Summary report, 30 August – 10 September 1993

Preparatory Committee for the SIDS Global Conference

The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Global Conference onthe Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing Statesconcluded its only scheduled session at UN Headquarters in New Yorkon 10 September 1993. The Conference, which will be held inBarbados from 25 April - 6 May 1994, is one of the major outputs ofthe United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED).

In her opening statement, PrepCom Chair Penelope Wensley(Australia) set the context for the meeting. "We meet at a timewhen expectations of the United Nations have never been higher,when the demands on the system have never been greater, when theworld community is struggling to cope with a proliferation ofpolitical and economic crises and problems. So we are competing forattention, for resources, for the commitment of governments, andfor the provision of effective support for our work by the UN andits agencies." This meeting was one of the first opportunities forgovernments to "roll up their sleeves, and get down to the hardwork of turning the ideas and concepts [of Agenda 21] intopractical concrete plans, measures and programmes which willproduce results."

By the conclusion of the two-week meeting, the PrepCom had set theprocess in motion for the adoption of a programme of action for thesustainable development of small island developing States (SIDS).However, many felt that more negotiating time will be needed beforethis document is ready for adoption in Barbados next year. So, inthe closing session, the PrepCom requested the General Assembly toconsider continuing the preparatory process, which may meanconvening an additional session of the PrepCom, to allowgovernments more time to work on the Programme of Action and anopportunity to initiate negotiations on the Barbados Declaration --the other proposed product of the Conference -- which was notformally discussed during this session. It will not be known untilthe General Assembly concludes in December whether and when therewill be a second PrepCom, given the current UN financial situationand continued opposition to this idea from some delegations. Whatis known, however, is that unless governments return to thenegotiating table with a positive attitude and a desire to promotesustainable development in small island developing States, a secondPrepCom will not solve anything.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SMALL ISLANDS STATES CONFERENCE

The Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SmallIsland Developing States has its roots in the UNCED preparatoryprocess. Participants at the third meeting of the UNCED PreparatoryCommittee expressed considerable interest in the problems facingsmall island developing States and requested the Secretary-Generalto add a programme area on islands to the oceans chapter (17) ofAgenda 21.

When Programme Area G, "Sustainable Development of Small Islands"was first presented at PrepCom IV in New York in March 1992, it wasaccepted by the delegates with comparatively little debate. Theobjective of the programme area is to adopt and implementsustainable development plans for islands, including theutilization of marine and coastal resources, the maintenance ofbiodiversity and the improvement in the quality of life for islandpeoples. Paragraph 17.131 of the final text of Agenda 21 statedthat: "Small island developing States, with the support, asappropriate, of international organizations, whether subregional,regional or global, should develop and strengthen inter-island,regional and interregional cooperation and information exchange,including periodic regional and global meetings on sustainabledevelopment of small island developing States with the first globalconference on the sustainable development of small islanddeveloping States to be held in 1993."

THE 47TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The UN General Assembly resolution establishing the GlobalConference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States was one of the five major resolutions on UNCEDfollow-up to be negotiated during the 47th General Assembly in1992. The final resolution states that the Conference will:

Review current trends in the socio-economic development of small island developing States;

Examine the nature and magnitude of the specific vulnerabilities of small island developing States;

Define a number of specific actions and policies relating to environmental and development planning to be undertaken by these States, with help from the international community;

Identify elements that these States need to include in medium- and long-term sustainable development plans;

Recommend measures for enhancing the endogenous capacity of these States; and

Review whether institutional arrangements at the international level enable these States to give effect to the relevant provisions of Agenda 21.

ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION

The Preparatory Committee for the Conference held itsorganizational session in New York on 15-16 April 1993. PenelopeWensley, Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva andAmbassador for the Environment, was elected Chair of the PrepCom.The four Vice-Chairs are: Takao Shibata (Japan), Marian Dinu(Romania), John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) and Jos‚ Luis Jesus(Cape Verde). Barbados, as host country, is an ex officiomember of the Bureau. (Ioan Barac (Romania) was elected at thesubstantive session of the PrepCom to replace Dinu, who was postedto Washington.)

The Committee had before it three documents for consideration: thedraft provisional agenda (A/CONF.167/ PC/1); a report of theSecretary-General on the preparations for the Conference(A/CONF.167/PC/2); and the draft provisional rules of procedure(A/CONF.167/PC/3).

The discussion on the draft guidelines for the work of the PrepComwas the most contentious. Issues that generated debate included theresponsibilities of the international community in providing smallisland developing States access to financial resources; and theinternational community's responsibility to small island developingStates regarding "access to environmentally sound andenergy-efficient technology, including delivery mechanisms." Theguidelines eventually adopted suggested that the PrepCom'sconsideration of the role of small island developing States shouldinclude actions at the micro level aimed at environment anddevelopment planning, measures for enhancing local skills andexpertise, and medium- and long-term planning for sustainabledevelopment. The guidelines also emphasized the importance ofregional technical cooperation on environmental problems and thenecessity for regional organizations and commissions to participatein this process.

REGIONAL TECHNICAL MEETINGS

As part of the preparatory process, two regional technical meetingswere held. The first meeting for the Indian and Pacific Oceans wascoordinated by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP) and was held from 31 May - 4 June 1993 in Vanuatu. Thereport of this meeting is contained in document A/CONF.167/PC/7.The second regional technical meeting for the Atlantic/Caribbean/Mediterranean region was held in Trinidad and Tobago from28 June - 2 July 1993. The meeting was coordinated by the CaribbeanCommunity (Caricom) with the assistance of the Economic Commissionfor Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The report of thismeeting is contained in document A/CONF/167/PC/8.

The meetings recommended that the PrepCom consider the followingpriority areas as the basis for developing an action programme forsmall island developing States (SIDS): climate change and sea-levelrise; natural and environmental disaster preparedness;environmentally sound management of wastes and toxic substances;coastal and marine resources; freshwater resources; land resources;management of energy resources; management of tourism development;conservation of biological diversity; national institutions andadministrative capacity; regional institutions and technicalcooperation; transport and communication; management of science andtechnology; human resources (population, education, urbandevelopment and health); and environmental legislation.

The regional technical meetings also endorsed and recommended tothe PrepCom guidelines for implementation, monitoring and review ofthe action programme for SIDS. The recommendations include actionto be taken at the national, regional, subregional andinternational levels. They also encouraged the participation ofNGOs and other major groups in policy formulation and called forfurther work on developing a vulnerability index that would betterreflect the particular situation of SIDS.

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE

The PrepCom opened on Monday, 30 August 1993 at UN Headquarters inNew York. Representatives from 94 countries and 16 UN agenciesparticipated in the meeting. The PrepCom also accredited 68 NGOsthat do not have consultative status with the Economic and SocialCouncil (ECOSOC). After three and one-half days of general debate,the PrepCom began consideration of a draft programme of action forthe sustainable development of SIDS. The programme of action wasdrafted by the members of the Association of Small Island States(AOSIS) and was submitted to the PrepCom by the Group of 77. Thisdraft became the focus of discussion and negotiation. By the end ofthe two-week meeting, delegates had agreed ad referendum toa large portion of the 15-chapter text, yet still left major issuesin brackets or not fully negotiated, including the preamble, thestructure of the document, and Chapter 15 on implementation,monitoring and review.

GENERAL DEBATE

The general debate focused on activities of the UN system inpreparation for the Conference and consideration of plans andprogrammes to support the sustainable development of SIDS. Most ofthe government delegates, UN agencies and NGOs commented on theproblems faced by SIDS and elements that should be included in theprogramme of action to be adopted by the Conference.

SIDS have unique vulnerabilities and limitations, explained Amb.Robert van Lierop in his opening statement on behalf of AOSIS.During the course of the general debate, a number of countries madespecific references to these vulnerabilities. Physically, SIDS aresmall and often geographically remote. Some SIDS have densepopulations, most have a narrow range of natural resources, andlimited freshwater resources. The fragility of island ecosystemsmake coastal, solid waste and fisheries management high priorities.SIDS are vulnerable to the effects of global warming, particularlysea-level rise that poses a threat of potential loss of the entireterritory of some islands. SIDS are also threatened by dumping atsea, nuclear testing in the Pacific, and natural disasters. Anumber of delegates, including Fiji, Mauritius, and Micronesia,mentioned that one of the consequences of natural disasters is thehigh cost of insurance, when available at all. St. Kitts and Nevispointed out that up to 30 percent of national budgets are oftenabsorbed by the need to respond to natural disasters. Tourism canalso have negative effects on SIDS, including intensive activity inthe coastal area. The fight against drug trafficking furtherconstrains sustainable development, especially in the Caribbean.Among the economic problems and constraints, SIDS have smalldomestic markets and face difficulties in penetrating internationalmarkets, primarily due to transportation costs and limited accessto the most recent technologies and means of production.Furthermore, the technology developed by industrialized countriesis not always appropriate for SIDS and needs to be adapted.

Some of the human constraints to sustainable development of SIDSinclude the brain drain and migration of young people; inadequatetraining and educational opportunities; and high unemployment,especially among the young.

During the debate, Belgium, on behalf of the European Community,raised the point that SIDS benefit from higher levels of ODA thanother developing countries and also contain a large number ofexpatriates who contribute their knowledge and expertise to thelocal economies. A number of representatives from SIDS pointed out,however, that ODA levels do not actually reflect the realsituation, as SIDS incur higher costs per capita in providingroutine services such as safe drinking water and electricity.

A number of delegates mentioned specific proposals or issues thatshould be included in the programme of action for the sustainabledevelopment of SIDS, which will be adopted in Barbados. The G-77and AOSIS advocated the use of a triangular model, which wouldinclude national, regional and international initiatives. Severaldelegates stated that the Rio agreements must be turned intopractical action-oriented programmes that benefit SIDS. Malta,Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda all mentioned the need to develop avulnerability index to replace GNP per capita measurement. Othergeneral issues raised include: the need to integrate sustainabledevelopment objectives in the development planning processes ofSIDS; the need for new and additional financial resources and thetransfer of environmentally sound technology as opposed to the needto maximize existing levels of assistance; the role of NGOs, womenand other major groups in the implementation of this programme ofaction; and the need for international cooperation, includingbetter performance by regional and international organizations. Onthis issue, it was also mentioned that the UN should establish thecapacity and designate focal points to promote sustainabledevelopment in SIDS.

Delegates also pointed out a number of other more specificproposals during the general debate. The US and the Solomon Islandsstressed the need for integrated coastal zone management. UNEP andChina agreed that there is a need to improve data and informationexchange. It was also suggested that the programme of actionaddress communications, energy conservation, disposal of toxic andhazardous wastes, development of natural resources, development ofmarine resources, emergency preparedness, response to sea-levelrise, tourism development, strengthening drug enforcement efforts;and land resources management. Other issues raised include healthand population policies, the need for export diversification,development planning and capacity building.

Iceland stressed the need to include islands supporting smallcommunities, not only small island developing States. Many of theislands in the Arctic suffer from the same problems as SIDS.

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN THE UN SYSTEM

The discussion of A/CONF.167/PC/6, Overview of the activities ofthe UN system, took place with only half a dozen UN agencies andthe Regional Commissions present. While the Secretariat was thankedfor its efforts, many delegates pointed to some of the shortcomingsof the document. In particular, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium,France, Iceland, and Canada regretted that the activities describedwere not always specific to SIDS. In addition, issues of concern toSIDS, such as communication and transport, were not alwaysaddressed in sufficient detail.

Australia called for a new document providing a complete picture ofwhat the UN is doing, what it can do, and how well it is doing it.Kiribati reminded participants that some UN agency programmes willnot benefit SIDS that are not members of the agency in question.Vanuatu added that the imperfections of the report reflect theimperfections of the UN system. The US urged the internationalcommunity to make the best use of the institutions already in placeand to implement existing conventions. Canada suggested that aquestionnaire be circulated to assist in evaluating programmescarried out at the national level and to include relevant commentsin an inventory compiled by the Secretariat. Cuba suggested thatthe participants meet once more before Barbados when they have abetter sense of what is already being done and a clearer idea ofwhat is needed.

Miles Stoby, from the Secretariat, urged the delegates to rememberthat the UN has no specific mandate to deal with SIDS as such. Heindicated that a new document could be prepared for Barbados if itsfocus was more clearly defined. He suggested that as informationsystems are expensive, a SIDS referral point within the UN systemcould be created.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE CONFERENCE

Harcourt Lewis, Minister of the Environment, Housing and Lands ofBarbados, briefed the PrepCom on his government's preparations forthe Conference. The Sherbourne Centre, as well as the otherlocations for the Conference, will be completed and furnished wellin advance of the Conference. Arrangements are in progress toidentify and reserve the requisite accommodations for theparticipants. An independent NGO Liaison Committee has beenestablished with responsibility for all aspects of theparticipation of NGOs in the Conference. The Government of Barbadoshas also decided to stage an exhibition to run parallel to theConference. The exhibition, titled "Village of Hope," will includediscussions and workshops, thematic displays, and an exhibition oftechnology, all bearing the theme of sustainable development ofSIDS. Two events are also planned for January 1994: a mediaworkshop and an eminent persons meeting.

The next speaker was Nicholas Drayton, Chair of the NGO LiaisonCommittee, who spoke on behalf of the Caribbean ConservationAssociation (CCA). CCA is consulting with other NGOs in preparationfor the Conference. He urged governments to include NGOs on theirdelegations. CCA hopes to bring NGO perspectives into the Villageof Hope. CCA is also planning the NGO Forum that will convene inadvance of the Conference and run concurrently.

OPERATIONS OF THE VOLUNTARY FUND

Miles Stoby briefed the PrepCom on the status of the voluntaryfund. The Secretary-General is seeking US$950,000 to provide forthe participation of representatives from SIDS in the Conferenceprocess. As of today, the Secretariat has received only US$154,783.This figure includes contributions from Canada, Chile, Sweden andNew Zealand. Pledges have also been received from Italy andLiechtenstein. On Thursday, the UK pledged œ30,000 for support ofthe participation of Caribbean delegates and NGOs and mentionedthat it is considering support for Pacific delegates as well. TheDutch are also considering contributions to the fund. Stoby made astrong appeal for contributions. He also explained that theSecretary-General may seek additional voluntary support for NGOparticipation, the public information programme, representation ofjournalists from SIDS at the Conference, and the development of aSIDS information system.

Japan indicated that it is seriously considering its contribution,but cannot pledge a specific amount at this time. Vanuatu, onbehalf of AOSIS, thanked those governments who have pledged andcontributed to the fund.

ACTION PROGRAMME FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

On Thursday, 2 September 1993, the G-77 informally introduced apaper drafted by AOSIS containing basic elements for an actionprogramme on the sustainable development of SIDS. This papercontained drafts for 14 of the 15 proposed chapters in this actionprogramme. The following afternoon, the G-77 introduced a seconddocument containing the text for Chapter 15 on implementation,monitoring and review. On Wednesday, 8 September 1993, the G-77tabled two more documents: a revised version of the basic elementspaper (Chapters 1-14) and a paper containing the preamble and basisfor action sections for each of the chapters. The second half ofthe PrepCom focussed on the discussion and negotiation of thesedocuments.

Each of the substantive chapters contained three sections:national, regional and international action -- the triangularapproach. Although this met with general agreement, not all of thedelegations were pleased with the overall structure of thisdocument. It was pointed out by a number of delegates that some ofthe chapters in the G-77 document address cross-sectoral or"horizontal" areas while others address sectoral areas. Morevisibility needs to be given to the horizontal subjects and theyshould be reordered as follows: XIV. Human Resource Development; X.National Institutions and Administrative Capacity; XI. RegionalInstitutions and Technical Cooperation; and XIII. Science andTechnology. Having reordered these chapters, they should also beplaced at the beginning of the document. Another question wasraised about the overall structure of the document. The G-77responded that they envision a single, integrated document with thepreamble first, followed by the 15 chapters, each preceded by aBasis for Action section. Regarding the order of the chapters, hesaid that the current structure had been agreed upon at theorganizational session. The G-77 was able to accept the reordering,but not the relocation of the chapters to the beginning of thedocument. He said that they would discuss this further in informalmeetings.

PREAMBLE:

The preamble was introduced late in the secondweek of the meeting by AOSIS/G-77. It highlights the major problemsthe SIDS are facing and conveys a sense of urgency to the actionsthat are needed. A number of disagreements emerged during thecourse of the discussion on the preamble. Many of the contentiousissues mirrored those that had arisen earlier in the negotiations.

On the structure, some delegates felt that the text was too longand that some of the issues belonged in the Programme of Actionrather than in the preamble, as is customary in internationalagreements. In particular, references made in the preamble to thesubsequent chapters met with some opposition on the part of thosewho had previously advocated reorganizing the chapters to placeemphasis on the cross-sectoral ones.

Some delegates called for a more balanced preamble, while theauthors saw it as a means to present all the difficulties andconstraints to the sustainable development of SIDS. These so-called"negative aspects" were highlighted in the document and it wasargued that they should be counter-balanced by "positive" elementssuch as the opportunities and natural resources that SIDS can drawupon. In that respect, debate illustrated divergent views on thevery purpose of this Conference. For SIDS, the "negative" languagein the preamble is a clear reflection of their dire situation. Theyindicated that balancing the preamble is not as important asconveying the sense of urgency dictated by the situation. Noagreement was reached on this point.

The paragraph on financial aspects was another source ofdisagreement. A number of delegates did not think that finance andreference to Chapter 33 of Agenda 21 belonged in the preamble,instead arguing that reference should be made to Agenda 21 as awhole and the responsibilities of all actors in its implementation.The authors insisted on retaining this paragraph and, therefore, itwas bracketed along with a large part of the remainder of the text.

I. CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA-LEVEL RISE:

This chapterhighlights the possible impact that such phenomena might have onSIDS. This was identified as a problem that confronts SIDS inparticular and yet originates at a global level. This was apparentin the references made to the Framework Convention on ClimateChange and the need for its ratification and entry into force.These references met with some opposition as delegates sometimesfelt that the current PrepCom should not interfere with ongoingnegotiations in other fora and so this part of the text remained inbrackets. Means to respond to this phenomenon included monitoringand predictions, integrated coastal management as a way to provideresponse measures to the impacts of climate change, and greaterexchange of information and experience between SIDS. SIDS and NGOsalike, however, stressed the futility of adopting such measures ifan effort is not carried out at the global level to reduce CO2emissions in an attempt to mitigate global warming and its impactson sea-level rise.

II. NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS:

This chapteremphasized the need for SIDS to increase their preparedness andresponse capacities to natural and environmental disasters. Thiscan best be achieved through the promotion of early warningsystems, strengthening broadcast capacity and telecommunicationlinks, sharing of experience and integrating natural disasterconsiderations in development planning. A particular point ofdisagreement was how much importance should be attached toinsurance-related difficulties for SIDS caused by theirvulnerability to natural disasters.

III. MANAGEMENT OF WASTES:

The special vulnerability of SIDSto this problem was highlighted, particularly in view of reducedland surface in these countries. A more controversial element wasthe issue of hazardous and toxic wastes and the outstandingquestion of transboundary movement of these substances and the useof SIDS and their territorial seas for the disposal of wastegenerated by other States. The right of SIDS to refuse entry ofhazardous substances into their territory was also mentioned. Thisissue was not resolved and the text remained in brackets. Measureslikely to alleviate these problems include emission discharge andpollution standards, promoting awareness and education,ratification and implementation of the relevant conventions and thedevelopment of regional and international cooperation.

IV. COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES:

This chapter aims atdeveloping SIDS' management capacities both in the coastal area andin their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). This can best be achievedthrough the elaboration of an integrated coastal zone managementmethodology appropriate to SIDS, monitoring programmes for coastaland marine resources, developing capacities for sustainableharvesting and processing of fisheries resources and establishingclearing houses for coastal and marine environmental information.The capabilities of SIDS to effectively survey and monitor ofactivities in the EEZs need to be developed, as does cooperation tofacilitate mutually advantageous fishing agreements between SIDSand foreign fishing groups. In this respect, participation of SIDSin the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly MigratoryFish Stocks is to be encouraged and facilitated. Some delegatesrequired clarification on points such as foreign fishing withinSIDS' EEZs or on the high seas and so this issue was one of the fewin this chapter where consensus was not immediate.

V. FRESHWATER RESOURCES:

The importance of freshwaterresources for SIDS and the limits they can set to sustainabledevelopment was highlighted. These resources need to be managed ina sustainable manner through efficient technologies for thecatchment, production, conservation and delivery of freshwater.Regional cooperation in training and research should be enhanced todevelop technical assistance and linked water resource databasesfor relevant decision-making tools, including forecasting modelsfor water management planning and utilization. Climate change andits adverse impacts on freshwater resources is an element thatneeds to be taken into consideration. This part of the documentgave rise to little debate and the text was left unbracketed.

VI. LAND RESOURCES:

Due to increased population pressure andrelated land-use conflicts, management plans need to be elaboratedin conjunction with other uses and policies. Appropriate forms ofland tenure are to be encouraged as well as attention to physicalplanning in both urban and rural environments. Appropriateafforestation and reforestation programmes can ensure watershed andcoastal protection and reduce land degradation. Regional andinternational actions can encourage capacity building formonitoring the rate and extent of land use changes and fostersharing of information and experience on sustainable land usepractices and policies. It was also mentioned that, in accordancewith Chapter 7 of Agenda 21, the availability, affordability andenvironmental quality of human settlements need to be improvedthrough national and international action.

VII. ENERGY RESOURCES:

In view of SIDS dependency on energyimports, energy conservation and the development of renewablesources of energy need to be encouraged. This may be achievedthrough strengthening research capability in the development ofalternative energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal,hydroelectric, ocean thermal energy conversion, wave and biomass.SIDS need to be assisted in developing national capacity toeffectively plan, manage, and monitor their energy sectors. Some ofthe recommendations on transfer of technology and the use ofdouble-hulled tankers were not acceptable to all and, thus,remained in brackets.

VIII. TOURISM RESOURCES:

Tourism is perceived as both anopportunity for SIDS development and an activity that must beintegrated with environmental and cultural concerns. Competitionfor land resources is acute and tourism development should beneither disruptive nor detrimental to other valuable sectors.Integrated planning and policies are to be developed to ensuresustainable development through Environment Impact Assessments(EIAs), guidelines and standards. It is important to ensure thattourism and each island's environment and culture are mutuallysupportive. The text contains no bracketed sections.

IX. BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES:

This chapter emphasizes theimportance of biodiversity, and particularly of marine and coastalspecies, to SIDS. The sustainable management of these resourcesrequires greater awareness and education, ratification andimplementation of relevant international and regional conventions,establishment of buffer stocks and gene banks for reintroductioninto the environment, and continued studies and research on theseresources. The importance of support by local communities is alsoemphasized. There was no disagreement on any of the sections inthis chapters.

X. NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:

Thischapter addresses the need to integrate environmental concerns intonational institutional and administrative arrangements,specifically in terms of economic and development planning. Many ofthe action points concern regional and international support forcapacity building, once national priorities have been established.Issues discussed in greater detail included the extent to which thechapter should refer to all levels of government in the nationalcontext and the need to involve the public in decision makingprocesses. The delegates were able to agree on compromise text onthese two issues.

XI. REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION:

Thischapter concentrates on the role that UN and non-UN regionalorganizations can play in assisting SIDS at the national level,instituting and implementing regional programmes, and coordinatingprojects and assistance. Still outstanding is the question of theharmonization of environmental legislation and policies betweenSIDS.

XII. TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION:

The focus of this chapteris the lifeline provided SIDS by transport and communication. Theprohibitive costs of both of these services -- due to SIDS distanceand isolation -- and the need to find innovative solutions to thisproblem is the focus of the action points. Still to be resolved arewhether or not to include references to quarantine, which may haveimpact on GATT agreements, and to what extent land transportmodernization has lagged behind major changes and continues todegrade the environment.

XIII. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:

As well as emphasizing theimportant role of science and technology in building SIDS capacityfor sustainable development, this chapter examines the need toincrease the use of environmentally-friendly technologies and howthey can be made available to SIDS. The chapter also addresses theneed to better utilize local and endogenous knowledge whileimproving science and technology education and trainingopportunities. There are no outstanding substantive issuesremaining.

XIV. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT:

This chapter looks atmechanisms to improve the quality of life in SIDS. Recognizing thatprogrammes should focus on the well-being of island peoples, thechapter addresses issues of population policy, housing, the role ofwomen and other major groups, as well as the links betweenenvironment and health, housing, and education. There is noagreement yet on references to population policy and thefundamental rights of the human person and the family.

XV. IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW:

Focusing on themeans of implementation for most of the activities in the fourteenprevious chapters, this chapter addresses issues of finance, trade,transfer of environmentally sound technologies for cooperation andcapacity building, environmental legislation and training, andinstitutional arrangements.

This chapter is at a less advanced stage of negotiation and stillhas many highly contentious issues in brackets. These include:national reporting by SIDS on progress in implementing the outcomesof Barbados; the need for more detailed paragraphs within thenational implementation section in order to better balance thethree sections (national, regional and international) within thischapter; coordination of the roles of regional agencies; the bulkof the finance text; and the suggestion that the internationaldonor community should only supplement national efforts forsustainable development. Also to be resolved are suggestions on theneed to diversify exports and reduce SIDS dependence on singlecommodities, references to the need to protect intellectualproperty rights, and the nature of a focal point within theDepartment of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development(DPCSD) to oversee and coordinate UN system implementation of theoutcomes of the Barbados Conference and determine how to relatethe programme of action to the work of the CSD.

CLOSING SESSION

The PrepCom came to a close on Friday afternoon, 10 September 1993.Although the Chair had hoped to have one more informal negotiatingsession during the day on Friday, not all delegates were preparedto return to the table to further negotiate the controversialissues in Chapter 15 and the preamble. To further complicatematters, there was no possibility of getting interpretation andother conference services for a Friday evening session, so that theChair was forced to conclude the PrepCom at 6:00 pm.

In its final session, the PrepCom adopted the following decisions:

To recommend to the General Assembly that the Conference be held from 25 April - 6 May 1994 in Barbados.

To recommend to the General Assembly that one day of pre-Conference consultations take place on Sunday, 24 April 1994.

To adopt A/CONF.167/PC/L.7, "Information needs on current donor activities in support of sustainable development in small island developing States." This decision, proposed by Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand and Sweden, requests the Secretary- General, in consultation with the relevant UN agencies and organizations to prepare a report containing relevant information on donor activities in support of sustainable development in SIDS. It also invites bilateral, regional and multilateral donor agencies, as well as NGOs, to provide similar input. The information is supposed to be aggregated at the sub-regional and sub-sector level. This decision was taken in response to the dissatisfaction by some delegates with the information presented in A/CONF.167/PC/6 on the overview of system-wide activities relevant to SIDS.

To adopt the draft provisional agenda for the Conference, as contained in A/CONF.167/PC/11.

To adopt the report of the Preparatory Committee, as contained in A/CONF.167/PC/L.6

After much discussion, two other decisions were taken regarding thefuture work of the PrepCom. The first of these involved the statusof documentation. The Chair stated that the PrepCom had before itdocument A/CONF.167/PC/L.5 and Add.1, the G-77 and China's "Basicelements for an action programme on the sustainable development ofsmall island developing States. L.5 contains the basic elements forChapters 1-14 and Add.1 contains Chapter 15. However, the PrepComspent considerable time developing these documents and now hasbefore it an additional informal paper containing the preamble andbasis for action, a first revision of the basic elements paper andtwo integrated working texts prepared by the Secretariat. Wensleyrequested the delegates to consider exactly what package ofdocuments they would like to carry forward. As the discussionprogressed, it appeared that all delegates were in agreement and adecision was taken to request the Secretariat and the Rapporteur toproduce a full, consolidated text called A/CONF.167/PC/L.5/Rev.1.This text will include the preamble, to be followed by Chapters1-15, including a basis for action and programme areas for eachchapter. It was also decided to include all comments made duringthe discussions on the preamble and Chapter 15 as attachments or anaccompanying document. The text will include a note explaining thatsome portions of the text have been agreed to, others remainbracketed for further negotiation, and other parts of the document(the preamble and Chapter 15) have not yet been negotiated.

The final decision taken by the PrepCom followed a lengthydiscussion on how best to proceed between now and the Conference.There was a wide divergence of views as some delegates believedthat the work should be taken forward to Barbados and completed atthe Conference itself by the Main Committee. Other delegates sawvalue in conducting intersessional work between now and April.Numerous delegates expressed their views on the matter. Some of theconcerns raised included the budgetary implications ofintersessional work, the availability of dates on the UN calendarfor a possible second PrepCom, the efficient use of time, the needto ensure adequate representation of SIDS, and the success of theConference. The Chair proposed, and the Committee agreed, torequest the General Assembly to explore options for continuing thework of the preparatory process.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE PREPCOM

The outcome of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Developmentof Small Island Developing States, along with the implementation ofAgenda 21 as a whole, is being held hostage to the inability of theUN system and its member States to adapt to new global realities.After 20 years of gamesmanship and rhetoric on environment anddevelopment, heads of State finally agreed to an action plan --Agenda 21 -- in Rio last year. The UN system, however, is not setup to execute it. This two-week PrepCom demonstrated this weaknessat all levels -- inter-agency, Secretariat, and intergovernmental.

At the inter-agency level, this PrepCom highlighted a number ofareas where the UN agencies are still unable to adjust their focusand adapt their thinking to the increased level of cooperation andcoordination that is necessary to implement Agenda 21. For example,document A/CONF. 167PC/6 was supposed to provide a summary of UNagency activities related to the sustainable development of smallisland developing States (SIDS). However, much of the informationin the document was criticized as being too general, notsufficiently specific to SIDS and not inclusive of all UN agencies.In its introduction to the document, the Secretariat pointed outthat although they tried to include reports from all agencies inthe document, not all agencies contributed. Agency representativespointed out that it would be impossible to include all theinformation from all agencies when many of their programmes are notSIDS specific, but many have an applicable component.

There was also a display of the all too familiar rivalry betweendifferent agencies, UN bodies and Regional Commissions over whoshould show leadership in what areas. Most UN agencies are nowreviewing their projects and programmes to bring them in compliancewith the relevant programme areas of Agenda 21. Furthermore, Agenda21's call for increased coordination and cooperation between UNagencies is gradually being implemented within the framework of theInter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development (IACSD). Whatmany agencies are finding, however, is that old bureaucracies andpractices are proving to be difficult to overcome. New ideas andapproaches are having a hard time penetrating the status quo.Without greater creativity and innovation on the part of theagencies, the UN system will never be effective in theimplementation of Agenda 21 or the sustainable development of SIDS.

At the Secretariat level, the SIDS Conference and this PrepComappeared to be lost in the shuffle of reorganization, budgetconstraints and countless other demands on the UN system. Untilonly a few months ago, the Secretariat for this Conference only hadone full-time member. The poor quality of the documentation forthis PrepCom, the lack of Secretariat guidance throughout theprocess, and the limited resources, especially for publicinformation and other activities aimed at increasing the visibilityof this Conference, illustrates this problem. The Department ofPolicy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), whichincludes the Secretariat for this Conference, was only created lastDecember and has been given far more responsibilities than itslimited staff and budgetary resources can adequately handle.Eventually, the creation of the DPCSD should allow the UN a moreflexible and integrated response to the implementation of Agenda21. Yet its present state of disarray had an effect on thisPrepCom.

Problems with conference services led to the loss of at least 25percent of available negotiating time. Only one week before thePrepCom began, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali announceda wide range of cost-cutting measures, including the elimination ofevening, weekend and holiday meetings. As a result, the PrepCom wasnot able to meet on Monday, 6 September (a US holiday) and wasunable to have interpretation and other services provided atevening sessions. The lack of available rooms and othermiscommunications also cut down the amount of negotiating time. Aslong as it is given low priority by the UN Secretariat, thisConference will continue to lack adequate infrastructure, substanceand public relations.

Perhaps the PrepCom suffered the most at the intergovernmentallevel, where a series of missed opportunities left delegates andobservers alike with a sense of frustration. The Association ofSmall Island States (AOSIS) missed a number of opportunities toadvance its cause. This group of 41 small island developing Stateswas originally formed to galvanize support for small islands facedby the dangers of climate change and sea-level rise. AOSIS provedto be an effective pressure group during the climate changenegotiations as well as during the UNCED preparatory process. Infact, AOSIS was responsible for the programme area on small islandStates, Chapter 17(G) of Agenda 21, which includes the call toconvene this Conference. Furthermore, AOSIS largely drafted theresolution establishing the Conference. However, at the PrepCom,like so many other country groups in history, AOSIS found thatwhile it could be united on a single issue, there were many moreissues that divided it. As a result, AOSIS had a great deal ofdifficulty developing a common position with so many disparatemembers. AOSIS members are at varying stages of development, withdifferent types of environmental problems, different degrees ofremoteness and vulnerability to external forces, different amountsof natural and human resources, different regional perspectives andcultural attitudes. Many AOSIS members were new to the UN andmultilateral negotiations, in particular the way in which groupsfunction at UN Headquarters in New York. Quite often the prioritiesof the Pacific SIDS did not match those of the Caribbean SIDS thatin turn, did not match those of the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Oceanand Mediterranean SIDS. As a result, the preparation of the draftelements to be included in a programme of action proved to be quitea formidable task.

When the PrepCom began, developed country delegates and groups, theChair and the rest of the G-77 allowed AOSIS to take the lead.During the first few days of the Conference, AOSIS members workedhard behind the scenes to develop the draft elements for aProgramme of Action from a synthesis of the reports of the regionaltechnical meetings, although it had been expected that this draftwould have been prepared in advance of the PrepCom. Nearly fourdays of negotiating time were lost, however, as it took AOSISlonger than anticipated to reach agreement on the text. Perhaps, itwas a mistake to draft the paper as an Agenda 21 for SIDS ratherthan focus on some critical issues. Part of this delay was due tothe fact that according to UN procedure, the G-77 had to endorsethe AOSIS text before it could be submitted to the Committee, sinceAOSIS is not a group recognized by the UN. Also, with the majorityof AOSIS members also members of G-77, it is at presentinconceivable that G-77 would allow a sub-group to forwardpositions on their own. It was not until mid-way through the secondweek of the PrepCom that the G-77 agreed to allow the Chair ofAOSIS to also speak on behalf of the G-77, thus eliminating onestep in the process. There was a certain degree of tension betweenAOSIS and G-77 due to the poor attendance of continental countriesat the PrepCom. The higher priority given to the Conference by allgovernments will help to secure its success, not least by forcingthe Secretariat to accord it more priority.

AOSIS's leading role started to diminish as the second week began.The previous Friday, non-G-77 delegates made their preliminarycomments on the AOSIS/G-77 draft text and AOSIS announced that theywould redraft the text based on these comments. However, AOSIS didnot work over the long weekend and it was not until Tuesday thatredrafting began. As a result, consideration of the revised textcould not take place until Wednesday evening (after the text wasredrafted, the G-77 approved it and non-G-77 delegates had theopportunity to look at it). Still the text failed to incorporatemany of the comments made in the first reading by non-G-77delegations. The loss of practically two days of negotiating timeforced the Chair to step in and exercise greater control over theprocess in order to maintain momentum. Many AOSIS delegates werenot pleased with this turn of events and went so far as to complainthat the process, which had been taken away from them, was movingtoo fast. Yet, with only two more days left in the PrepCom theChair rightly felt that she had no choice, but to try to keep thenegotiations moving forward.

Frustration with the process continued to mount during the twonights and one day of informal negotiations as old UNCED tensionsstarted to resurface, particularly during the discussions onfinancial resources and technology transfer in Chapter 15. AOSISintroduced Chapter 15, dealing with means of implementation, at theend of the first week. AOSIS had deliberately introduced the actionpoints (Chapters 1-14) separately from the means of implementation,but it is questionable whether introducing Chapter 15 so late inthe process worked to their advantage. Chapter 15 was alsoundermined by the lack of balance between the three points of thetriangle, national, regional and international action. In fact,there had been discussion within AOSIS on whether national actionshould be mentioned at all in this chapter. During the initialdiscussions, even the use of agreed language from Chapter 33 ofAgenda 21 proved to be controversial, as two donors made it clearthat they would not provide any new and additional financialresources. Although most of the donor countries entered into thesenegotiations with an open mind, they were frustrated by thedrafting of Chapter 15 which put all emphasis on the internationalcommunity.

The last day of the PrepCom brought a procedural issue, which hadbeen simmering throughout the meeting, to a boil -- the possibilityof a second session of the PrepCom. Although the resolutionestablishing this Conference only made provision for one PrepCom,from the very beginning some AOSIS countries based their strategyon the assumption that there would be another session. Informally,the Secretariat also indicated that this was envisaged, althoughthe Chair had not. A number of UN agencies were also under theimpression that there would be a second PrepCom. The Chair and manyof the donor countries took the position that one PrepCom would besufficient and any unfinished business could be completed inBarbados during the Conference. For two weeks rumors flew andfinally, on the last day, the issue of a second PrepCom wasformally discussed. Delegates remained as divided as ever and,finally, the Chair suggested that the PrepCom request the GeneralAssembly to consider continuing the preparatory work, which wouldinclude the option of holding a second PrepCom. Had this not beenan issue, it is possible that the Committee would have completedmore work. Yet, with the knowledge that another PrepCom was therefor the asking, AOSIS delegates were able to move at a slower paceand postpone resolution of some of the more difficult issues,particularly the means of implementation. It is not clear, however,if any of these issues, especially implementation, will be able tobe resolved to everyone's satisfaction even if there is a secondPrepCom. It was a high stakes gamble by AOSIS and will remain sountil the General Assembly makes its decision. Clearly, AOSIS doesnot want to go to Barbados with Chapter 15 unresolved, thus givingdonor countries the chance to hold the success of the Conferencehostage. Yet, this will be the case if the General Assembly doesnot approve a second PrepCom.

Few delegates and observers were completely satisfied when thePrepCom adjourned Friday evening. Although much work wasaccomplished, especially with regard to Chapters 1-14, there wasstill a sense that this process was not going to result in anadequate Programme of Action for the implementation of Agenda 21 insmall island developing States. Perhaps another intergovernmentalconference is not the answer. But until the international communityin general and the UN in particular is able to develop a new methodfor addressing issues on environment and development, Agenda 21implementation will continue to be more rhetoric than action.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR DURING THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD

On the last day, the PrepComagreed to request the General Assembly to explore the options forcontinuing the work of the preparatory process. Delegates aredeeply divided on this issue, as the Plenary discussion indicated.The European Community, the Nordic countries and the US do notbelieve a second session is necessary, given the current budgetaryconstraints within the UN system. The US expressed the view that asecond PrepCom is inconceivable as long as UN peacekeepers werebeing killed due to insufficient funding. The G-77 and AOSISsupport a second PrepCom. Canada, Australia and New Zealand arewilling to consider the possibility, but asked for more detail onthe financial implications and insisted that SIDS have adequaterepresentation. If the General Assembly agrees to convene a secondsession, it is likely to take place in February 1994.

FUTURE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE:

48TH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

The next session ofthe General Assembly is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 21 September1993. The provisional agenda for the session (A/48/150) lists 157items. Consideration of the Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States is item 100(c),together with the reports of the INC for the DesertificationConvention and the Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks. Since the SIDS Conference is part of theimplementation of decisions and recommendations of UNCED, itsreport is expected to be referred to the Second Committee of theGeneral Assembly.

The General Assembly will have to endorse: the report of theOrganizational Session and the Preparatory Committee; the draftrules of procedure; the participation of associate members ofRegional Commissions; the dates of the Conference (25 April - 6 May1994); and the question of other intersessional work, includinganother PrepCom session.

SECRETARIAT ACTIVITIES:

The Secretariat will be busy in thecoming months preparing for the General Assembly, the possiblesecond PrepCom, and the Conference itself. One of the Secretariat'smost daunting tasks is the preparation of the report containingrelevant information on donor activities in support of sustainabledevelopment in small island developing States, as requested indocument A/CONF.167/PC/L.7. This report, which is supposed toinclude information on a sectoral level provided by UN and otherintergovernmental agencies, donor countries and NGOs, must becompleted by January 1994. The Joint Planning Unit in the DPCSDwill bear the brunt of the responsibility for putting this reporttogether. The Secretariat still has to determine a mechanism forsoliciting and incorporating input from NGOs and non-UN agencies.In order to complete the task requested of it, the Secretariatexpects to tax available personnel and budgetary resources.

In preparation for the Conference itself, the Secretariat will havea second planning mission to Barbados later this year. They arealso working with UNDP to establish an electronic mail link betweenthe Conference Secretariat, UNDP and the National PlanningCommittee in Barbados.

ACTIVITIES OF THE CHAIR:

The Chair, Amb. Penelope Wensleywill be busy during the intersessional period, consulting with themajor players on both procedural and substantive issues. There area number of opportunities that present themselves, including futureclimate change sessions and desertification negotiations. She willalso be spending some time improving the profile of the Conferenceand its issues with media interviews and will continue to speakwith UN agencies and others to garner support. Having mentioned theimportance of the private sector on a number of occasions, watchfor Wensley to encourage to business and industry to becomeinvolved in the Conference.

BARBADOS DECLARATION:

The Conference is expected to have twomajor outputs: the Programme of Action for the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States and the BarbadosDeclaration. Although the Chair had originally hoped to establisha working group to begin negotiating the text of the BarbadosDeclaration, this was not realized. The Government of Barbados hasexpressed its desire to draft the Declaration and it is expectedthat a draft will be ready to be presented at either the nextPrepCom session or at the Conference itself.

EMINENT PERSONS PANEL:

Dame Nita Barrow, theGovernor-General of Barbados, is putting together a panel ofapproximately 12 eminent persons on the issues related to theConference. A meeting is tentatively set for January in Barbados.The list of eminent persons has not yet been finalized, butrecommendations have been received. Some of the nominations aresaid to include: Maurice Strong, Sir Sridath Ramphal, US VicePresident Al Gore, and Bishop Sir Paul Reeves, Chairman of the NGOGroup on the Year of Indigenous People. The meeting is expected toproduce a declaration or other document to be sent to theConference.

JOURNALISTS WORKSHOP:

A journalists' workshop is beingorganized by Professor Vishnu Persaud of the University of the WestIndies. It is expected to take place in either January or Februaryin Barbados. Journalists and editors from around the world will beinvited to focus on the issues and the importance of mediaattention to the issues raised by the Conference. There is also thepossibility that a second workshop will be conducted a few daysbefore the Conference itself, depending on funding. For moreinformation about these workshops and other outreach programmes,contact Lelei LeLaulu, Outreach Coordinator, Conference on SmallIsland Developing States, Department for Policy Coordination andSustainable Development, Room S-2977-E, United Nations, New York,NY 10017; phone: 212/963-7074; fax: 212/963-5935.

UN AGENCIES:

UN agencies are expected to assist theSecretariat in the preparatin of a report on current donoractivities in SIDS, as called for in A/CONF.167/PC/L.7. Althoughsome agencies shared the criticism addressed to PC/6 and expressedtheir willingness to pursue intersessional work, it is stillunclear how much can be achieved before January, when the report isdue. It is still uncertain how and when these efforts will becarried out. The representative of one of these agencies mentionedthat software and infrastructure are available but that the will tocooperate may be lacking.

NGO PREPARATIONS:

A Non-Governmental Liaison Committee hasbeen established by the Barbados National Planning Committee.Chaired by the Caribbean Conservation Association, the Committeeplans a number of activities in the period before the Conference.The NGOs hope to maintain close contact in a network after thePrepCom, hold national NGO meetings, hold regional meetings thatwill focus on regional positions as well as training NGOs onlobbying and techniques, and hold a meeting of the regional focalpoints before Barbados. In Barbados, they will convene the NGOForum three or four days before the Global Conference itself andthen run concurrently with it. The pre-conference session willfocus on how to influence the process, while the remainder willconcentrate more on workshops and substantive presentations. NGOsare also invited to consider plans and mechanisms for NGOfollow-up. For more information, contact Nicholas Drayton,Caribbean Conservation Association, Savannah Lodge, The Garrison,St. Michael, Barbados, W.I.; phone: 809/426-9635; fax:809/429-8483.

Participants

National governments: Barbados; UK; US
Negotiating blocs: African Union; Alliance of Small Island Developing States; Group of 77 and China; Small Island Developing States
Non-state coalitions: NGOs