is twoyears since the Earth Summit opened a new era in internationalcooperation and brought a permanent change in the way States viewthe environment. Sustainable development is at the heart ofdevelopment activity in the UN and is now recognized as thecornerstone of national development policy. The crucial challengeis to maintain political will. The next stage will requiresustained commitment and new resources, alliances and partnerships.This was the message of Rio and should be the message of the CSD.

The following is a summary of the general discussion during theHigh-Level Segment.

UNITED STATES:

Amb. Madeleine Albright stated that the CSDhas taken significant strides in making the Rio vision a concretereality. The US intends to support next year's meeting by:promoting the conservation and sustainable management of allforests; seeking an effective convention to combat desertification;and implementing the Biodiversity Convention.

BRAZIL:

Henrique Brandao Cavalcanti, Minister of Environmentand the Amazon, noted the central position of financial resourcesand transfer of technology in implementing Agenda 21. He noted theimportance of sustainable development and changing consumptionpatterns. He stressed the importance of the new ad hocintersessional working group on sectoral issues.

GREECE:

Elissavet Papazois, Under-Secretary of theEnvironment, Town Planning and Public Works, said the CSD must:establish itself as a powerful political forum; give equalattention to environment and development; develop its monitoringand review role; identify new and emerging issues in sustainabledevelopment; and have transparent and flexible arrangements forintersessional activities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION:

Commissioner for the Environment YannisPaleokrassas explained the EU's strategic approach for achievingsustainable development and moderating consumption and productionpatterns. Environmental protection should be a central element inthe strategy to combat recession.

BENIN:

Jean Roger Ahoyo, Ministre de l'Environnement, del'Habitat et de l'Urbanisme, said that after hundreds of statementsand documents, it is time to focus on action. He noted theimportance of financial resources and mechanisms, the target of0.7% of GNP for ODA, and debt relief. The convention to combatdesertification will help eliminate the nightmare of landdegradation and poverty.

UNITED KINGDOM:

John Gummer, Secretary of State forEnvironment, said that much has been accomplished and there shouldnot be too much complaining. In the end, people's lifestyles mustchange. The CSD still lacks the language that will enthuse all.Sustainable development is a boring, although accurate, phrase.Action should focus on national reporting, forestry, and trade andthe environment.

MALAYSIA:

Datuk Law Hieng Ding, Minister of Science,Technology and Environment, said international trade is importantfor sustainable development. Developed countries should stop usingquestionable measures to prevent developing countries frombenefitting from liberalized trade. Production and consumptionpatterns must be addressed. Commitment of new and additionalfinancial resources and technology transfer have not beentranslated into realities.

COLOMBIA:

Manuel Rodriguez Becerra, Ministro del MedioAmbiente, did not share in the UK's optimism because two yearsafter Rio he finds the picture to be disappointing. A drop in theresources for developing countries, unilateral protectionist trademeasures and obstacles to the transfer of technology all reflect alack of commitment and political will. The CSD also needs activeparticipation of ministers of finance, planning, industrial andagricultural development.

THE NETHERLANDS:

Jan Pronk, Minister for DevelopmentCooperation, agreed with Colombia that we cannot be too optimistic.The world has changed a lot since 1992 -- there are more civilwars, unemployment and budgetary restraints -- and, thus, it ismore difficult to focus on the environment. He hoped the High-LevelSegment would give a boost to additional financial resources.

AUSTRALIA:

John Faulkner, Minister for the Environment,Sport and Territories, said that the CSD must play an effectiverole in monitoring, assessment and coordination. The test will beif the measures adopted here make a difference in the real world.National reporting and the development of sustainability indicatorsare essential. Genuine sustainable development will be achievedonly if governments grapple with the hard issues.

ITALY:

Altero Matteoli, Minister of the Environment, saidthat Italy adopted a national plan for sustainable development inDecember 1993 and has also adopted a national programme for thestabilization of carbon dioxide emissions. Italy will organize anintersessional conference on sustainable development in theMediterranean.

THURSDAY, 26 MAY 1994

Ichiro Kamoshita, Parliamentary Vice-Minister ofEnvironment, noted that the measures that have been taken as aresult of the UNCED process have been of a curative nature, and theroot of these problems must now be addressed. Japan willrestructure its own socio-economic system, so that futuregenerations may inherit favorable environmental conditions.

JAPAN

SRI LANKA

Wimal Wickramasinghe, Minister of Environment andParliamentary Affairs, stated that the CSD process has not metexpectations. He called for linkages and cooperation between allinternational institutions. He also proposed that the CSD beempowered with financial and technical resources and a desk officerfor each country.

CZECH REPUBLIC

Deputy Minister of Environment VladislavBizek noted that unsustainable patterns of consumption andproduction are at the core of global environmental problems. TheCzech Republic has offered to organize an intersessional meeting oneconomic instruments for sustainable development.

AUSTRIA:

Maria Rauch-Kallat, Federal Minister forEnvironment, Youth and Family, noted the importance of timely andmanageable information, the need to find reliable indicators, andthe advisability of a regional approach to work. She said thatmeetings sponsored by governments are the best forum for innovativeand creative thinking, and warned against the proliferation ofworking groups.

BURKINA FASO:

Prosper Sawadogo, Permanent Secretary of theNEAP, stressed the need to put into effect the activities that havebeen agreed upon. He emphasized the need to integrate the issues offinancial resources, technology access and capacity-building.

PAKISTAN:

Begum Nusrat Bhutto noted the importance of theissues of lead poisoning and freshwater. She stated that thepaucity of financial resources is a major obstacle. She called forglobal action to implement international conventions and ensurefinancial and technical assistance.

CANADA:

Clifford Lincoln, Deputy Prime Minister, stated theneed to be creative, pragmatic and pro-active. He noted that toachieve the agenda for sustainable development, the CSD shouldattract finance and economic ministers.

POLAND:

Bernard Blaszczyk, Minister of Environment, NaturalResources and Forestry, said that unemployment has delayed hisnation's sustainable development policies. He announced that Polandwill co-sponsor with UNEP a "cleaner production" symposium.

OECD:

Deputy-Secretary-General Makoto Taniguchi noted fourcritical areas in which the OECD is undertaking major work or iswilling to do more: consumption and production patterns; trade andenvironment; national reporting; and finance and resource flows.

FRANCE:

Minister of the Environment Michel Barnier statedthat to keep the CSD from becoming a paper tiger it needs to takespecific action. He noted that action is happening at theinternational, regional and national levels and called attention tothe desertification convention.

BARBADOS:

Harcourt Lewis, Minister for the Environment,noted that the momentum of Rio has faltered and that there is agreat difference of views between the North and South. He statedthat the Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States represents a significant attempt to translateAgenda 21 into practical actions.

SWEDEN:

Minister of the Environment and Natural ResourcesOlof Johansson said that almost 300 municipalities are at work toenact Agenda 21 in Sweden. He suggested that the CSD show theselocally active people what is being done at the internationallevel, and proposed the preparation of a fact sheet.

KOREA:

Yun-Heun Park, Minister for Environment, stated thattrade and the environment should be mutually supportive in thepursuit of sustainable development. The CSD should play animportant role on these issues by providing guidelines for relevantinternational organizations.

ISRAEL:

Amb. Israel Eliashiv noted that Agenda 21 opened newvistas for achieving the objective of sustainable development. Hesaid that solutions are only viable if they are put into effect ona global scale. He emphasized the importance of regionalcooperation, citing the Mediterranean Action Plan as an example.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMER UNIONS:

Maria-ElenaHurtado stated that the CSD should play a leadership role incoordinating international financial institutions on trade andenvironment issues. She encouraged the CSD to carry out assessmentsof the environmental impacts of structural adjustment.

BAHAMAS:

Ivy Dumont, Minister of Health and Environment,called for the protection of land, water resources and humanresources. She noted that poverty and environmental degradationhave a symbiotic relationship. She stated that the promotion ofhealth and the prevention of disease must command global attention.

CHINA:

The representative noted that the new globalpartnership requires developed countries to fully implement theirUNCED commitments. He asked how trade and technology transfer canbroaden the number of countries that urgently need these products.He noted that developed countries account for 25% of the world'spopulation yet consume 75% of the world's resources.

NORWAY:

Minister of the Environment Thorbj"rn Bernsten notedthat production and consumption must be sustainable at the globallevel and must be based on the polluter-pays principle. Herecommended that a carbon tax be implemented.

PHILIPPINES:

Cielito Habito, the Secretary for SocialEconomic Planning, noted that more economic and developmentministers must participate in the CSD process. The Philippines willhost a meeting on the economics of sustainability this July, whichwill focus on indicators.

INDONESIA:

Mr. Sarwonon Kusumaatmadja, Minister ofEnvironment, noted that changing consumption patterns will requirea multi-pronged strategy focusing on demand, meeting the basicneeds of the poor and reducing waste. Indonesia is supporting aconference on sustainable forest management in preparation for nextyear's CSD session.

EGYPT:

Mostafa Tolba questioned the authority of the CSD andasked how it could become a powerful forum. He stated the need fortargets, asking what developed countries are working toward withrespect to their consumption patterns. Tolba also noted that thereis no reference in the texts to the next two major conferences --the Social Summit and the International Conference on Populationand Development.

SINGAPORE:

Mah Bow Tan, Minister for the Environment, notedthat it is a paradox that technology, which has caused muchenvironmental degradation, can also be used to reverse thisdegradation. Technology transfer needs partnerships betweendeveloping and developed countries and private industries.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

The Russian delegate noted that the CSDis undergoing a difficult transition. He supported the proposal fortwo expert groups with renewable mandates and said that theeffectiveness of their work will depend on the technological workdone on the different sectoral issues.

BELGIUM:

The Belgian delegate noted that production andconsumption patterns and trade and the environment are thecornerstones of sustainable development. These are complex issuesand consequently progress will be slow. He discussed the use oftaxes and called for a carbon tax.

ICELAND:

Magns Jhannesson, Secretary-General, Ministry forthe Environment, noted the importance of convincing consumers ofthe impact of their decisions, and called for education andeconomic instruments to assist in this. The production andconsumption patterns of women are also important, and their rolemust be integrated into sustainable development policies.

URUGUAY:

Julio Balino, Vice Minister, told delegates aboutmeasures his country has taken to implement Agenda 21. Heidentified the transfer of environmentally sound technology andchanges in consumption patterns as essential issues.

BULGARIA:

Jordan Uzunov, Deputy Minister of the Environment,stated that the success of Agenda 21 will depend on action takenprimarily at the national level. He reported that in implementinghis nation's environmental programmes efficiency has been improvedby involving local communities.

TANZANIA:

The representative stated that action is themandate of this Commission and that it must move from the role ofconsensus builder to agent of change. He noted that financial flowsand arrangements remain inadequate and consumption and productionpatterns remain an issue on which little action has been taken.

FRIDAY, 27 MAY 1994

Peter Margittai, Minister of Foreign Affairs, saidthat to change consumption patterns there is a need to changeproduction patterns, which requires technology and finance. Hestressed the need to build up environmental awareness and thecapacity of recipients to discern the desirability ofenvironmentally sound technology.

HUNGARY:

NGO WORKING GROUP ON TRADE, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT:

Kristin Dawkins (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy)and Wahida Patwa (Kenya Energy and Environment Organizations) saidNGOs are concerned about the effects of the Uruguay Round ondevelopment. They stressed impacts on the agricultural sectors andon sustainable development.

VENEZUELA:

Beatriz Pineda said that the petroleum industryrequires long-term investments to carry out efforts to minimizeecological damage. She supported the work of the ad hocworking group on finance and stressed the need to studyinnovative financing mechanisms.

DENMARK:

Svend Auken suggested electing the CSD Chair at theend of the High-Level Segment rather than on the first day of thesession. Preparation for the CSD should be more focused and longstatements should be avoided. Roundtable discussions or panels mayprove more effective. He commented that the desertificationconvention risks being only words unless it receives financialsupport.

MALAYSIA:

Dr. Lim Keng Yaik, Minister of Primary Industries,described the initiative taken by Canada and Malaysia to organizethe intergovernmental working group on global forests (IWGGF). TheIWGGF is not a negotiating process but an attempt to bring togethercountries and organizations to discuss the post-Rio agenda forforests. He called for the establishment of an appropriateinstitutional mechanism within the UN system to implement the UNCEDForest Principles.

FRANCE:

Michel Barnier, Minister of the Environment,mentioned the need to establish indicators. He said that France isworking with African nations to facilitate access for their forestproducts to European markets. He supported regional-levelactivities on certain issues, like freshwater.

CANADA:

Sheila Copps, Minister of Environment and DeputyPrime Minister, spoke about the interrelationship between toxicchemicals and their effect on the environment. She proposed aCanadian-hosted meeting on the long-range transport of persistentorganic pollutants in the high Arctic. She stressed the need forwomen to have key decision- making roles in all levels of society.

INDIA:

Kamal Nath, Minister for Environment and Forests,welcomed country initiatives on forests, but said there is a needto devise a strategy on which all these initiatives arecoordinated. Forestry has to be integrated from initiatives takenby countries. He supported the need to elect the CSD Chair on thelast day of each session.

NAMIBIA:

Niko Bessinger, Minister of Environment andTourism, said that after Rio his president declared war on povertyand environmental degradation. Now there is a need to disseminatethe technology and start the battle. He described his country'sactivities and stressed the need to link Namibia with theinformation centers of the world.

GREECE:

Elissavet Papazois, Under-Secretary of theEnvironment, Town Planning and Public Works, said that the outcomeof this session is encouraging, but modest. Governments need toprepare nationally and regionally and need the documentation atleast one month in advance. CSD decisions must be short andaction-oriented and political impetus is vital.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION:

Commissioner for the Environment YannisPaleokrassas said the EU alone gives US$6.5 billion/year forvarious assistance projects for developing countries, US$1 billionof which is for the environment. He said that the CSD needs a forumfor brainstorming, since some of the major concepts and principlesraised need a different kind of treatment.

GABON:

Jean-Eugene Kakou Mayaza, Minister of Water, Forestsand the Environment, said efforts must be made by developingcountries themselves and developed countries must respectcommitments of Rio, including the provision of new and additionalfinancial resources. Stress should be placed on administration offorests, preservation of biodiversity and land resources.

BOLIVIA:

Jose Guillermo Justiniano, Minister of SustainableDevelopment and Environment, stressed the importance of popularparticipation. Bolivia has developed a law for popularparticipation and has used Agenda 21 as a guide for collectiveaction. There is a need to set up an international support fundthat would ensure support for major groups in sustainabledevelopment.

BRAZIL:

Henrique Brandao Cavalcanti, Minister of Environmentand the Amazon, spoke about the ad hoc open-endedintersessional working group on sectoral issues for 1995. No othergroups, task forces or mechanisms should be set up. He suggestedthat: the Chairs of two ad hoc intersessional groups bedesignated quickly; there should be access to all; there should bea proper balance of topics; finance and technology transfer arerelevant; and the group on sectoral issues should meet at leasttwice.

UNITED KINGDOM:

John Gummer, Secretary of State forEnvironment, suggested that a panel format would help to discussthe issues. He noted that the UN building has no energy audit andno energy efficient light bulbs. The change of lifestyles must bein context of governments. He supported changing the timing of theCSD elections.

UNITED STATES:

Timothy Wirth, Counselor, Department ofState, listed four priorities: the community's right to know; tradeand environment; water; and sanitation. He urged all countries tophase out leaded gasoline. He also stressed the need forsustainable development indicators.

SECRETARIAT:

Under-Secretary-General Nitin Desai respondedto some of the comments made during the High-Level Segment. He saidto keep sustainable development on the international agenda, theRio agenda must be linked with other emerging issues, such asunemployment. In Rio, the Heads of State focused on these issues,but now not many governments are monitoring follow up. He urged theministers to go back to their Heads of State and tell them what theCSD is doing. Regarding the timing of elections, he said that theSecretariat will examine the possibilities and constraints and takeit to the Bureau. The Secretariat will also work to ensure greatertransparency and NGO participation, distribute simplified reportingguidelines, and develop indicators.

FINLAND:

The representative of Finland said that in additionto the ad hoc intersessional working group, there is also aneed for an informal contact group on forests. There is a need todevelop global criteria and indicators on forests.

THE NETHERLANDS:

Hans Alders, Minister of Housing, PhysicalPlanning and Environment, supported the contact group on forestsand hoped that this will lead to more focused discussion. He alsosupported the development of indicators, if the CSD really wants tomonitor progress.

BELARUS:

Amb. Alyaksandr Sychou said the CSD must considerthe needs of countries with economies in transition. He supportedthe need to discuss deforestation.

SWEDEN:

Olof Johansson, Minister of the Environment andNatural Resources, stressed the importance of desertification andurged the CSD to give strong political support for successfulconclusion of the desertification convention in Paris. He alsoflagged other important issues, including freshwater resources, theimpact of military activities on the environment and space debris.

CUBA:

The representative said the CSD must come up with newways to implement Agenda 21. The CSD needs political will.Financial resources must be provided and allocated to priorityissues. Changing consumption patterns should be a permanent item onthe CSD's agenda.

SWITZERLAND:

The representative supported the efforts tostrengthen the CSD Chair's mandate. He raised three issues:internalization of environmental costs; trade and environment; andforests.

JAPAN:

The representative encouraged the use ofintersessional workshops sponsored by individual countries, butwarned against their proliferation. He supported the effectiveparticipation of major groups, the development of indicators forsustainable development, and the rescheduling of elections for theCSD Chair.

NEW ZEALAND:

John McKinnon welcomed the government-sponsoredinitiatives on forestry, but said the proliferation of effortscreates a problem of coordination. He advocated the establishmentof a contact group to draw the threads together and connect issuesamong countries.

COLOMBIA:

The representative supported Brazil in the needfor an intersessional ad hoc group on forests. He alsosupported holding elections at the end of the session. The CSDshould clearly establish how global partnership is shaping up. Healso supported the proposal to abstain from making formalstatements at the next CSD session.

CHINA:

The representative said that caution must be taken inthe establishment of indicators for sustainable development.Discussion should rely on solid scientific studies guided byprinciples achieved in UNCED.

NGOS:

On behalf of the NGOs at the CSD, Peter Padburystressed the need for the CSD to: push consensus building inadvance of the session; build political will; link the nationalreporting process to agenda setting; ensure an open and transparentdrafting process; and involve NGOs and major groups in the process.

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

During the course of the High-Level Segment two panel discussionswere held. Many delegates and NGOs commented that these panels werethe most useful part of the session because they fostered aconstructive dialogue.

The Panel on Sustainable Development and the Economy focused itsdiscussions on finance and technology. The panelists were: EnriqueIglesias (Inter-American Development Bank), Jonathan Lash (WorldResources Institute), Lin See Yan (Bank of Malaysia), MauriceStrong (Ontario Hydro and Earth Council), and Vito Tanzi (IMF).

Canada noted that those in attendance were "the converted." Mostagreed that all governments should internalize external costs,especially environmental costs. Lin noted that the cost toimplement Agenda 21 is US$625 annually, requiring many policychanges such as taxes, tradeable permits and incentives. Whilethese concepts are not new, the question of how to implement themon a global scale has not been answered. Accordingly, the CSD hasbeen asked to continue with detailed studies in this area.

Lash was concerned that in most countries it was still notprofitable to be "green" because the full environmental costs ofprojects are not internalized. When asked if industries move toStates with lower environmental standards, Lash replied that whilethere is a strong visceral belief that companies do move, he knowsof no evidence to support this.

Strong mentioned some greening of Ontario Hydro and called for theCSD to provide a strong impetus for the drive towards energyefficiency. He acknowledged that energy prices are too low and donot reflect the environmental cost. The Chair asked if the recentBasel Convention ban of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECDcountries would in fact make matters worse by movingenvironmentally unsound industries out of OECD countries and intonon-OECD countries, especially small island States. Denmarkresponded that the ban was one of the few substantial things tohave happened since Rio and it is unlikely to have such an effect.Denmark also called for similar bans on hazardous chemicals andpharmaceuticals, noting how disgraceful it is that what cannot besold in some countries can be exported to less developed countries.

The US asked how the economic costs of health impairments can bebetter reflected and included in financing decisions. She describedhow the removal of leaded gasoline in the US has savedapproximately US$400 million in reduced health care costs. She alsoasked how progress in the implementation of financial mechanismscan be measured and questioned whether indicators could bedeveloped. Lin suggested that the global implementation ofinternalizing environmental costs would require a "green round" ofnegotiations.

The Panel on Women and Sustainable Development also provoked alively debate. The five female panelists were: Nancy Barry(President, Women's World Banking); Sheila Copps (Minister for theEnvironment, Canada); Elizabeth Dowdeswell (UNUnder-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP); Dr. NafisSadik (Executive Director of UNFPA and Secretary-General of theInternational Conference on Population and Development); and ChiefBisi Ogunleye (Nigeria). The Chair, Ms. Copps, opened thediscussion by asking why attempts to control reproduction alwaysfocus on women and not those who impregnate women -- particularlywhen women could have approximately 15 children in a lifetimewhereas men could have hundreds. Dr. Sadik recognized that womenhave a special role in decision making and asked what kind ofindicators could measure every member of the population, focusingon gender disparities. She noted that through the ages men havedominated women through control of fertility and that women shouldbe given real choice.

Elizabeth Dowdeswell noted that there is no more reliable strategythan empowering women to solve the problems of poverty andenvironmental degradation. She said that the CSD is stuck somewherebetween rhetoric and achievement. She noted that the time for setspeeches is past and that we need to move to action.

Chief Bisi Ogunleye asked what the CSD wants her to sustain inAfrica -- as there is nothing to sustain. She told the audiencethat if poverty is to be eradicated they must act. They must callwomen to the decision-making table and listen to them. Nancy Barrynoted that environmental degradation caused by poverty in thedeveloping world and greed in the industrial world is at the coreof the CSD documentation, but at no point do the texts addressthese two concerns. The US asked what can be learned from this --what recommendations can be made to help the CSD process? Barryreplied that one step would be to have quarterly panel discussionson women in each country and invite women to make concreterecommendations.

CLOSING SESSION

The second session of the CSD met in a plenary session for thefinal time on Friday afternoon, 27 May 1994.

ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE THIRD SESSION:

The first item of business was the adoption of the provisionalagenda for the third session of the CSD. Egypt proposed inclusionof a new agenda item on the follow-up of decisions andrecommendations from the second session of the CSD. Canada wantedspecific reference to the Forest Principles in Agenda Item 6 onsectoral issues. The US proposed a new agenda item on review of theUN system coordination in supporting implementation of Agenda 21.These proposals were accepted.

Morocco and Austria mentioned that this year there were twogeneral discussions -- during the first two days of the CSD andduring the High-Level Segment and argued that this should beavoided in the future and proposed merging these two agenda itemsand putting the High-Level Segment at the beginning of the CSDsession, rather than at the end. Brazil disagreed. The Chair saidthat this is a matter for ECOSOC and left the agenda items aswritten.

Belarus proposed a new agenda item on monitoring the transition tosustainable development in the Central and Eastern European Region.Algeria, on behalf of the G-77, objected. The Chair said that hefelt that this proposal was already incorporated into Agenda Item3, the general discussion on progress in the implementation ofAgenda 21.

The final provisional agenda, as adopted, is as follows:

1. Election of officers

2. Adoption of the agenda and organizational matters

3. General discussion on progress in the implementation of Agenda21 focusing on the cross-sectoral components of Agenda 21 and thecritical elements of sustainability (Sweden proposed listing thespecific clusters to be addressed, which include: Chapters 3(poverty), 5 (demographics); 16 (biotechnology); 8 (integratingenvironment and development in decision-making); 40 (information);and 23-32 (major groups)

4. Financial resources and mechanisms

5. Education, science, transfer of environmentally soundtechnologies, cooperation and capacity-building

6. Review of sectoral cluster: Land, desertification, forests,biodiversity: Chapters 10 (land management); 11 (forests); 12(desertification and drought); 13 (mountains); 14 (agriculture) and15 (biodiversity), and the Forest Principles.

7. Other matters

8. High-level meeting

9. Provisional agenda for the fourth session of the Commission

10. Adoption of the report of the Commission on its third session.

ACTION ON DRAFT PROPOSALS: The Commission then adopted all ofthe draft proposals that had been elaborated by the Working Groups:

Agenda Item 3: Cross-Sectoral Issues -- Information provided byGovernments and organizations (E/CN.17/ 1994/L.7); Decision-makingstructures (E/CN.17/1994/ L.8); Revised text of Commissiondecisions on major groups (E/CN.17/1994/L.11); Trade, environmentand sustainable development (unedited text); and ChangingConsumption and Production Patterns (unedited text).

Agenda Item 4: Financial resources and mechanisms -- Finance(unedited text).

Agenda Item 5: Education, science, transfer of environmentallysound technologies, cooperation and capacity building -- Transferof environmentally sound technologies, cooperation andcapacity-building (E/CN.17/ 1994/L.10).

Agenda Item 6: Review of sectoral clusters -- Protecting andpromoting human health (E/CN.17/1994/ L.2); Human settlements(E/CN.17/1994/L.3); Freshwater (E/CN.17/ 1994/L.5); Toxic chemicals(E/CN.17/1994/L.1); Hazardous wastes (E/CN.17/1994/L.4); andRadioactive wastes (E/CN.17/1994/L.6).

CHAIR'S SUMMARY OF THE HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT:

T”pfer then readout his summary of the High-Level Segment, where he noted thepoints raised by the ministers:

The importance of a high political profile of the Commission;
Greater cooperation with governing bodies of international organizations, the Bretton Woods institutions and the GATT/WTO, and major groups;
Initial action taken in many countries to follow-up UNCED;
The entry into force of the two Conventions signed in Rio, the finalization of the convention on combatting desertification, and the adoption of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States;
Much more needs to be done both nationally and internationally to translate the commitments of Rio into reality;
The overall financing of Agenda 21 and sustainable development falls significantly short of expectations and requirements;
Additional efforts are essential in the area of transfer of environmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacity building;
Trade liberalization and measures to make trade and environment mutually supportive are essential to achieving sustainable development;
Additional measures need to be taken to change contemporary patterns of consumption and production that are detrimental to sustainable development;
Relevant bodies should seek legally binding status of the Prior Informed Consent Procedure;
The importance of continuous exchange of information on practical experience gained by countries, organizations and major groups;
Support for the ongoing work on the elaboration of realistic and understandable sustainable development indicators that can supplement national reporting;
The need to ensure synergy between the work of the Commission and the preparations for major upcoming international conferences;
Support for the meetings hosted by governments and organizations to address issues on the CSD's agenda;
The need for effective intersessional work to prepare for the next session of the Commission;
Enhanced coordination and complementarity in the preparatory work on forests;
The need for a dialogue-oriented approach, including the use of panels; and
The need to explore possibilities to elect the Chair and the Bureau at a more appropriate time.

A number of delegates reacted to the Chair's summary. Brazil,Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru thought that thesummary paragraph on forests did not reflect the fact that the CSDshould be the central body for the discussion of all aspects ofimplementing Agenda 21 on this issue. Barbados, Algeria, on behalfof the G-77, and Australia thought that insufficient reference wasmade to the Conference on the Sustainable Development of SmallIsland Developing States. Others, including India, Greece on behalfof the EU, Malaysia, the US and Norway, supported the Chair'ssummary. T”pfer responded that additional language will be added onthe small islands conference. With regard to the concerns expressedby the Parties to the Amazon Treaty, T”pfer maintained that histext was balanced. With that comment, the summary was adopted.

The final item on the agenda was the adoption of the report of theCommission on its second session. T”pfer closed the meeting bythanking all delegates and NGOs for their work and invited everyoneto do their utmost at the national level to prove that the Spiritof Rio is alive.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE CSD

At the conclusion of the second session of the UN Commission onSustainable Development it appears as though the CSD is still insearch of its identity. While many have said that the CSD must notbecome another talk show, there is no clear indication that the CSDis a body that can take action, carefully review and comment onnational implementation of Agenda 21, or facilitate greatercooperation among governments, international organizations, UNagencies and NGOs/major groups. Yet, at the same time, it cannot besaid that the CSD is a failure. The CSD does have its strengths, aswell as its many weaknesses, and a reflection on these may help toput the Commission in perspective. One way to evaluate the CSD isthrough the use of a classic marketing framework -- the SWOTanalysis, which identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats.

STRENGTHS:

Perhaps the major strength of the CSD is that itsmere existence has served to keep Agenda 21 and the Rio agreementsalive. Governments and UN agencies are forced to look at their ownimplementation of Agenda 21. The preparation of national reportsenables governments to take stock of their own sustainabledevelopment activities. The Inter-Agency Committee on SustainableDevelopment (IACSD) has made progress in coordinating UN systemimplementation of Agenda 21. The convening of the ad hocworking groups as well as the government-hosted intersessionalmeetings has encouraged dialogue on particular sectoral andcross-sectoral issues throughout the year. The High-Level Segmenthas fostered ministerial interest in UNCED follow-up activities.

The CSD has also demonstrated its strength as a forum for thediscussion of new and emerging issues on the sustainabledevelopment agenda. This year, trade and environment and changingconsumption and production patterns were discussed in greater depththan during the UNCED preparatory process. Although these, andother emerging issues, may be discussed in a plethora of fora overthe coming years, the CSD may prove to be the place where all theother discussions come together.

The CSD has also shown that it welcomes the participation of NGOsand major groups. NGOs were permitted to participate and observeall the formal and informal meetings during the two-week session.NGO statements were incorporated along with government statements-- not pushed to the end of the day. Governments were responsive toNGO suggestions and seemed willing to enter into a dialogues withmajor groups.

WEAKNESSES:

Perhaps the biggest weakness, or missedopportunity, of the CSD session was the lack of dialogue. Due inpart to the fact that the meeting was only two weeks long and theagenda was formidable, there was insufficient time for the type ofdialogue that might have produced concrete and creativerecommendations. As it was, two days were spent listening togeneral statements, five and a half days were spent negotiatingdraft decisions and two and a half days were taken up byministerial statements at the High-Level Segment. Delegates weregiven little time to consider draft proposals before they wereexpected to negotiate agreements. As a result of this lack ofdialogue, many complained that the draft decisions were vague andnot particularly action-oriented. One delegate noted that, underthese circumstances, it was not surprising that the texts repeatlanguage from Agenda 21. There was also limited dialogue onnational implementation. Not enough national reports were completedon time to be summarized in the Secretariat's report. Delegatescriticized the format of the reports because there was not enoughtime to complete the required analytical work. Delegates called forsimplified and comparable reports, but the failed attempt to adopta decision on indicators will delay the realization of comparablereports. A few delegates reported on national-level activities intheir statements, but there was really no opportunity to sharedetailed success stories that might help other countries.

The High-Level Segment was not the recipient of much praise thisyear. Although some ministers and other participants did put theirprepared statements aside and respond to others' comments, this wasthe exception rather than the rule. The High-Level Segment ran intotrouble almost from the start when the two hours of planned openingstatements quickly expanded. The planned "discussions" on finance,technology, trade and environment and changing consumption patternsdid not materialize. Although most speakers addressed the issues onthe CSD's agenda for this year, there was little focus to thediscussions and few clear recommendations emerged. At this point,there does not seem to be a recipe for improving the High-LevelSegment. Ministers tend to come to meetings such as this one withprepared statements that they wish to present "for the record" andfor their constituencies back home. Some have suggested the use ofa closed round-table discussion that may facilitate the freeexchange of ideas. Others disagree since this would totally destroyany sense of transparency and democracy in the work of theCommission. There was also criticism of the participants in theHigh-Level Segment. As Canada pointed out, they were preaching tothe converted -- most of the ministers who participated wereministers of the environment. Many called for the participation ofministers of finance, development, industry and agriculture in thefuture.

NGOs were not particularly effective at this session. Due to a lackof funding and a lack of interest, there were far fewerrepresentatives from NGOs and major groups at this session thananticipated. Unlike at other UN-related meetings and conferences oflate, the Women's Caucus played a minimal role. A lack of gendersensitivity abounded and, as a result, there was little referenceto the role of women in many of the Chair's draft texts. Many ofthe NGOs that did attend spent most of their time in their ownmeetings and were often unaware of what the governments were doing.Very few NGOs approached government delegates with specificrecommendations or language to be included in the draft decisions.Nevertheless, there were a few NGOs that were effective. Forexample, CAPE 2000, a group of US environmental groups, wassuccessful in raising the issue of the health problems related tolead, which now appears in the decision on toxic chemicals.

Finally, the subject that proved to be the most contentious did notinvolve any of the issues in this year's thematic work programme.Delegates spent more time negotiating the procedural text onmatters relating to intersessional arrangements in preparation fornext year's session than they did on many of the substantiveissues. This procedural focus, while important, should not drawdelegates away from addressing the review of Agenda 21implementation in the future as it did this year.

OPPORTUNITIES:

If the Secretariat, the Bureau and thedelegates have learned anything from this year's CSD session andmake some necessary changes, the CSD can still become the centralcoordinating and evaluating body that many have envisioned. Firstof all, the Commission needs to have a better public profile. ManyNGOs, major groups and the media have already lost interest in theCSD because they see it as just another moribund UN institution.Without the participation and interest of NGOs, the message of theCSD is less likely to be transmitted to the local level. Perhaps ifthe CSD is able to adopt more specific recommendations, such as thephase-out of leaded gasoline, which can be understood andappreciated by the general public, it will gain a higher profile.

The CSD also has a great opportunity to send a message to manyother fora -- national governments, international organizations andUN agencies. There is still some time for the CSD to be viewed asthe central place for discussion on many crucial cross-sectoralissues, including trade and environment, changing consumptionpatterns and, perhaps, information for sustainable development andpoverty alleviation. However, unless the CSD can raise itspolitical and popular profile, this opportunity could be lost. Howthe CSD shapes its role on the issue of trade, environment, andsustainable development, especially at this time when otherinstitutions are defining their roles, could be critical.

THREATS:

Perhaps the overall threat to the CSD is that ifthe same mistakes are made next year, the CSD will prove to be thepaper tiger that many have warned about. In this respect, thefuture success of the Commission is being held hostage to theinternational economic climate. Until the developed countriesemerge from the current recession, there will be no substantialincrease in official development assistance (ODA) flows and,without this, the current impasse over financial resources,technology transfer and Agenda 21 commitments will remain.

There is also the threat of conference fatigue. In 1994 practicallyevery week of the year contains at least one conference or meetingon sustainable development. UN delegates are exhausted and havelittle time or energy to prepare for the next conference ormeeting. Unless there are fewer meetings with better preparationand appropriate representation from countries and agencies, littlewill be accomplished.

There is also the threat of the CSD's potential monitoring role.Many countries do not want the CSD to become another Commission onHuman Rights that can review countries' sustainable developmentperformance and list those that have not made progress since theEarth Summit. Yet, without the ability to monitor nationalperformance, the CSD will turn into an institution that can onlymonitor UN agency implementation of Agenda 21, which is only thetip of the iceberg.

CONCLUSION:

It must be remembered that this was only thefirst year that it actually reviewed the implementation of Agenda21 and it is only two years since Rio. It is well known thatgovernment and other bureaucracies are slow to change and that itmay take more time before actual progress is made. The CSD mustlearn to crawl before it can walk and walk before it can run. Atthe moment, the CSD is just learning how to roll over. Perhaps nextyear the CSD can take its first step.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

At its meeting in New York from 27 June - 29 July1994, the Economic and Social Council will review the report of theCSD. It is also possible that ECOSOC will address the issue ofchanging the timing of the elections of the CSD Bureau. A number ofgovernments support rescheduling the elections from the beginningof the annual CSD session to the conclusion of the session. Thisway the Bureau can participate in the intersessional activities inpreparation for the next CSD session and preside over that sessionbefore turning over the reigns to the next Bureau. Some developingcountries are concerned, however, that this change would giveGermany a second session as CSD Chair. If this is to take place,ECOSOC will need to change the CSD's rules of procedure or adopt aresolution.

ECOSOC:

PROPOSED GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED INTERSESSIONAL MEETINGS:

During the coming months, individual governments andinternational organizations will be hosting meetings and workshopsthat will contribute to the work of the CSD at its third session.During the High-Level Segment, the following governments announcedplans to hold such intersessional meetings:

The Czech Republic will host a conference on economic instruments for sustainable development in Prague in February 1995;
UNIDO will host an interagency consultation on biotechnology in Vienna in August or September 1994;
The Republic of Korea will host a workshop on information access and dissemination of environmentally sound technologies in Seoul;
GATT will be holding a public symposium on trade, the environment and sustainable development in June;
Canada proposed a meeting on the long-range transport of persistent organic pollutants in the high Arctic;
Canada and Malaysia will host the second intergovernmental working group on global forests (IWGGF) in Canada in October 1994;
Italy will organize an intersessional conference on sustainable development in the Mediterranean;
The Philippines will host a meeting on the economics of sustainability in July, which will focus on indicators;
Indonesia is supporting a conference on sustainable forest management; and
Germany will host an international workshop on the minimization and recycling of waste.

There are also a number of confirmed intersessional meetingsrelated to the work of the CSD. These include:

UNCTAD and the International Academy of the Environment will host a series of workshops and seminars related to trade and the environment in Geneva. There will be a policy dialogue on trade and environment on 3 June 1994; a workshop on eco-labelling from 28-30 June 1994; and a policy dialogue on competitiveness and environment from 24-25 September 1994. For more information contact Rene Vossenaar at UNCTAD; phone: (41-22) 907-5679.
The United Kingdom will host a conference, "The Earth Summit Two Years On: Achievements and Disappointments of the UNCED," in Wilton Park, Wiston House, Steyning, West Sussex from 20-24 June 1994. For more information contact Elizabeth Harris; phone: (44-903) 815020; fax: (44-903) 815931.
India and the UK will host a workshop on forests from 25-27 July 1994 in New Delhi. This workshop is for senior officials representing 46 countries who will discuss the development of formats for national reporting to the CSD in 1995.
Poland and UNEP will co-sponsor a symposium on cleaner production from 12-14 October 1994 in Warsaw, Poland. This is a bi-annual meeting to review the progress achieved since the previous meeting in Paris in 1994. For more information, contact Mr. C. Wieckowski; phone: (48-22) 25.35.59; fax: (48-22) 25.39.72.
The World Congress on Urban Growth and the Environment will take place in Hong Kong from 7-12 November 1994. This Congress will discuss the environmental impact of the world's largest cities, examine technological and institutional innovations to help control this impact, and encourage close cooperation between governments, NGOs and local communities.

AD HOC OPEN-ENDED INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUPS: TheCSD agreed to continue the work of the ad hoc open-endedintersessional working group on finance and established a newworking group to address the sectoral issues that will be addressedby the CSD in 1995 (land management, forests, desertification andbiodiversity). Look for an announcement on the dates and agendas ofthese two working groups, which will likely meet early in 1995.

Participants

National governments: Australia; Austria; Bahamas; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium; Benin; Bolivia; Brazil; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Canada; China; Colombia; Cuba; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Finland; France; Gabon; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Israel; Italy; Japan; Malaysia; Namibia; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Philippines; Poland; Russian Federation; Singapore; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Switzerland; UK; Tanzania; US; Uruguay; Venezuela
Negotiating blocs: African Union; Central and Eastern Europe; European Union; Group of 77 and China; Small Island Developing States
Non-state coalitions: NGOs; Youth