Summary report, 24 February – 7 March 1997

CSD Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group

The Ad Hoc Open-Ended Intersessional Working Group of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)met from 24 February to 7 March 1997 at UN Headquarters in New York. The Working Group focused on the format andsubstantive contents of the document to be considered at the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) to review theimplementation of Agenda 21, which will be held from 23-27 June 1997. During the first week, delegates engaged in a generaldebate on sectoral and cross-sectoral issues, strengthening the role of major groups, emerging priorities, institutional issues andformat of the outcome of the Special Session. During the second week of the Working Group they responded to a Co-Chairs’draft "Proposed Outcome of the Special Session." Delegates received a revised version of the Co-Chairs’ draft on Friday, 7March, to bring back to their capitals for further review prior to the fifth session of the CSD in April 1997.

Most delegates highlighted freshwater, energy and transport, forests and oceans as sectors of new or priority concern.Delegates noted the importance of the cross-sectoral issues of poverty and changing consumption and production patterns,although, as Co-Chair Derek Osborn (UK) said in his closing remarks, more creativity is needed on the first, and newinitiatives and resources must be brought to bear. Osborn also noted that renewed efforts by both developed and developingcountries are needed on the means of implementation. UN institutional issues, including the strengthening of UNEP, werediscussed. Many participants agreed that the Intersessional Working Group’s output provides a sound basis from which todevelop a substantive product, but some hard thinking will be necessary in the next month as delegates contemplate the ideasthat were tabled in New York, and especially as they consider the one section of the text that was largely left unaddressed: thepolitical statement that heads of State and government will send to the world at the Special Session in June.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CSD

Agenda 21 called for the creation of the CSD to: ensure effective follow-up of the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED); enhance international cooperation and rationalize the intergovernmental decision-making capacity;and examine progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the local, national, regional and international levels. In 1992, the47th session of the UN General Assembly set out, in resolution 47/191, the terms of reference for the Commission, itscomposition, guidelines for the participation of NGOs, the organization of work, its relationship with other UN bodies andSecretariat arrangements.

The CSD held its first substantive session at UN Headquarters in New York from 14-25 June 1993. Amb. Razali Ismail(Malaysia) was elected the first Chair of the CSD. Delegates addressed, inter alia, the adoption of a multi-year thematicprogramme of work; the future work of the Commission and the exchange of information on the implementation of Agenda 21at the national level.

The second session of the CSD met in New York from 16-27 May 1994. The Commission, chaired by Klaus Tpfer(Germany), discussed cross-sectoral chapters of Agenda 21, including trade, environment and sustainable development,consumption patterns and major groups. On the sectoral side, delegates considered health, human settlements, freshwaterresources, toxic chemicals, and hazardous, solid and radioactive wastes.

The CSD held its third session from 11-28 April 1995 in New York. The revised format of the Commission, which includednumerous panel discussions, enabled the participants to enter into a dialogue. The Day of Local Authorities, combined with theNGO and government-sponsored panels and workshops throughout the session, enabled the CSD to examine the local aspectsof implementing Agenda 21. Chaired by Henrique Cavalcanti (Brazil), the third session examined the second cluster of issuesaccording to its multi-year thematic programme of work. The sectoral cluster for 1995 included: planning and management ofland resources; combating deforestation; combating desertification and drought; sustainable mountain development; promotingsustainable agriculture and rural development; conservation of biological diversity; and environmentally sound management ofbiotechnology. The Commission also established the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF).

CSD-4, held from 18 April - 3 May 1996, completed the Commission’s multi-year thematic programme of work and beganconsidering preparations for the Special Session. The Commission, chaired by Rumen Gechev (Bulgaria), examined the thirdcluster of issues according to its multi-year thematic programme of work. In reference to the Special Session, most delegatesagreed that the CSD should continue and that it should not conduct another review of Agenda 21. Suggestions as to its futurework varied from concentrating on certain sectors (e.g., oceans) to cross-cutting issues (e.g., poverty) and specific problems(e.g. megacities). Many held out hope that in the coming year the CSD could redefine its role and accelerate progress inachieving the promises made in Rio.

REPORT OF THE CSD INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP

CSD Vice-Chair, Paul de Jongh (Netherlands), convened the first meeting of the Intersessional Working Group and stressedthe importance of continuity in the Commission’s work. The Working Group elected Co-Chairs Derek Osborn (UK) and Amb.Celso Amorim (Brazil). Amb. Amorim said the goal of the Intersessional meeting is to negotiate a detailed 10-15 page outlinedocument for CSD-5 in April, to be accompanied by a 2-3 page draft preamble or declaration. Co-Chair Osborn said there hasbeen some loss of momentum since UNCED and the international community must rediscover the spirit of Rio.

Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, asked delegations to recognizethat this is the first Special Session of the General Assembly to undertake a five-year review of a major UN process.Preparations are being made for UNGASS participation at the highest level. He suggested that the process be as innovative asUNCED. He said some Working Group resolutions could be dealt with at CSD-5 while the political purpose of the SpecialSession is to secure real high-level political commitment on implementation, financing for sustainable development,technology transfer and capacity-building. He stressed the need to integrate economics into the CSD’s work and to increase theCommission’s leverage with financing bodies.

Delegates to the CSD Intersessional Working Group engaged in a general debate during the first week of the session. Issues onthe agenda included: assessment of the implementation of sectoral and cross-sectoral issues; strengthening the role of majorgroups; emerging priorities; and institutional issues and format of the outcome of the Special Session. The Co-Chairsdistributed a series of questions and comments mid-week and urged delegates to identify how to respond to the problems theyhad identified, rather than simply noting the problems. A Co-Chairs’ draft on the "Proposed Outcome of the Special Session,"based on the first week’s discussion, was distributed on Monday, 3 March. Discussions during the second week responded tothis draft and identified elements that delegates supported, believed were omitted or preferred to amend or delete. An informalgroup, chaired by Antonio Mello (Brazil), met on Wednesday, 5 March to discuss the structure of the document.

A revised Co-Chairs’ draft was distributed Friday afternoon, 7 March. This re-draft incorporated delegates’ comments duringthe second week and will provide a basis for consultations as participants prepare for the fifth session of the CSD, which willcommence on 8 April 1997. The following report uses the structure of the Co-Chairs’ revised draft and summarizes theWorking Group’s discussion on the issues contained therein.

PROPOSED OUTCOME OF THE : SPECIAL SESSION

The structure of the Co-Chairs’ "Proposed Outcome" dominated many statements during discussion of the initial draft onTuesday, 4 March. The draft consisted of four sections: Statement of Commitment; Assessment of Progress Reached AfterRio; Strategies for Implementation; and International Institutional Arrangements. Most changes focused on the third section,Strategies for Implementation, which was divided into three parts: Policy Approaches, Areas Requiring Urgent Action andMeans of Implementation. The EU welcomed the Co-Chairs’ structure. The G-77/CHINA suggested that the final documentfollow the structure of Agenda 21. NEW ZEALAND disagreed. The EU and SWITZERLAND suggested that povertyeradication should be an over-arching objective in the section on urgent action. The EU also suggested that changingproduction and consumption patterns should be an over-arching objective. The EU, CANADA and SWITZERLAND called fora clear distinction between emerging issues on which progress can be made by the CSD and UNGASS and those issues beingaddressed in other processes. NORWAY divided the issues according to: follow-up to global conferences; on-going processesunder UN conventions; and other urgent areas.

An informal group, chaired by Antonio Mello (Brazil), met on Wednesday, 5 March, to discuss the structure of the draftdocument. Three proposals containing new elements for the section on Strategies for Implementation were distributed. The Co-Chairs’ redraft contained two parts, "Comprehensive Policy Approaches and Means of Implementation" and "Areas of Focus,Convention Processes and Follow-up to Global Conferences." The G-77/China’s draft also contained two parts:"Comprehensive Approach to Environment and Development," which was divided into "Integration of Economic, Social andEnvironmental Objectives" and "Conservation and Management of Resources for Development;" and "Means ofImplementation." The Norwegian draft (supported by Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland) contained threeparts: "Policy Approaches," "Means of Implementation" and "Areas Requiring Specific Action."

Delegates generally agreed to call the third section "Implementation in Areas Requiring Urgent Action" and to include threesubsections: Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental Objectives; Sectoral Issues; and Means of Implementation.They could not agree on the title for the part on sectoral issues, however, and decided to transmit to the Co-Chairs theiragreement that the section contain three parts. Many agreed that the identification of the document’s substance would facilitatefurther consideration of its structure. The Co-Chairs used this generally-agreed structure to guide their revised draft, with theunderstanding that no commitments to the headings had been made.

STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT

STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT

The Co-Chairs’ draft indicates that this section could serve as a preamble or declaration. A number of speakers called for thelatter. The Statement of Commitment was not discussed as extensively as the other draft sections. Some delegates suggestedthat it would benefit from high-level input at CSD-5. Many called for a recommitment to the UNCED agreements. EGYPTsaid any declaration should reaffirm but not replicate the Rio Declaration. MEXICO emphasized that this should be a politicalstatement but not a list of principles. ICELAND said the declaration should be concise and, where possible, set dates andtargets. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested that this section highlight long-term objectives. The EU emphasized the needfor the text to be forward-looking. PAKISTAN called for references to implementation of commitments. The US hoped thatthe Co-Chairs would take the necessary time to make this section live up to the Group’s expectations.

The Co-Chairs’ draft Statement of Commitment contains six points indicating that it should, inter alia: be politicallyattractive and provide a clear focus; reaffirm the Rio documents; highlight the main achievements since UNCED; address thevicious circle of poverty, lack of capacity and resources; reiterate the need for changing consumption and production patterns;and focus on implementation and commitments.

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REACHED AFTER RIO

The Co-Chairs’ draft "Assessment of Progress Reached After Rio" describes: the effects of globalization; economic, social andenvironmental trends; participation of major groups; international environmental agreements; finance and official developmentassistance (ODA) trends; and technology transfer. A number of developing countries emphasized the developmental aspect ofsustainable development and the economic difficulties faced by developing countries. Many developed country delegatesstressed that the current state of the global environment is not the sole responsibility of industrialized countries. Delegates alsohighlighted the need for implementation of international agreements on environment and sustainable development.

Delegates made general comments on the Assessment on Friday, 7 March. INDIA, INDONESIA and CHINA emphasized theneed for a balanced approach to environment and development. INDIA called for a reference to important principles adopted inRio, such as common but differentiated responsibilities. PAKISTAN stated that the key issue in achieving sustainabledevelopment is capacity, and capacity-building requires action at all levels, global partnership and willingness to go beyondnational boundaries. CHINA stated that the draft does not reflect constraints imposed by the current international economicenvironment on the economic development of developing countries.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said that the Assessment should be aimed not only at diplomats but also at the broader public.He called for concrete illustrations of and numerical trends for both problems and achievements, which could be based on theUNEP Global Environmental Outlook. CANADA suggested adding a paragraph on learning and awareness-raising aboutsustainable development over the past five years. The US and INDONESIA emphasized the importance of regional efforts toachieve sustainable development.

On a paragraph describing the effects of globalization, the EU recommended greater emphasis on the importance of ODA formeeting basic needs. NORWAY called for further stress on the negative environmental impacts, poverty and unemployment inboth developing and developed countries that have resulted from globalization and the need to remedy these impacts.COLOMBIA agreed that globalization has not been of equal benefit for all countries, reinforcing the need for ODA to achievesustainable development. The revised draft notes that while some developing countries have benefited from globalization,others have suffered declining per capita GDP and remain dependent on declining ODA for the capacity-building andinfrastructure required for provision of basic needs and more effective participation in the globalizing world economy.

In a paragraph highlighting worsening economic conditions as well as progress in provision of social services, CANADAsuggested noting that the decline in population growth rates is attributable not only to the expansion of basic education andhealth care but also of family planning. PAKISTAN called for more emphasis on the urgency of reducing inequities in thedistribution of wealth and resources. The revised draft notes that economic conditions and poverty have worsened in manycases and income inequality has grown. While progress has been made in lowering population growth rates and providingsocial services, many people still lack access to basic social services, clean water and sanitation.

In a paragraph on global environmental deterioration, the EU and the US noted that the rise in polluting emissions has notsolely occurred in developed countries. The EU called for references to: decreases in some polluting emissions in industrializedcountries; wasteful consumption and production patterns in both industrialized and developing countries; and depletion of non-renewable resources. NORWAY called for a specific reference to the adverse effects of present trends on biodiversity.CANADA proposed that the reference to fragile ecosystems emphasize the Arctic as an important barometer of globalenvironmental health. PAKISTAN called for a reference to the accelerated rate of desertification. The revised draft notes thatalthough progress has been made in institutional development, international consensus-building, public participation andprivate sector actions, overall environmental trends are worsening. Based on a proposal by the EU, a paragraph noting thattrends in consumption and production patterns continue to deplete non-renewable resources was included.

No comments were made on a paragraph highlighting governmental efforts to integrate environment and developmentconcerns into decision-making. The revised draft notes that approximately 150 countries have established national-levelcommissions or coordinating mechanisms on sustainable development.

On major groups, the EU emphasized public participation and information. PAKISTAN recommended mentioning the inabilityof major groups in developing countries to reach their full potential in contributing to sustainable development due to lack ofresources and capacity. The revised draft notes that major groups have demonstrated what can be achieved through committedaction, sharing of resources and building consensus, and highlights achievements of each major group.

In a paragraph noting the entry into force of several international environmental agreements, the EU proposed references to theentry into force of UNCLOS and to progress made by the IPF. MEXICO said the ratification of these agreements does notmean the problems they address have been resolved and called for a reference to their implementation. NORWAY called fornot only implementation but also strengthening of global commitments. The US, EGYPT and MEXICO noted that the globalconferences since Rio were overlooked, and EGYPT called for a reference to the lack of implementation of the actionprogrammes of these conferences. The revised draft notes the entry into force of environmental agreements as a notableachievement, but highlights their limited implementation and the need for further strengthening in some cases. It also statesthat while the establishment, funding and replenishment of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was an achievement,funding levels remain insufficient.

The final document contains a paragraph noting that progress has been made in incorporating the Rio Principles in a variety ofinternational and national legal instruments. Another paragraph states that several recent UN conferences have advancedinternational commitment to the social and economic aspects of sustainable development.

A paragraph highlighting the catalytic role of the CSD in forwarding global dialogue on sustainable development incorporatesa CANADIAN proposal to emphasize the progress made by the CSD’s IPF as a useful example of actions the CSD could takein other areas.

Many developing country delegates proposed separating the initial Co-Chairs’ draft paragraph that addressed ODA, the GEF,and debt. A paragraph on ODA notes that most developed countries have not reached the ODA target of 0.7% of GNP and thatODA levels have declined in the post-Rio period. It also incorporates an EU proposal to include the failure to reach the 0.15%target for the least developed countries.

A paragraph noting that the debt situation remains a constraint on sustainable development incorporates an EU proposal torefer to the World Bank/IMF Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. The text calls for further international efforts toreduce debt.

On technology transfer, the EU called for a balance between commitments made by developed countries and need fordeveloping countries to create favorable conditions for technology transfer. PAKISTAN called for recognition that privateflows have been concentrated in a handful of countries and sectors, and that the driving force has been profit and notsustainable development. The revised draft states that technology transfer and technology-related investment have not beenrealized as foreseen in Agenda 21.

IMPLEMENTATION IN AREAS REQUIRING URGENT ACTION

In the Co-Chairs’ initial draft, this section was entitled "Strategies for Implementation." The chapeau in the revised draft nowincludes Agenda 21 language on "common but differentiated responsibilities," which the G-77/CHINA proposed.Implementation was a key theme at the Intersessional, characterizing for some delegations the new post-commitment phase inthe Agenda 21 process.

NORWAY said UNGASS should look towards future implementation, identify areas of priority, initiate new processes andinvigorate existing ones. COLOMBIA and INDONESIA highlighted an imbalance between implementation of sectoral andcross-sectoral issues. The US and VENEZUELA underlined the importance of regional-level implementation. A number ofdelegates, including PERU, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA and PAKISTAN, called for renewed political will. CUBA called foraction.

The revised draft of the chapeau states that the comprehensive global approach to the achievement of sustainable development,with its recognition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the importance of internationalcooperation, is as relevant and as urgent as ever. It calls for a major new effort to achieve the Rio goals.

A. INTEGRATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES

An introductory section calls for integration of objectives at the policy-level and the operational level. Economic growth isreaffirmed as a pre-condition of sustainable development.

The US, NORWAY and the EU called on UNGASS to recognize the importance of good governance practices as a conditionfor effective implementation of sustainable development at the national level. COLOMBIA and IRAN resisted the languagecalling for integration of energy and transport policies. NORWAY and AUSTRALIA supported the introduction of referencesto women’s rights. The debate on a target year for completion of national strategies for sustainable development attractedcompeting proposals: SWITZERLAND and JAPAN supported 2005, which appeared in the first draft of the Co-Chairs’ text;the G-77/CHINA objected to any target date as interference with the work of national governments; and PAKISTAN and theCSD NGO STEERING COMMITTEE backed the target of 2002, which appears in the second Co-Chairs’ draft. COLOMBIAand BANGLADESH stressed the need for international support for national strategies. The CSD NGO STEERINGCOMMITTEE called for enhanced consultation and participatory mechanisms at the national level, notably for indigenouspeoples.

The revised draft notes that industry, agriculture, energy, transport and tourism sectors must take responsibility for the humanand environmental impacts of their activities, and underlines the particular urgency of integrating energy and transportconsiderations. Agriculture and water use are also linked, as are marine resource management, food supplies and the livelihoodof fishing communities. National strategies, with good governance, are linked to enhanced prospects for economic andemployment growth and environmental protection. The section recommends: the target year of 2002 for adoption of nationalstrategies in all countries, taking account of the needs of least developed countries, and enhancement of existing strategies;regulation, economic instruments and information partnerships between governments and NGOs; transparent and participatoryprocesses involving major groups and others, such as the elderly, the media, educators, the financial community andparliaments; and the full participation of women in political, economic, cultural and other activities.

Eradicating Poverty: Based on a proposal by several delegations, the section on poverty was moved from the Sectorsand Issues section in the first draft. Numerous delegations stressed the urgency of poverty alleviation. Several recommendedthat poverty eradication be the overarching issue guiding other policies.

PAKISTAN said poverty in developing countries is the most serious enemy of the environment. ZIMBABWE called for aglobal compact on poverty alleviation. COLOMBIA proposed that large companies in developed countries that benefit fromglobalization devote some profits to developing countries to help eradicate poverty and create employment. CUBA noted therole of the market economy in creating poverty. The G-77/CHINA proposed adding references to support for micro-enterprisesand rural employment and to promoting the involvement of NGOs, women’s groups and local communities in projects aimedat poverty eradication and social development. CANADA recommended inclusion of food security and promotion of genderequality. The EU supported adding a reference to gender and the outcome of the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women.The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS called for full implementation of the 1995 World Summit for Social Development(WSSD) Programme of Action. The NEW YORK CITY BAR and the INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OFSETTLEMENTS suggested an intergovernmental panel on poverty involving ECOSOC commissions.

The revised text states that poverty eradication is one of the fundamental goals of the international community and the UNsystem. Policies to combat poverty are linked to the integration of people living in poverty into economic, social and politicallife and facilitate their participation in resource conservation and environmental protection. Priority actions are identified to:improve access to sustainable livelihoods, entrepreneurial opportunities and productive resources; provide universal access tobasic social services; develop social protection systems; and address the disproportionate impact of poverty on women.

Changing Consumption and Production Patterns: This section reaffirms Agenda 21’s identification of production andconsumption patterns as a major cause of continued global environmental deterioration, with the addition of a reference toemerging patterns in higher income groups in some developing countries.

AUSTRALIA introduced a proposal on internalizing the costs of natural resource pricing, including water. COLOMBIA saidthat wealth, not poverty, as evidenced in unreasonable patterns of consumption and production, is the ultimate cause ofenvironmental degradation. He also called for measures to compensate developing countries for the impact of actions taken toshift existing patterns. SWITZERLAND recommended certification, auditing and ecological accounting to encouragesustainable production. EGYPT proposed a ceiling on per capita energy consumption, which would be operational in ten yearstime. POLAND advocated consumer education. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested compiling a report assessing thehealth effects of current consumption patterns. The EU advocated the objective of changing production and consumptionpatterns as an over-arching objective requiring urgent action. IRAN pressed for consideration of the developmental needs ofdeveloping countries.

The revised draft calls for policies to address patterns of production and consumption at the international and national levels, inaccordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the polluter pays principle and producerresponsibility. The key strategies identified are eco-efficiency, cost internalization and product policies. Specificrecommendations include: internalization of costs and benefits in the price of goods and services and eventually pricing naturalresources to reflect economic scarcity; core indicators; identification of best practices, especially in developed countries; takingaccount of the impact of urbanization; adoption of international and national targets or action programmes for energy andmaterials efficiency; improving governments’ procurement policies and management of public facilities; harnessing the media,advertising and marketing in shaping new patterns and encouraging eco-labelling; promotion of eco-efficiency with due regardto developing country export opportunities; and education.

Making Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development Mutually Supporting: This section identifies themacroeconomic conditions required to accelerate economic growth, promote poverty eradication and pursue sustainabledevelopment, by addressing questions of globalization, trade liberalization and renewed system-wide cooperation involving theUN, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Bretton Woods institutions.

A persistent call from the G-77/CHINA was for a balanced approach to developmental needs, including economic growth anddevelopment space, and the environmental components of sustainable development. He recalled Rio’s acknowledgement ofgrowth as the engine of environmental protection. The PHILIPPINES and AUSTRALIA supported calls for a consensusapproach to sustainable development as defined at the WSSD. While BANGLADESH wanted to ensure that environmentalmeasures do not impair market access, SWITZERLAND called for appropriate environmental policies to ensure that tradeliberalization does not harm the environment. The CSD NGO STEERING COMMITTEE also stressed the impact of tradeagreements on social goals, and proposed a meeting of trade, environment and possibly development ministers to precede thenext WTO Ministerial Conference. She also called for: an understanding that environmental conventions cannot be bound byWTO requirements; an environmental review of the Uruguay Round; and an Intergovernmental Panel on Trade andSustainable Development. The EU stressed the need for greater responsiveness to sustainable development objectives at theWTO. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for emphasis on environmental protection. CANADA cautioned against aproposal to use the General System of Preferences (GSP) to encourage sustainable production.

The revised draft recommends balanced and integrated approaches to enable all countries to benefit from globalization throughcooperation and support for capacity-building, establishing environmental and resource management policies alongside tradeliberalization, and further efforts to integrate environmental considerations in the multilateral trading system. Recommendedactions include:

timely and full implementation of the Uruguay Round and full use of the WTO Plan of Action for the Least Developed Countries;

rapid accession of developing countries to the multilateral trading system and efforts to mitigate adverse impacts;

measures to guard against disguised protectionism;

analysis of the environmental impact of international transport of goods;

examination of mutual recognition and equivalency for eco-labelling;

use of the GSP to stimulate sustainable production; and

further actions on multilateral environmental agreements, small and medium-sized enterprises, regional issues and foreign direct investment (FDI).

Population: The EU and CANADA called for expanding access to family planning. The G-77/CHINA said expandingbasic education must reflect the needs of women and the girl-child and called for greater emphasis on universal access toprimary health care. AUSTRALIA called for an integrated approach to family and maternal health. The revised draft notes thatthe current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted by policies for economic development, povertyreduction, further expansion of basic education and health care, and full implementation of the Programme of Action of the1994 International Conference on Population and Development, with international assistance to developing countries.

Health: The EU highlighted the need for expansion of basic health services. The US supported a reference to theWorld Health Organization and the need to protect children from environmental threats. CANADA suggested mentioningWSSD follow-up activities and highlighting the link between health and the environment. The revised draft stresses the need toenable all people to achieve a higher level of health and well-being and to improve their economic productivity and socialpotential. Priorities include: protecting children from environmental health threats; eradicating major infectious diseases;improving and expanding basic health and sanitation services, and providing safe drinking water; and developing strategies forlocal and indoor air pollution.

Sustainable Human Settlements: Several delegations emphasized the importance of implementing the Habitat II Planof Action and addressing the pressing environmental problems resulting from urbanization. The REPUBLIC OF KOREAcalled for a balance between attention to urban and rural settlements. The WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATIONcalled for recommendations on how to enhance implementation of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction andon appropriate mechanisms for follow-up after 2000. The revised draft: notes rapid urbanization in developing countries andconsequent social and environmental stresses; urges implementation of the Habitat II and Agenda 21 commitments; and callsfor acceleration of technology transfer, capacity-building and private-public partnerships to improve provision andmanagement of urban infrastructure and social services.

B. SECTORS AND ISSUES

Freshwater: Most speakers agreed that freshwater is a priority issue and the CSD should play a key role in itsconsideration. Delegates also debated the need for an intergovernmental process on freshwater.

CANADA, BRAZIL and MEXICO supported the call for international cooperation and an intergovernmental process. The USexpressed hesitation regarding action at the international level, as drinking water and sanitation issues are best addressed atmore localized levels. The EU also urged caution on establishing a new intergovernmental process. EGYPT suggested thatlocal treaties may be preferable to a proposed global convention on river basins. The G-77/CHINA said bilateral and regionalagreements will be more effective and feasible. AUSTRALIA said a time frame should be specified for an intergovernmentalpanel.

COSTA RICA, on behalf of the CENTRAL AMERICAN REGION, said freshwater resources should be addressed accordingto national policies and priorities. SOUTH AFRICA called for emphasis on equitable access to freshwater resources andservices in arid regions. AUSTRALIA noted the need to involve all stakeholders and to use the best available science.SWITZERLAND proposed attention to regional approaches, upstream-downstream linkages and, with PERU, sustainabledevelopment of mountain areas.

The G-77/CHINA, supported by the INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS, said discussing water as an economic good, andthus calling for implementation of pricing policies for cost recovery and efficient allocation, is premature. The G-77/CHINAcalled for financial and technical support for water supply and sanitation infrastructure in developing countries. BRAZILunderscored the important role of international financial institutions in this regard. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUSstated that allowing privatization of water will further aggravate ongoing conflicts over freshwater resources. She called forregulation of mining and other activities having negative impacts on freshwater. The FAO called for promotion of investmentin upland conservation. GUYANA called for a reference to inefficient industrial practices.

The revised draft notes increasing stress on water supplies caused by unsustainable use and calls for high priority to freshwaterproblems. It calls for urgent action to:

formulate and implement policies for integrated watershed management;

strengthen regional and international cooperation;

manage water resource development and use in ways that provide for participation by local communities and women;

provide an enabling environment for investments to improve water supply and sanitation services;

recognize water as an economic good and gradually implement pricing policies for cost recovery and equitable and efficient allocation;

strengthen the capability of information management systems;

strengthen international cooperation for integrated development of water resources in developing countries;

make progress on multilateral agreements among riparian countries; and

foster an intergovernmental dialogue.

Oceans: Some speakers proposed the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on oceans, and delegates expresseddiffering views regarding the establishment of targets to reduce excess fishing fleet capacity. The ALLIANCE OF SMALLISLAND STATES (AOSIS) called for information systems on oceans and seas protection and stressed the link betweenimplementation and financial and organizational capacities of countries. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL called ongovernments to redress fisheries problems and to establish an intergovernmental panel on oceans. CANADA said that specificproposals for an intergovernmental process are premature.

AUSTRALIA said the CSD should be the coordinating body on oceans and coastal areas issues. He supported including anexhaustive list of existing ocean-related legal instruments and action programmes. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA said the list oflegal instruments should either be comprehensive or deleted. MALTA supported the reference to the Global Programme ofAction for small island developing States (SIDS). The G-77/CHINA said implementation of these instruments should be basedon common but differentiated responsibilities and requires assistance to developing countries. He emphasized that follow-upand monitoring of existing legal instruments is the responsibility of governments, not the international community. The EUrecommended referring to UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme and to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.

The US supported the implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action, but he questioned the need for an improvedsystem of oceans governance. He said the FAO is already addressing the issue of excess fishing fleet capacity and did notsupport the establishment of global or regional-level targets. MEXICO, NORWAY and the FAO called for a reference to the1995 International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. NORWAY noted the importance of national and regionalefforts to ensure sustainable use and supported: reference to the FAO agreement to promote compliance on the high seas; theestablishment of measures and objectives, including targets for fisheries management; and improved control and enforcementmechanisms. AUSTRALIA stated that over-capacity of fishing fleets is perhaps the most critical oceans issue, and supportedtargets, provided they are based on indicators of ecological sustainablity. JAPAN said the CSD should not consider fisheries.He suggested that regional organizations establish any measurable targets and, with the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, advocateddeletion of the sub-paragraph on elimination of subsidies and excess capacity. BRAZIL noted considerable differences amongcountries regarding subsidies and fleet capacity and recommended that their elimination and reduction be conducted "whereappropriate." CANADA supported the elimination of excess fishing capacity and endorsed global targets but said theprecautionary approach should be used.

The revised draft notes some progress in protecting oceans, emphasizes the need for periodic intergovernmental reviews, andurges:

an integrated, comprehensive approach to implementing and monitoring existing legal instruments;

implementation of ocean-related agreements and instruments (with a footnoted list of relevant instruments);

consideration of establishing measurable objectives, including phasing out subsidies to eliminate or reduce excess fishing fleet capacity, where appropriate; and

improvement of scientific data and enhancement of public awareness.

Forests: Although the Co-Chairs had requested that delegates not address this issue due to the recent conclusion of theIPF, a number of delegates expressed their views on a continued forest policy dialogue and a possible international conventionon forests. NORWAY and BRAZIL noted that it is premature to negotiate a legally-binding instrument on forests because, forsuch an instrument to be effective, it must be based on consensus. CANADA suggested that UNGASS reach a conclusionregarding the negotiation of a forest convention. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said forest issues should be addressed in aframework separate from the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). COLOMBIA said a high-level CSD workinggroup should continue to facilitate intergovernmental dialogue. Based on a CANADIAN proposal, the revised draft states thatthe report of the IPF includes a number of options that will be considered at CSD-5.

Energy and Transport: Delegates discussed these issues together, as was proposed by the initial draft, but based onsuggestions by several delegates, the issues are addressed in separate sections in the revised draft. Most delegations agreed thatthe CSD should consider energy and transport as priority issues. The issues of energy efficiency, renewable energy and phase-out of lead in gasoline were among those emphasized.

The EU said UNGASS should promote common energy policies and address emission standards and traffic management.SWITZERLAND called on the CSD to take a lead role in coordinating a global strategy on policies and measures for energyefficiency. The US said the CSD should focus on energy efficiency, environmentally sound transportation systems and lesspolluting fuels. CANADA called for greater emphasis on energy efficiency and the benefits of recycling.

EGYPT called for agreed targets, including a 10% increase in investments in alternative energy sources over five years and theelimination of lead in gasoline in ten years. SWITZERLAND and the US said UNGASS should recommend that energypricing reflect social and environmental costs and call for increased investment in renewable energy. The US said UNGASSshould not set targets for such investment. AUSTRIA supported proposals that the CSD adopt a comprehensive approach toenergy, including transport, urban issues and redirecting subsidies and, with SWITZERLAND, supported CSD prioritization oftransport.

JAPAN said energy pricing should reflect a country’s economic and energy situation. BRAZIL questioned the usefulness of aspecific uniform target for elimination of subsidies. The US indicated it was not ready to accept such a target. The G-77/CHINA said the impacts of proposed measures, particularly those on subsidies, must be examined closely, and the timeframe and targets for elimination of subsidies should account for differences between developed and developing countries. TheREPUBLIC OF KOREA advocated deletion of the sub-paragraph on subsidies. The NGO ENERGY CAUCUS called for:internalization of all fuel consumption costs; energy conservation and use reduction in developed countries; a phase-out ofsubsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear energy; and an increase in renewable energy subsidies.

The G-77/CHINA called for a doubling of financial resources for new and renewable energy sources and for access totechnologies and know-how to enable developing countries to use these energy sources. GHANA called for access to emergingsolar technologies. MALTA recommended references to increased investment in solar energy and to regional-level researchand development (R&D) in renewable energy. NORWAY proposed a reference to renewable energy sources available locallyand to comprehensive land-use planning in the section on transport.

SWITZERLAND advocated adding local and transboundary air pollution to the agenda under this issue. BRAZILrecommended mentioning the role of international financial institutions in providing electricity to unserved populations. TheEU recommended: providing energy to unserved populations; calling for a coherent strategy for a sustainable energy future;promoting guidelines for environmentally friendly transport, fuel optimization and lead phase-out in gasoline; and emphasizingregional approaches to transport. The NGO TRANSPORTATION CAUCUS called for examination of land-use planning, car-free areas and internalization of transportation costs.

The revised draft on energy notes that current patterns of production, distribution and use are unsustainable. It stresses the needfor:

international cooperation to provide adequate energy services to unserved populations;

comprehensive energy policies and promotion of sustainable energy production and consumption patterns;

increased use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fossil fuel technologies;

increased investment and R&D in renewable energy technologies;

movement towards energy pricing that reflects economic and environmental costs and social benefits, including consideration of eliminating environmentally-damaging energy subsidies within ten years; and

improved coordination of energy-related activities in the UN.

The revised draft on transport notes the damaging impacts of current levels and patterns of fossil energy use and calls for:

integrated transport policies;

integration of land-use and transport planning;

improved energy efficiency and efficiency standards;

guidelines for environmentally friendly transport and targets for reducing vehicle emissions and phasing out lead in gasoline within ten years; and

national-level partnerships to strengthen transport infrastructure and develop innovative mass transport schemes.

Atmosphere: Most delegates expressed the view that UNGASS should emphasize the importance of further progressby the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in securing commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions. Many developing countries called on industrialized countries to fulfill existing FCCC commitments. The EU,CANADA, SWITZERLAND and SWEDEN said the gathering of world leaders at UNGASS could propel climate changediscussions forward. IRAN said UNGASS should avoid making recommendations for further commitments. AOSISrecommended prioritization of the Berlin Mandate’s completion of a legally-binding instrument at the third Conference of theParties (COP-3) to the FCCC. SWITZERLAND called for quantified objectives. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL and theNGO ENERGY CAUCUS called on governments to endorse a legally-binding CO2 reduction target of 20% of 1990 levels by2005. The US said UNGASS should not identify a range of targets for reducing CO2 emissions and proposed adding areference to regional agreements.

AOSIS called on Annex I countries under the FCCC to reduce GHG emissions and to strengthen their commitments. BRAZILproposed noting that the FCCC commitments have not been met and that there is a need for renewed effort by industrializedcountries. The NGO ENERGY CAUCUS emphasized equity and the primary responsibility of industrialized countries inreducing GHGs. The G-77/CHINA stressed the need for technology transfer and financial assistance to developing countries toenable them to meet FCCC commitments. He said the development and management of terrestrial and marine carbon sinksdoes not give developed countries license to maintain unsustainable practices.

CANADA proposed welcoming the recent conclusion of meetings on replenishment of the Montreal Protocol Fund rather thancalling for additional resources for phasing out ozone depleting substances in developing countries. The INTERNATIONALATOMIC ENERGY ASSOCIATION stressed the need for countries to make well-informed decisions on the optimal mix ofenergy sources and called for sound technological assessments of the risks involved in all energy sources to facilitate suchdecisions.

The revised draft notes little progress in reducing GHG emissions and highlights the need for a legally-binding protocol to beadopted at FCCC COP-3. A separate paragraph: welcomes the recent conclusion of replenishment negotiations for theMontreal Protocol Fund; emphasizes the need for adequate future replenishments; calls for effective measures against illegaltrade in ozone depleting substances; and recommends further development of regional agreements to counter transboundary airpollution.

Chemicals and Wastes: Several developing countries emphasized the need to control transboundary movements ofhazardous wastes. Many delegates commented on the emerging agreements on Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs). AOSIS called for renewed commitment on transport and storage of nuclear waste. The RUSSIANFEDERATION called for international agreements on transboundary pollutants and chemicals. COLOMBIA called for moreeffective interventions in illegal transboundary movements. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA noted the lack of public awarenessabout the increasing number of accidents and stressed the need to address the handling, transport and disposal of radioactivewastes, including on a regional basis.

The G-77/CHINA stressed the need to ensure the availability of substitutes to POPs that are environmentally sound andaccessible to developing countries. He called for further action to: enhance awareness of chemical safety and management;develop accident preparedness plans; complete a protocol on liability and compensation for damages under the BaselConvention; clean up sites contaminated by nuclear weapons testing; establish regional cooperation agreements; and ban legalmovement of hazardous and toxic wastes. CANADA said the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Forum on ChemicalSafety should be endorsed. NORWAY noted the need to intensify cooperation with developing countries to supportadministrative capacity and aid them in dealing with stocks of obsolete chemicals.

The revised draft notes substantial progress with implementation of several agreements on chemicals and wastes and recentinternational action towards conclusion of agreements on PIC and POPs. It stresses the need to: develop criteria to identifyadditional chemicals to be included in a POPs convention; conclude the Protocol on Liability and Compensation under theBasel Convention; increase regional cooperation to improve radioactive waste management; and prevent storage of radioactivewastes in areas lacking safe storage facilities.

Land and Sustainable Agriculture: Several delegates emphasized the need for efforts to work toward food security,particularly through the implementation of the World Food Summit agreements. The EU called for prioritization of foodsecurity and for references to: access to land; the role of indigenous people; and defining ways to combat soil degradation.NORWAY proposed a reference to sustainable conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.CANADA noted that provision of adequate food and nutrition will require environmentally sound intensification of foodproduction. The NGO CAUCUS ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE called on governments to: facilitate and implement aglobal facility for urban agriculture; prioritize integrated pest management; and support programmes to achieve local, regionaland global food security. CHINA noted the importance of the World Food Summit outcomes.

The revised draft emphasizes the need to: define ways to combat soil degradation and to integrate land and watershedmanagement; use integrated approaches to land-use management that involve all stakeholders; eradicate poverty to improvefood security and provide adequate nutrition; implement comprehensive rural policies to improve access to land, combatpoverty, create employment and reduce rural emigration; and implement the World Food Summit outcomes.

Desertification and Drought: In the initial Co-Chairs’ draft, desertification and drought were addressed in theparagraph on land and sustainable agriculture, but based on recommendations from a number of delegations, the revised draftcontains a separate paragraph on these issues. The EU called for a reference to the upcoming COP-1 of the CCD. EGYPT saidthe GEF should increase finances to deal with desertification and deforestation on an equal footing with other globalenvironmental issues. IRAN advocated expanding the GEF’s mandate to include land degradation and desertification. The USemphasized that the CCD Global Mechanism is not a financial mechanism. AUSTRALIA and SWITZERLAND said theCOP’s determination on that issue should not be preempted.

The revised draft urges governments to sign, ratify and implement the CCD and to support the Global Mechanism to ensureadequate financial resources to advance its implementation.

Biodiversity: Delegates emphasized the need to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) andsupported the timely conclusion of a protocol on biosafety. INDONESIA noted the need to strengthen capacity-building tofulfill CBD commitments. COLOMBIA and the INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS called for progress on a biosafetyprotocol. The US noted the difficulty in identifying the value of biodiversity. JAPAN said examination of the equitable sharingof benefits should take place elsewhere, such as in the FAO. AUSTRALIA proposed references to traditional and indigenousknowledge and the equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of such knowledge.

The G-77/CHINA recommended: operationalizing the clearinghouse mechanism; emphasizing the role of women insustainable use of biodiversity; implementing incentive measures at all levels; and implementing environmental impactassessments. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS called for the development of a bioethics protocol. CANADA saidParties to the CBD must move the Convention’s objectives forward in meaningful and measurable ways. The FAO called for areference to the 1996 Leipzig Declaration and Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources.

The revised draft calls for: full implementation of CBD commitments; attention to the Leipzig Declaration and Plan of Action;equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources and of traditional knowledge; respect, preservation andmaintenance of traditional knowledge; and rapid conclusion of a biosafety protocol.

Sustainable Tourism: Delegates emphasized the need to involve local communities and to consider environmentalimpacts of tourism. The EU said continued discussion should be undertaken under the CBD and, with SWITZERLAND,emphasized the need for local community involvement in tourism development. AOSIS highlighted the relationship betweenenvironmental quality and tourism. MALTA recommended including references to eco-tourism and to the need forenvironmental policies in tourism development. CANADA noted the impacts of tourism on biodiversity. The INDIGENOUSPEOPLES CAUCUS proposed adding the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples to those organizations that couldelaborate an international programme of work on sustainable tourism.

The revised draft: notes the degradation of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems from tourism; calls on the CSD to develop aninternational programme of work on sustainable tourism; and stresses the need for international cooperation to facilitatesustainable tourism development in SIDS.

Small Island Developing States: Many delegations supported a reaffirmation of commitment to implement theBarbados Programme of Action for SIDS. AOSIS advocated provisions for an adequate review of the Programme in 1999.BARBADOS expressed hope that the review process would renew impetus for implementation of the Programme. MALTAstressed the need for financial resources. CANADA supported inclusion of a statement urging implementation of the BarbadosProgramme. He called for references to coastal development and to integrating SIDS into regional and global tradingstructures. AUSTRALIA noted that the draft refers only to action by international actors and should include national-levelaction by SIDS.

The revised draft reaffirms the international community’s commitment to implement the Barbados Programme of Action. Italso notes national and regional efforts to implement the Programme and calls for external assistance for building infrastructureand national capacity and for facilitating access to information on sustainable development practices and transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologies (ESTs).

Natural Disasters: Based on proposals from a number of countries, a paragraph on natural disasters appears in therevised draft. It notes that natural disasters have disproportionate consequences for developing countries, particularly SIDS,and stresses the need to promote and facilitate transfer of early-warning technologies to countries prone to natural disasters.

C. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Financial Resources and Mechanisms: Discussion on this issue focused on ODA, private sector investment, FDI,innovative financing mechanisms, subsidies and the GEF. Developing countries noted the decrease in ODA levels. EGYPTsupported a proposal calling on NGOs to lobby governments for increased ODA. Many developed countries emphasized a rolefor the private sector in development and identified ways that ODA could be used to attract private sector investment. Severaldelegates noted that FDI is unevenly distributed, driven by market forces and does not respect development needs or socialfactors. EGYPT, supported by NORWAY, highlighted the need to better understand how to use development assistance toleverage FDI. The EU said ODA can help the least developed countries build capacity, set environmental policies in place andfinance infrastructure that is not attractive to the private sector. They stressed that sound macroeconomic and property rightsframeworks are important if a country is to benefit from FDI. The US also noted the importance of regulatory regimes andgood governance. JAPAN said self-help efforts are the foundation for effective partnerships.

Among the actions proposed were: studies on the impact of FDI on social and economic development (EGYPT); and policiesto strengthen and enforce social and environmental regulations in host countries (UNED-UK); an intergovernmental forum onfinancing for Agenda 21 (INDIA and NGOs); a global fund for sustainable development financed by subsidies andinternational taxes (EGYPT); increased emphasis on innovative financial measures (POLAND and GUYANA); credits andguarantees and technical assistance to establish green banks (MEXICO); a convention to regulate the environmental impact ofmultinational corporations (G-77/CHINA); setting 2002 as a target for achieving 0.7% of GNP for ODA (UNED-UK); andinternational and regional revolving investment funds (NEW ZEALAND). The US objected to international taxation, saying itwould be a violation of sovereignty.

The revised draft notes the urgent need to fulfill all financial commitments of Agenda 21, for developed countries to reaffirmthe commitment of 0.7% of GNP for ODA and, at a minimum, to return to 1992 shares of GNP within five years. The role ofODA for capacity-building, supporting policy reforms and leveraging private investment is noted. The text also calls for workon the design of appropriate policies for attracting private foreign capital, reducing its volatility and enhancing its contributionto sustainable development. Domestic actions, such as macroeconomic and structural reforms and environmental taxes and usercharges, are proposed to mobilize domestic financial resources. Creditor, debtor and international financial institutions arecalled on to continue efforts towards finding solutions to the debt problems of the highly indebted poorest countries.Appropriate organizations are invited to conduct forward-looking studies regarding concerted action on innovative financialmechanisms.

A number of delegates, including the EU, discussed the need for adequate replenishment of the GEF. Many developingcountries, including THAILAND, GUYANA and the PHILIPPINES, called for increased contributions. The G-77/CHINA saidthe GEF should address desertification and forestry issues and revise its conditionalities. UNED-UK, CANADA andNORWAY all cautioned against expanding its mandate without additional resources. COLOMBIA called for greatertransparency and participation in the project approval process. The revised draft calls for further expansion and development ofthe GEF.

The need to address and remove subsidies was a concern for many. The EU preferred a reference to "trade-distorting andenvironmentally-damaging subsidies." JAPAN and the REPUBLIC OF KOREA said environmentally-damaging subsidiesshould be specified and country-specific conditions taken into account. The revised draft calls for research to assistgovernments in identifying and reducing subsidies that have trade-distorting and environmentally-damaging impacts.

Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies: Discussion on ESTs focused on related Agenda 21 commitmentsand methods through which transfer could occur. Many developing countries noted that the transfer of ESTs is not taking placeand called for transfers on preferential and concessional terms. CANADA and the US stressed the role of the private sector andmutually agreed terms for EST transfer.

A number of approaches to technology transfer were offered. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA offered to fund a feasibility studyof publicly-owned ESTs and to host an intergovernmental expert meeting. A role for ODA in technology transfer wasidentified by several developed country delegates. The UK, for example, suggested that ODA should support pilot projects todemonstrate innovative technologies and subsidize appropriate projects and activities when existing capital markets workagainst investments in ESTs. BRAZIL called for centers of EST dissemination and green credit lines. The PHILIPPINES,supported by GHANA, proposed a meeting with the private sector and COLOMBIA called for a UN forum to discusstechnology transfer.

The revised draft calls for renewed commitment from developed countries to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate,access to and transfer of ESTs and corresponding know-how. The creation of an enabling environment, on the part of bothdeveloped and developing countries, can help stimulate private sector investment in and transfer of ESTs. Further examinationof "green credit lines" and the links between ODA, FDI and technology transfer is proposed. Proposals to study publicly-owned technology are welcomed. A government role in establishing public-private partnerships and in bringing togethercompanies from developed and developing countries and economies in transition is noted. Governments of developingcountries are called on to strengthen South-South cooperation for technology transfer and capacity-building, and donorcountries and international organizations should assist in these efforts.

Capacity-Building: Many concerns regarding capacity-building were raised in relation to specific sectors in whichspeakers thought it should occur, but a few recommendations were offered for the specific section on capacity-building as well.Capacity-building and the need to absorb ESTs was a concern for EGYPT, among others. JAPAN and AUSTRALIAhighlighted the useful role of South-South cooperation in capacity-building. The revised draft notes the need for renewedcommitment from the international community to support capacity-building efforts in developing countries and economies intransition. UNDP’s Capacity 21 Programme should be further strengthened, and capacity-building efforts should recognize theneeds of women and indigenous peoples. South-South cooperation should be supported through "triangular" arrangements.

Science: A few comments were offered on this issue, including CANADA’s statement that strengthening of scientificcapacity is a priority for all countries. The revised draft calls for increased public and private investment in science, educationand training at the national level. Scientific cooperation is called for to verify and strengthen scientific evidence ofenvironmental change. Efforts to build and strengthen scientific and technological capacity in developing countries is anobjective of the highest priority.

Education and Awareness: NORWAY emphasized investment in education for young girls as a crucial component ofsustainable development. The US indicated an interest in the "education for life" idea. EGYPT supported references to trainingand public awareness. CANADA advocated inclusion of education for sustainable development. MALTA recommendedemphasizing educational systems that include environmental programmes. The revised draft notes the fundamental importanceof education for sustainable societies and sustainable development and calls for assigning priority to education for women andgirls. It also stresses the need to re-orient education in all nations to increase public understanding and support for sustainabledevelopment.

International Legal Instruments and the Rio Declaration: During discussion on the initial draft, COLOMBIA proposedadding a section on international legal instruments. The G-77/CHINA called for a review of international cooperation andcommitments in the post-UNGASS period. The revised draft calls for regular assessment and reporting on the implementationand application of the Rio principles. Wider access to relevant court systems to pursue environmental justice is called for, as isimplementation of and compliance with international treaties in the field of sustainable development.

Information and Tools to Measure Progress: The need for indicators and their use in national reporting was one of theissues emphasized in the few statements on this issue. The EU and CANADA, for example, emphasized this link.AUSTRALIA supported a core set of indicators. NEW ZEALAND noted the overlap among various bodies dealing withsustainable development and the need for coordination among them, particularly in the use of national reports. GUYANAnoted that many developing countries have not been able to complete their national reports. The revised draft notes the need forstrengthened data collection, compilation and analysis. The CSD work programme on indicators for sustainable developmentshould result in an adequate set of indicators to be used at the national level by the year 2000. Finally, national reporting shouldcontinue. The draft also notes that action regarding the streamlining of national reporting will be added during CSD-5.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

This section contains recommendations for continuing improvements in the institutional framework outlined in Chapter 38 ofAgenda 21 involving bodies inside and outside the UN system. Consideration of these issues took place within the overallcontext of ongoing UN reform. Delegates reaffirmed the lead coordinating role of the CSD for sustainable development issueswithin the UN system.

Greater Coherence in Various Intergovernmental Organizations and Processes: This section notes the ever growingnumber of decision-making bodies concerned with sustainable development and the subsequent need for policy coordination atthe intergovernmental level and between secretariats.

The EU called for further improvement in system-wide UN coordination mechanisms by the Administrative Committee onCoordination (ACC), and CHINA asked how ECOSOC might take full advantage of the expertise of its functioningcommissions. AUSTRALIA called for a strengthened and streamlined ECOSOC. The G-77/CHINA called for respect forenvironmental decisions and mandates of other intergovernmental bodies. URUGUAY suggested creating lines ofcommunication between the CSD and the GEF, and between the GEF and the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment.

The revised draft calls for a strengthening of the ACC’s Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development and its TaskManager system to enhance inter-sectoral and policy cooperation at all levels. It also calls for arrangements to support regionaland subregional organizations, including the UN Regional Economic Commissions.

Role of Relevant Organizations and Institutions of the United Nations System: This section invites UN organizationsand programmes to place more emphasis on country-level activity and addresses the roles of UNEP, UNDP, UNCTAD, theWTO and the World Bank.

While some delegations, including the EU, stipulated that UNEP should not compete with other operationally-taskedorganizations, others supported a strengthening of the organization’s role on global environmental issues and/or endorsementof the Nairobi Declaration. These included EGYPT, BRAZIL, INDONESIA, PAKISTAN and SWITZERLAND. NEWZEALAND said the UN needs to deal with the problem of overlapping and outdated organizations. SWITZERLAND calledfor greater cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO. JAPAN and the US also supported stronger linkswith other international organizations and UN convention bodies, the UNDP and multilateral development banks.

The revised draft calls on all UN organizations and programmes to place more emphasis on country-level, community-drivenand major group activities in the context of Agenda 21. It also endorses the recently-adopted Nairobi Declaration on enablingUNEP to serve as the leading environmental authority, agenda setter, environmental advocate and lead agency onenvironmental law. UNDP is invited to strengthen its contribution and UNCTAD is invited to play a key role throughintegrated examination of linkages among trade, investment, technology, finance and sustainable development. The WTOCommittee on Trade and Environment, UNCTAD and UNEP are invited to advance coordination, with recognition of theCSD’s role. The significant role of the World Bank, replenishment of IDA12 (International Development Assistance) at a levelat least comparable to IDA10, and the importance of GEF replenishment are also addressed.

Future Role and Programme of Work of the CSD: This section reaffirms the continuing role of the CSD as the centralforum for reviewing further progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, policy debate, consensus-building and catalyzinglong-term action and commitment.

Some delegations sought to delimit the role and limit the agenda of the CSD. NORWAY and BRAZIL said it should notduplicate or intrude on the work conducted by other UN fora. BRAZIL added that it should not set directives for other bodiesand suggested a shift towards operational decisions as opposed to conceptual outputs. AUSTRALIA, echoed bySWITZERLAND, characterized its agenda as one of identifying existing gaps in the implementation of Agenda 21 and keepingan eye on the big picture. Similarly, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested that it focus on unfulfilled expectations.

The revised draft invites the CSD to perform its functions in coordination with other subsidiary bodies of ECOSOC thatcontribute to the achievement of the economic and social goals of sustainable development, addressing the linkages betweensectors and between sectoral and cross-sectoral aspects of Agenda 21. It is recommended that ECOSOC decide on a Multi-Year Programme of Work for the CSD for the period 1998-2002.

CSD’s Methods of Work: This section makes recommendations on participation at CSD sessions, interaction withother UN and non-UN bodies, involvement of major groups and implementation of the Multi-Year Programme of Work, basedon weaknesses and gaps highlighted by the Intersessional Working Group.

MEXICO proposed strengthening the high-level segment and developing a mechanism to follow-up on the implementation ofits decisions. EGYPT and CANADA were among the supporters of increased participation by sectoral and finance ministers.PAKISTAN, SWITZERLAND, the PHILIPPINES and JAPAN, among others, drew attention to the key role of major groupsin implementation. AUSTRALIA supported further development of the task manager system, better links with bodies such asthe UN energy committee, and improved interaction with the High-Level Advisory Board. NEW ZEALAND proposed thatinformal intersessional events be used to identify key outputs anticipated at CSD sessions and to improve the efficiency of thesessions.

The revised draft recommends that the CSD:

attract ministers and high-level policy-makers responsible for specific economic sectors to the high-level segments;

consider more effective modalities for reviewing national implementation;

develop a better regional focus;

establish closer interaction with international financial institutions, including the GEF and the WTO, and invite these organizations to take CSD deliberations into account;

enhance major group input, notably the private sector;

organize the next Multi-Year Programme of Work possibly using an Ad Hoc Intersessional Working Group; and

enhance the contribution of the High Level Advisory Board.

The section calls for closer integration of the Committee on New and Renewable Sources of Energy and on Energy forDevelopment and the Committee on Natural Resources into the work of the CSD. It also recommends a change inarrangements for election to the CSD Bureau to allow "the same Bureau to provide guidance for the preparation for, and leadduring, the annual session." The next comprehensive review of Agenda 21 implementation is scheduled for 2002.

MAJOR GROUPS

Delegates discussed strengthening the role of major groups during the first week. NORWAY emphasized the need to increasethe role of civil society in implementing the Rio agreements and to establish working modalities for the Special Session thatencourage the active participation of major groups. The US advocated expanding NGO access to include the UN GeneralAssembly. He agreed that UNGASS should recommend action for expanding major group participation at the national level.

YOUTH REPRESENTATIVES spoke of the critical importance of providing a space in the UNGASS preparations for youth.GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL called on governments to ensure NGO access and participation at UNGASS. An NGOrepresentative called on the CSD to recognize older people as a major group. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS calledfor improved information dissemination to indigenous peoples and for a permanent forum for indigenous people at the UN.PAKISTAN said major group participation should be pursued with greater vigor. SWITZERLAND called for intensifieddialogue with all relevant stakeholders, particularly the business community, and said discussion with major groups should beintegrated into all areas rather than being a separate agenda item. The PHILIPPINES supported active participation of majorgroups. References to major groups are made throughout the revised draft, but are not contained in a discrete section.

CLOSING PLENARY

At 12:00 pm on Friday, 7 March, Co-Chair Osborn welcomed Amb. Razali Ismail, President of the General Assembly, andsummarized the work of the Intersessional Working Group. He added that States were far from satisfied with what had beenachieved since UNCED given increasing levels of poverty and environmental problems and the need to mobilize new financialresources and international cooperation. He added that there remained a need to strengthen the contribution and participation ofall sectors of society.

Amb. Razali congratulated delegates and said the Co-Chairs’ revised text would add breadth and depth to the negotiations atCSD-5. With regard to the organization of work for UNGASS, Amb. Razali said the provisional agenda would be based onpast agendas of special sessions and would include: the opening of the session by the Chair of the delegation of Malaysia; theappointment of a Credentials Committee; the election of the President; presentation of a report from the CSD; organization ofthe session; the adoption of the agenda; presentation of the substantive item, being the overall review and appraisal of theimplementation of Agenda 21; and the adoption of the final document or documents. He proposed that the Special Sessionestablish an Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole to consider all proposals submitted to UNGASS and to prepare the finaldocument(s) for consideration by the UNGA. It would also hear some statements not presented at Plenary.

The UNGASS Plenary will begin general debate at its first meeting, on Monday, 23 June, following the election of officers andadoption of the organization of work. The debate will continue until Friday morning or afternoon. The list of speakers will beselected on a first-come, first-served basis. A note verbale on procedures is to be distributed, informing participants that the listof speakers will open one week from the date the note is sent out. The list of speakers will close on Monday, 23 June, at theearliest. Delegations will have to inscribe in person.

More than 240 speakers may be involved in the debate, representing Member States, States Members of specialized agencieswhich are not members of the UN, intergovernmental and other organizations and entities with observer status, UNprogrammes, UN agencies and major groups including NGOs. Each speaker is expected to be limited to seven minutes.

Amb. Razali said the participation of major groups would necessitate arrangements to alter the formal nature of theproceedings. He recalled that paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 51/181 (16 December 1996) requires him to consultwith Member States in order to propose appropriate modalities for the effective involvement of major groups, including NGOs,at UNGASS. He added that, given the importance of past contributions made by the NGOs on the issue of environment anddevelopment, he hoped that States could expeditiously agree on modalities during consultations that he intended to initiatesoon. They should ensure that such participation, as in the case of past major conferences, would benefit and add value to theoutcome of UNGASS.

BRIEFING ON THE SPECIAL SESSION

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSING REMARKS

Co-Chair Amorim left New York on 5 March due to a prior commitment, so Co-Chair Osborn presided over the closingPlenary. Delegates received the revised Co-Chairs’ draft of the "Proposed Outcome of the Special Session." Co-Chair Osbornnoted that it was not a negotiated text, but that it would provide a basis for consultations prior to CSD-5 and would serve as thestarting point for discussion at the CSD’s High-Level Segment.

The EU asked how many working groups would be used at CSD-5. Joke Waller-Hunter, Director of the Division forSustainable Development, responded that the Bureau had not yet decided, but it could be appropriate to have three workinggroups, with never more than two meetings at once. Delegates adopted the report of the Working Group, as contained inE/CN.17/1997/WG/L.1, with some changes to the list of documentation available at the session. The EU read a statementnoting that the EU countries had transferred powers in agriculture, fisheries and trade to the European Community (EC) andproposed that the EC be allowed to participate at UNGASS as an observer and to subscribe to the obligations and commitmentsadopted there.

Co-Chair Osborn then offered some concluding remarks. He noted that delegates have to face the fact that progress on theground is limited and on many matters trends are moving in the wrong direction. He said the review process should be used to"galvanize the world and ourselves into more vigorous action" at all levels. Osborn reminded delegates of the Co-Chairs’appeal that they consider the possibilities for action rather than note reasons not to take action. He underlined a number ofareas where additional creativity is necessary. On poverty, he suggested that the text is not yet strong or clear enough and mayneed some new initiatives and resources. On freshwater, oceans and energy, an integrated policy approach could be used, butnational and international activity will be needed to develop policies and programmes to reinforce real action on the ground.Both increased ODA and private sector financial flows are needed. Developed and developing countries need to cooperate in arenewed effort to create the conditions in which resources and technology can be mobilized to a greater extent. The work ofmajor groups should be fostered and sustained at all levels. Finally, the Statement of Commitment should be a resonantstatement of political commitment that will revitalize the Rio enterprise and show a clear path towards fuller implementation.Osborn said his Co-Chair wished to be associated with his remarks.

In its closing statement, the EU looked forward to CSD-5 with a sense of the need to focus on concrete implementation ofexisting objectives and to reinforce international, regional and national actions. He said the EU would respond to the Co-Chairs’ exhortations for creativity during the preparations for UNGASS.

The G-77/CHINA acknowledged the Co-Chairs’ recognition of the most pressing issue of financial resources. He said thestructure of the Co-Chairs’ text did not reflect the seriousness of the issue and discussion would continue at CSD-5 and even atUNGASS. He signalled his intention to cooperate with all delegations to develop concrete suggestions for a mechanism totransfer ESTs to developing countries. Poverty eradication had received a great deal of support at the Intersessional WorkingGroup, even from many Northern partners. On trade and sustainable development he called for greater internationalcooperation to create a conducive economic climate to mobilize resources. Finally, he insisted that a revised draft provide for areview of international cooperation and commitments in the post-UNGASS period.

Co-Chair Osborn closed the session at 5:20 pm, after describing the Co-Chairs’ role as that of a sometimes "distorting" mirrorof delegations’ ideas, but sometimes "magic" mirror capable of reflecting their ideas more beautifully than before.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP

Much of the political momentum and energy produced by the UNCED process, one notable for its success as a global mediaevent that helped to stimulate an unprecedented level of public awareness, has since been channeled into a proliferation ofinstitutional responses. Success must therefore be measured along a number of axes: the appropriateness, authority, resourcingand effectiveness of the new institutions, conventions and accompanying intergovernmental and interagency activity UNCEDhas helped to engender; secondly, in a somewhat paradoxical fashion, there must be an "outsider" perspective that constantlyguards against the easy assumption that the institutional array is equal to the task in hand. The outsider perspective, perhapsbest captured in the views of the most able NGOs, recognizes the absolute limits of intergovernmental-sponsored processes,limits all too obvious given the bleak reading in UNEP’s Global Environmental Outlook report (1997), which announces that"internationally and nationally, the funds and the political will remain insufficient to halt further global environmentaldegradation and to address the most pressing issues." The dilemma was underlined by a senior delegate from the G-77 whowas prepared to concede that intergovernmental processes are, by virtue of their reliance on consensus-building, always lessefficient than those at the national level. The same rigorous standards cannot be applied to both.

So we have the somewhat curious situation of potentially more efficient governments gathering at the UN to draw on theoutcomes of intergovernmental processes that by their very nature fail to deliver on their promises. These limitations havebecome all the more stark in the five years since UNCED as processes of "globalization" and international trade liberalizationaccelerate and erode the traditional scope of governmental action. One delegate observed that the CSD has done a great job inidentifying and bringing on board sustainable development task managers throughout the UN system — the time has nowcome to do the same in the "real world." That will mean governments acknowledging that, when it comes to the sustainabilityagenda, they are one of a large number of partners in the implementation process, along with the private sector, researchinstitutions, local government bodies, regional organizations, the advertising industry and the full spectrum of major groups.The following brief analysis examines how these forces and realities played out during the meeting of the IntersessionalWorking Group and are guiding the preparations for the United Nations General Assembly's Special Session for the review ofAgenda 21 implementation.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS ?: The Intersessional Working Group was the first step in a process thatcontinues through CSD-5 in April and culminates in "Earth Summit+5" — the Special Session of the UN General Assembly.Inevitably there will be demands along the way to declare the process — or elements thereof — a success or failure. GeneralAssembly President Razali Ismail provided a few of the benchmarks for measuring this success in a speech delivered at theHigh-Level Segment of the 19th Session of the UNEP Governing Council. He said the Special Session must become thecentripetal force to move the preliminary process of strategizing and consensus-building into a fully operational and action-oriented phase. This is critical. While we are overloaded with the facts and figures of environmental degradation and conceptsof sustainability, actions to realize "a common future" are not evident. He said the Special Session would be an opportunity forthe UN to identify itself clearly as the organization that will not only enhance political commitment, but can translate it intotangible terms. In the very optimism of the declaration there is, of course, an admission that the UN has fallen far short of suchcompetence until now.

Nevertheless, Amb. Razali outlined a few key areas where progress would have to be made and a number of those have been inthe fore of the Working Group's debates over the past two weeks. For example, delegates from both developing and developedcountries acknowledged that poverty eradication must be taken seriously, that more attention is needed to the quality andmodalities of implementation, and that the requirement for ODA will not disappear and demands innovation. In debates onfinance, investment, trade and technology-transfer, many delegations expressed determination to pursue new and innovativemethods of engaging private sector funds, actors and responsibility for a role in building sustainability. There was hopeful talkof moving "beyond the sterile debates," notably those defined by the persistent North-South divide over striking the balancebetween the development and the environmental protection agendas.

WHOSE DOCUMENT?: The mandate of the CSD Working Group was to produce a 10-15 page outline paper on theproposed outcome of the Special Session. A first draft prepared by the Co-Chairs gave rise to considerable differences ofopinion. Some delegations attributed the debates to questions about important distinctions between work in progress, work inneed of a political kick and work yet to be undertaken. A G-77 delegate explained that, once again, the debate came down tokey differences between developing and developed countries. Specifically, the views on how the draft paper should bestructured reflected differing opinions on the weight to be given to sectoral and cross-sectoral issues. Developing countrieswere not suffering from "conference fatigue," one delegate explained. The problem was "rhetoric fatigue" caused by aperceived unwillingness on the part of industrialized countries to fully implement the developmental elements of the Rioagreements. One of the important pre-requisites for a successful Special Session would be an assurance to developing countriesthat the North is not only seeking an environmental protection agenda but is also serious about the social and economicdimensions of sustainable development. The developed world appeared to be more interested in sectoral issues such as climatechange, biodiversity and environmental agreements.

The significance of such debates does not only stem from their content — they raise genuine questions about the possibility ofmaking progress under the strains of persistent and fatal global inequities — but from their dogged familiarity. While thechallenges posed by accelerating environmental degradation accompanied by unprecedented globalization demand moregovernmental innovation than ever, it can be argued that the wheels of the much vaunted intergovernmental machine arespinning idly. The requirement for a "critical analysis," also identified as a benchmark by Amb. Razali, will probably demandunprecedented vision and participation from those who spend most of their time enjoying the spectacle from afar: civil society,major groups, NGOs, the most innovative elements in the private sector, and others who, as one delegate observed, "are readyand willing to play a part." Some will not even wait to be tasked.

NGO ACCESS TO UNGASS — THE LATEST ASSESSMENT: Others must wait, of course. The question of NGOaccess to the UNGASS has been complicated by the fact that it has coincided with high-level discussions on the issue at theSub-Group on NGOs of the Open-Ended High-Level Working Group on the Strengthening of the UN System. While access tothe Special Session seems all but assured, some States are thought to be resisting NGO demands for an enhanced participatoryrole that might one day usher NGOs to the doors of the Security Council.

The CSD is a Commission of the ECOSOC, one of the six primary bodies of the UN, which enjoys the authority to provide forconsultative relations with NGOs. NGO participation in the functioning commissions and world conferences has generallyexceeded the formally agreed provisions. Problems have arisen partly because the review of Agenda 21 implementation isbeing held as a Special Session of the General Assembly, which has maintained a formal silence on questions of participationbut, in practice, has developed unwritten rules that provide for NGO access to its meetings and those of its committees.Holding the review as a Special Session has changed the political climate of the debate. At the General Assembly last year, theUS blocked a proposal to allow NGO access to the Special Session on a par with ECOSOC practices, and in November theSecond Committee failed to agree a resolution on NGO participation. NGOs believe that the US and others fear theconsequences of breaking their silence and setting a dangerous precedent.

The General Assembly resolved the problem by handing responsibility for the modalities of NGO participation at theUNGASS to Amb. Razali who, crucially, is very supportive of NGO participation and has indicated that he will treat theSpecial Session like any other UN conference and soon begin consultations with delegations on the modalities. Fears remainthat Amb. Razali’s efforts may yet be ambushed due to politically charged debates on NGO access that are taking place underthe aegis of a Sub-Group of the Working Group on Strengthening the UN System.

BEYOND UNCED: Moving beyond UNCED will probably entail moving beyond traditional expectations of whatgovernments and intergovernmental organizations can do on their own. One of the Co-Chairs of the Intersessional WorkingGroup was an NGO representative from the UK. The draft text to go forward to CSD-5 for negotiation reflects the ground-breaking record of the UNCED process and the CSD in its willingness and ability to engage NGO activity and take theirsolutions on board. A member of the Secretariat pointed out that a number of elements in the draft probably would not survivewithout NGOs lobbying their home governments between now and CSD-5. The "insiders" too have come to recognize theabsolute limits of traditional models of government as crisis management.

The Intersessional Working Group was punctuated by poetic interventions from the Co-Chairs. Here is one more gem on ourcontemporary dilemma to send delegations on their way to CSD-5: "Whether we recognize it or not, we inhabit the shorelinebetween discourse and silence, between decorum and howls, between the ‘business’ and the ‘madness.’ A chief consequence ofthis unrecognized madness is the otherwise baffling inability of societies to tackle problems on which they have strong publiclydeclared commitments and an abundance of relevant information."(John Maguire, Ireland)

THINGS TO LOOK FOR IN THE COMING MONTHS

RIO+5 FORUM: The Earth Council is hosting the Rio+5 Forum in Rio de Janeiro from 13-19 March 1997. TheForum will bring together over 700 individuals, including representatives from NGOs, major groups, business and industry andgovernments, to develop recommendations for operationalizing sustainable development at all levels of governance. For moreinformation, contact: Johannah Bernstein, UN and European Coordinator, Earth Council, tel: +1-212-682-5998, fax: +1-212-682-6040, e-mail: earthc@undp.org. Also visit the Earth Council’s web site at: http://www.ecouncil@terra.ac.ca.

FAO COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES: The 22nd Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) will meet from17-20 March 1997 in Rome, Italy. The agenda will address: the state of world fisheries and aquaculture; implementation of theCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; strengthening the role of regional fishery bodies in the conservation andmanagement of fish stocks; the essential role of fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance in fisheries management; andactivities and programmes of the Fisheries Department. For information, contact: David Doulman at FAO; fax: +39-6-52255188; e-mail: David.Doulman@fao.org.

UNEP GOVERNING COUNCIL: Executive Director Elizabeth Dowdeswell invited the Governing Council to resumeits suspended 19th Session on 1 April 1997, in Nairobi. For more information, contact Jim Sniffen, UNEP Information Officer,New York; tel: +1-212-963-8094; fax:+1-212-963-7341; e-mail:sniffenj@un.org.

GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FORUM: A meeting of the Global Biodiversity Forum will convene from 3-4 April 1997at UN Headquarters in New York. The Forum will explore options for Biodiversity Indicators and Implementation Targets tohelp measure and expedite tangible progress in implementing the CBD. For more information, contact: Sheldon Cohen,Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET), 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 502, Washington, DC 20036, USA, tel: +1-202-547-8902, fax: +1-202-265-0222, e-mail: bionet@igc.apc.org.

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: The fifth session of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment will meet from 8-25 April 1997. The High-Level segment will take place from 8-11 April. For more informationon the CSD, contact: Andrey Vasilyev, UN Division for Sustainable Development, tel: +1-212-963-5949, fax: +1-212-963-4260, e-mail: vasilyev@un.org. Also visit the UN Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD)Home Page at http://www.un.org/DPCSD.

INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES FORUM: This forum, co-sponsored by the Citizens Networkfor Sustainable Development, ANPED, ELCI and the Stanley Foundation, will meet from 12-13 April 1997, at the LearningAlliance in New York. The meeting will engage international dialogue and action strategies among civil society activistsworking to create sustainable communities around the world. For more information, contact: Michael McCoy, Center forCitizen Advocacy, tel: +1-212-431-3922, e-mail: mmccoy@undp.org.

SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE WORLD INFORMATION TRANSFER: A conference on"Environmental Degradation: Its Effects on Children," co-sponsored by the Government of Chile and World InformationTransfer, will take place on 17-18 April 1997 in New York. For information, contact: World Information Transfer, 444 ParkAvenue South, Suite 1202, New York, NY 10022, USA, tel: +1-212-686-1996, fax: +1-212-686-2172, e-mail:wit@igc.apc.org.

FIRST EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT: This conference will be heldin Minorca, Spain from 23-26 April 1997. The Conference is a cooperative endeavor by UNESCO, the International ScientificCouncil for Island Development (INSULA), the Spanish Ministry for Environment, the Minorca Island Council and theGovernment of the Balearic Islands. The major goal of the Conference is to design a permanent forum to reach agreements andshape initiatives, which will result in effective inter-island cooperation in favor of sustainable development. For moreinformation contact: Consell Insular de Menorca, Cam des Castell no. 28 07702, MA, Minorca, Balearic Islands, SPAIN, tel:+34 71 35.31.00, fax: +34 71 36.61.99; or contact: INSULA, UNESCO, 1 rue de Miollis, 75015 Paris-France, tel: +33 145684056, fax: +33 1 45685804, e-mail: eurisland@insula.org. Also visit their Web site at http://www.insula.org/conf.htm.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRIES WITH ECONOMIES INTRANSITION: This meeting, scheduled from 23-26 April 1997 in Minsk, Belarus, is intended to increase national,subregional and regional efforts on the realization of UNCED decisions for countries with economies in transition to achievesustainable development as one of the main conditions of integration into European and world economic systems. Forinformation contact the Conference Secretariat at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of Belarus, 10Kollectornaya St., 220048 Minsk, Belarus, tel: +(0375-172) 204771.

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABILITY: This international conference on local initiatives for cities and towns will takeplace from 1-5 June 1997 in Newcastle, Australia. The conference objectives are to: showcase exemplary Local Agenda 21case studies; provide opportunity for debate; and engage local communities in progress towards local and therefore globalsustainability. For further information, contact the Conference Secretariat at Capital Conferences Pty Ltd, PO Box N399,Grosvenor Place, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia, tel: +61 2 9252 3388, fax: +61 2 9241 5282, e-mail: capcon@ozemail.com.au.Also visit the World Wide Web site at http://bicentenary.ncc.nsw.gov.au.

SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The Special Session of the UN General Assembly isscheduled for 23-27 June 1997. The session will conduct an overall review and appraisal of progress in implementing theUNCED agreements since the 1992 Earth Summit. For more information, contact: Andrey Vasilyev, UN Division forSustainable Development, tel: +1-212-963-5949, fax: +1-212-963-4260, e-mail: vasilyev@un.org. Also visit theHome Page forthe Speical Session at http://www.un.org/DPCSD/earthsummit/.

Further information

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Peter Doran <PF.Doran@ulst.ac.uk>, Kira Schmidt <kiras@iisd.org> and Lynn Wagner <grund@scf-fs.usc.edu>. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org> and the Managing Editor is Langston James Kimo Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. French translation by Mongi Gadhoum. The sustaining donor of the Bulletin is the International Institute for Sustainable Development <reception@iisdpost.iisd.ca>. General support for the Bulletin for 1997 is provided by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment. Funding for the French version has been provided by ACCT/IEPF with support from the French Ministry of Cooperation. The authors can be contacted at their electronic mail addresses or at tel: +1-212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (ASCII and PDF format) and through the Linkages WWW-server at <http://enb.iisd.org/>. For further information on ways to access, support or contact the Earth Negotiations Bulletin send e-mail to <enb@iisd.org>.The Earth Negotiations Bulletin may not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service outside the ENB listserver, without specific permission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This limitation includes distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media and broadcast. For more information, send a message to <enb@iisd.org>.

Participants

National governments: Australia; Austria; Bangladesh; Barbados; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cuba; Egypt; Ghana; Guyana; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran; Japan; Malta; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Thailand; UK; US; Uruguay; Venezuela; Zimbabwe
Negotiating blocs: African Union; Alliance of Small Island Developing States; European Union; Group of 77 and China; Least Developed Countries; Small Island Developing States
Non-state coalitions: Local Authorities; NGOs