Summary report, 24–26 February 1993

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) held itsorganizational session from 24-26 February 1993 at United NationsHeadquarters in New York. The CSD is the major new institution setup by the United Nations to ensure the effective follow-up of theUN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in June1992 in Brazil. During the three-day organizational session, theCSD elected its Chair and other members of the Bureau; discussedthe provisional agenda and organization of work of the Commissionat its first substantive session; and approved an outline of amulti-year thematic programme of work.

WEDNESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 1993

The CSD organizational session was convened on Wednesday morning,24 February by Nitin Desai, United Nations Under-Secretary-Generalfor Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development. The first itemof business was the election of the Chair and the other members ofthe Bureau. Colombia, on behalf of the Group of 77, nominatedAmbassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia to be the first Chair of theCommission. Although there had been speculation that the WesternEuropean and Others Group would put forward another candidate, thisdid not happen and with the possibility of a vote avoided, theCommission unanimously elected Razali as Chair.

Razali thanked the delegates for choosing him as the first Chair ofthe CSD. "After months of discussions and hard work, the Commissioncomes into existence as arguably the main tangible accomplishmentof the Rio Summit, an inter-governmental machinery to monitor theimplementation of Rio. We are all aware of expectationsinternationally. There is a huge reservoir of goodwill and hope,not only from governments but also people and organizations thatthe Commission should and must succeed in its work. On the heels ofthese expectations come also close scrutiny and pressure. We wouldhave to demonstrate that each meeting of the Commission builds uponthe progress achieved from earlier meetings," he said.

The Commission then elected the other four members of the Bureauwho will serve as the Vice-Chairs and the Rapporteur: RodneyWilliams, Antigua and Barbuda's Minister for Economic Development,Tourism, Industry (and Environment); Tunisia's Ambassador to theUN, Hamadi Khouini; Bedrich Moldan, Director of the CharlesUniversity Centre for Environmental Scholarship and formerly of theCzech Ministry of the Environment; and Arthur Campeau, Canada'sAmbassador for Environment and Sustainable Development.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

The CSD organizational session was convened on Wednesday morning,24 February by Nitin Desai, United Nations Under-Secretary-Generalfor Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development. The first itemof business was the election of the Chair and the other members ofthe Bureau. Colombia, on behalf of the Group of 77, nominatedAmbassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia to be the first Chair of theCommission. Although there had been speculation that the WesternEuropean and Others Group would put forward another candidate, thisdid not happen and with the possibility of a vote avoided, theCommission unanimously elected Razali as Chair.

Razali thanked the delegates for choosing him as the first Chair ofthe CSD. "After months of discussions and hard work, the Commissioncomes into existence as arguably the main tangible accomplishmentof the Rio Summit, an inter-governmental machinery to monitor theimplementation of Rio. We are all aware of expectationsinternationally. There is a huge reservoir of goodwill and hope,not only from governments but also people and organizations thatthe Commission should and must succeed in its work. On the heels ofthese expectations come also close scrutiny and pressure. We wouldhave to demonstrate that each meeting of the Commission builds uponthe progress achieved from earlier meetings," he said.

The Commission then elected the other four members of the Bureauwho will serve as the Vice-Chairs and the Rapporteur: RodneyWilliams, Antigua and Barbuda's Minister for Economic Development,Tourism, Industry (and Environment); Tunisia's Ambassador to theUN, Hamadi Khouini; Bedrich Moldan, Director of the CharlesUniversity Centre for Environmental Scholarship and formerly of theCzech Ministry of the Environment; and Arthur Campeau, Canada'sAmbassador for Environment and Sustainable Development.

MULTI-YEAR THEMATIC PROGRAMME OF WORK

The rest of the morning's session was spent discussing theSecretary-General's "Outline of a Multi-Year Thematic Programme ofWork for the Commission" (E/CN.17/1993/2). This document outlinesthe functions of the Commission and its programme of work. The mostproblematic issue was the grouping of topics into clusters to beconsidered by the Commission during the next three years so thatall the chapters of Agenda 21 would be reviewed in preparation forthe report to the General Assembly in 1997 on the overallimplementation of Agenda 21. The titles of the proposed clustersand the numbers of the Agenda 21 chapters referred to in each wereas follows:

1. Critical elements of sustainability - Chapters 2-5(economics, poverty, consumption and population)

2. Financial resources and mechanisms - Chapter 33

3. Education, science and technology - Chapters 16, 34-36(biotechnology, technology transfer, science and education)

4. Decision-making structures - Chapters 8, 37-40(decision-making, capacity-building, institutions, legalinstruments and information)

5. Roles of major groups - Chapters 23-32

6. Health and human settlements - Chapters 6,7,21(health, human settlements and solid wastes)

7. Land, forests and biodiversity - Chapters 10-15 (landresources, deforestation, desertification, mountains, agricultureand biological diversity)

8. Atmosphere, oceans and freshwater - Chapters 9,17 and18

9. Toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes - Chapters 19,20and 22 (toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes and radioactive wastes)

The Secretary-General also proposed that the first fivecross-sectoral clusters could be reviewed annually. The last fourclusters are broadly sectoral in nature and can be covered in threeyears: cluster 7 in one year, cluster 8 in another and clusters 6and 9 together in a third.

Although most delegates supported the idea of reviewing Agenda 21by cluster, there was some disagreement about when and how oftendifferent clusters should be discussed and what should be containedin each cluster. The US commented that it is not realistic toaddress clusters 1-5 every year and it might be better to highlightone or two cross-sectoral and one sectoral cluster each year. TheUS also proposed creating a tenth cluster including forests andatmosphere. Denmark, on behalf of the EC, Iceland, on behalf of theNordics, and Austria mentioned that the Rio Declaration and theStatement on Forest Principles should also be included in thismulti-year programme of work. Members of the G-77 and Chinastressed the importance of reviewing financial resources andmechanisms, technology transfer and capacity-building on an annualbasis. Canada mentioned that the timetable for considering varioussectoral and cross-sectoral issues should take into account otherconferences and intergovernmental negotiating processes.

The morning's meeting came to a close when Denmark called for apoint of order regarding the presence of Yugoslavia (Serbia andMontenegro) in the conference room. The US, Austria, Norway,Australia and Pakistan supported Denmark's objection. Razaliadjourned the meeting and said that he would check on the matterand report back to the Commission after lunch.

The second meeting of the CSD was called to order at 3:00 pm.Razali announced that the CSD would work on the basis of otherfunctional commissions of ECOSOC with regard to the participationof Yugoslavia. As the representative of Yugoslavia was not presentin the room during the afternoon session, no further action wasnecessary.

Discussion then continued on the multi-year thematic programme ofwork. Colombia, on behalf of the G-77, stated that technologytransfer, finance and capacity building should be handled under oneintegrated cluster on an annual basis and expressed hope that noother changes would be made to the Secretary-General's draft. Otherquestions were raised regarding the national reporting procedureand the scheduling of discussion on the various segments. Razaliannounced that discussion on this agenda item would resume thefollowing day.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CSD

Razali then opened discussion on the "Provisional Agenda andOrganization of Work of the First Substantive Session of theCommission" (E/CN.17/1993/L.1). The preliminary discussion focussedon whether the high-level ministerial meeting should take place atthe beginning of the session or at the end. Most of the G-77countries preferred the high-level segment to take place at the endof the meeting so that the ministers can resolve difficultquestions and add political impetus to the results of theCommission meeting. The US preferred that the high-level segmenttake place at the beginning so that it could set the tone andpresent ideas at the beginning rather than just act as a "rubberstamp" at the end. The Russian Federation said that it does notmatter when the high-level segment takes place as long as theministers have a chance to focus their contributions and play auseful role.

A long discussion also took place after the EC proposed that acommunique summarizing the main proposals and commitments be issuedafter the high-level segment. Most of the developing countriesstrongly disagreed. They felt that the work of the high-levelsegment should not be divorced from the work of the rest of theCommission and thus a separate communique would not be necessary.

After the discussion went on for about two hours, Razali askedgovernments to submit ideas in writing and announced that theSecretariat would prepare a revised provisional agenda for theirconsideration. Razali then adjourned the meeting for the day,announcing that the discussion on the multi-year thematic programmeof work would resume the next morning.

THURSDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 1993

Ambassador Razali opened the second day of the organizationalsession by introducing two draft decision "non-papers" prepared bythe Chair, with assistance from the CSD Secretariat and based onthe discussions held the previous day. The first "non-paper" was onthe provisional agenda of the first substantive session of the CSDand the second was on the multi-year thematic programme of work forthe Commission.

Razali asked the Commission if they could adjourn the meeting andreconvene at 4:00 pm so that the regional groups could meet anddiscuss these two documents. Colombia, on behalf of the Group of77, requested that they define the working method of the CSD atthis organizational session rather than waiting until thesubstantive session in June. Japan expressed concern about takinga decision on the clustering at this meeting and stated that theypreferred to wait until the substantive session. Razali and theSecretariat seemed to be taken by surprise by this comment. Afterconsulting with Desai, Razali said that he was trying to find a wayto cater to their needs but that they should be assured that thedecision taken at this session is not necessarily the finaldecision on the matter. The Netherlands and India asked forclarification on when the decision would be taken on the programmeof work. India mentioned that if the programme of work will bedecided at the substantive session, then the decision here shouldonly be a series of recommendations. If the decision here will bethe final one, then the subject should be removed from theprovisional agenda of the substantive session in June. Razaliadjourned the meeting.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CSD

When Razali reconvened the meeting in the afternoon the number ofdocuments had grown exponentially. Both the G-77 and the EuropeanCommunity had drafted their own proposals on the provisional agendaand the multi-year programme of work.

Razali opened the discussion on the provisional agenda by askingfor comments. Colombia said that the Group of 77 was pleased withthe Chair's proposal, but made the following amendments: item 10should read "Consideration of items taken up by the high-levelmeeting"; and item 6, on financial resources, should take intoaccount the relationship between the CSD and the GEF, perhaps ameans by which the Commission could submit recommendations to theGEF regarding the implementation of Agenda 21. The G-77 alsosubmitted new, more flexible, language for item 2, "The Commissionwill decide at each session, on the basis of its agenda, how manyinformal negotiating groups will be established and theirrespective subject matter, which should be chaired by one of theVice-Chairmen, provided that these informal negotiating groups willnever exceed more than three in number and that no more than twomeet simultaneously."

The US commented on the need for an agenda item to deal withongoing functions of the CSD, including the report from theInter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development (IACSD); inputfrom the high level advisory committee, the Bretton Woodsinstitutions, and from Convention secretariats; and other reportsthat may not fit in the substantive themes. The US also felt thatthe agenda should also make reference to the need to discussnational reports and plans for implementing Agenda 21.

The EC submitted its own draft decision that reorganized andexpanded the Chair's draft. The EC moved the adoption of amulti-year thematic programme of work of the Commission from item7 up to item 2 on the agenda. Under the agenda item, "Methods ofwork of the Commission", the EC added four subheadings:

• Establishment of subsidiary organs and/or segments;
• Guidelines for periodic communications or national reports;
• Reports from all relevant organs, organizations, programmes and institutions of the UN system and the relationship between the CSD and these, including the High-Level Advisory Board; and
• Outcome of the CSD sessions.

The EC also condensed three of the Chair's agenda items (thosedealing with transfer of technology, financial commitments andprogress in the incorporation of recommendations of UNCED in theactivities of international organizations) under one agenda item(5), "Implementation of decisions and recommendations of theUNCED." One new subheading was also added: "Coordination ofprogrammes related to development data that exist within the UNsystem."

Razali asked the delegates to comment on each other's proposalsrather than continue to make new ones. Australia expressed supportfor the G-77's flexible approach on the number of working groupsand the US's approach on exchange of information and reference toguidelines for the preparation of national reports. The G-77 had noproblem with the EC's proposal to move the adoption of themulti-year programme of work to agenda item 2. Regarding the EC'sproposed sub-headings under agenda item 3, the G-77 said that theydisagreed on the establishment of subsidiary organs at this time.The G-77 also felt that the subheading on national reports shouldbe consolidated with agenda item 4, which also deals with nationalreports. The G-77 said that the EC's proposed agenda item 5 couldbe useful but that financial resources should remain a separateagenda item.

MULTI-YEAR THEMATIC PROGRAMME OF WORK

Colombia introduced the G-77's proposal on the programme of work.Most of their proposed changes to the Chair's draft were of formrather than substance. The title of cluster C was modified to read,"Education, transfer of environmentally sound technology,cooperation and capacity building." Cluster D was modified toinclude specific mention of the Rio Declaration. Cluster Gcontained specific mention of desertification and Cluster Hincluded the full title of the Agenda 21 chapter on "oceans, allkinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas." None ofthese amendments changed the contents of the clusters.

Aside from reordering the last three paragraphs of the Chair'sdocument, the only other major changes were to leave out theschedule for the treatment of the sectoral issues and to amend thelist of international conferences on the UN calendar to beconsidered when formulating the programme of work. Colombiaannounced that the G-77 would later submit a document that woulddeal with the timetable for addressing each of the sectoralclusters.

The EC's paper stressed that the draft decision should be in theform of a recommendation to the substantive meeting of theCommission and that each paragraph should read "recommends" ratherthan "decides." The EC also suggested moving freshwater resourcesfrom cluster H to cluster F (health and human settlements). Inparagraph 3, they stated that the programme of work should not onlytake into consideration the components of Agenda 21, but the RioDeclaration and the Forest Principles as well. Finally, theyproposed that only the first three clusters (critical elements ofsustainability, financial resources and education, science andtechnology) be considered every year and that clusters F and I(health and human settlements and toxic chemicals and hazardouswastes) be considered in 1994; clusters E and G (major groups andland, forests and biodiversity) in 1995; and clusters D and H(decision making structures and atmosphere and oceans) in 1996.They also stated that elements with these clusters could beconsidered more than once.

Japan expressed concern about reaching a decision on the clustersat this session. Both Japan and the US expressed preference forusing the word "recommends" rather than "decides". The US also saidthat they were still unhappy about the consideration of the firstfive clusters on an annual basis and urged that consideration begiven to spreading these over a longer period of time.

In response to the comments made by Japan, the US and the EC,Colombia said that they didn't think that the clusters should bereorganized, but that they could agree to use the word"recommends." Furthermore, the G-77 had no problem with the EC'sproposal to take into account the Rio Declaration in paragraph 3,but they could not accept the reference to the forest principles atthis time.

FRIDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 1993

When the Commission reconvened on Friday morning, the delegateswere given a new "non-paper" prepared by the Chair. Beforediscussing the paper, they listened to two statements byrepresentatives from non-governmental organizations. SimoneBilderbeek, on behalf of the Netherlands National Committee for theIUCN, urged the CSD to have the courage to discuss issues which arepolitically "hot" and controversial, and expressed hope that thereis commitment of all involved actors to effectively follow-up theCSD's recommendations. Jocelyn Dow of the Red Thread Women'sDevelopment Network in Guyana addressed the need for the CSD toaddress the women's agenda. She pointed out that no woman wasnominated to the CSD Bureau and she expressed hope that the CSDwill take the leadership in making the words in Agenda 21 and theRio Declaration a reality.

Razali urged all of the NGOs present not to let the members of theCSD forget their responsibilities and then moved on to address thethree new draft decisions that he had distributed.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CSD

Draft decision I was a reformulation of the provisional agenda forthe first substantive session. The G-77 had a couple of problemswith this draft, including: paragraph 3(a): they did not agree withthe need to mention the creation of "subsidiary organs" at thistime before there is even a decision on the programme of work; andparagraph 7: they wanted reference to the GEF in the discussion ofinitial financial commitments.

The EC responded that paragraph 3(a) should read that theCommission will decide at each session, on the basis of its agenda,how many informal negotiating groups and subsidiary organs shouldbe established. The EC also proposed amending 3(b) to read: "theCommission will decide at its first substantive session on ways toconsider reports from all relevant organs..." rather than makingthis decision at each session, as was originally written. They alsoproposed deleting the word "voluntary" from paragraph 4(a) whichread, "guidelines on voluntary preparation and submission ofnational reports and national Agenda 21 action plans." Finally,they disagreed with the G-77's proposal to include mention of theGEF in paragraph 7.

The US had a major problem with paragraph 3 since it dealt withoperational methods of work in 3(a) and the consideration ofreports in 3(b). The US agreed with the G-77's amendment in 3(a),but proposed removing 3(b) and making it a separate item called"Other analytic contributions to the Commission." The US alsodisagreed with mention of the GEF in paragraph 7. Finally, the USsaid that even though they had already discussed the question ofwhere the high level segment should be, since this year is theopening of the CSD, there should be some sort of ceremonial openingwith the high level segment at the beginning for this year only.Japan was supportive of this suggestion. Razali responded that itwould be possible for ministers to be present at the opening of theCommission and still be involved in the high-level segment at theconclusion of the session.

Canada proposed adding to paragraph 3(b) that the Commission willalso hear reports from NGOs. The Secretariat responded that therules of procedure provide for contributions from NGOs, but thatthe Secretariat is not responsible for producing thatdocumentation. He added that there is nothing that prevents theCommission from discussing submissions from NGOs, but that there isa qualitative difference between NGO reports and the reports ofother inter-governmental bodies. Benin later asked if theSecretariat could provide a solution to overcome the administrativedifficulties in handling NGO reports. The Netherlands suggestedthat reference be made to the review of NGO reports in this draftdecision.

India was concerned with paragraph 4(a) and suggested that it bedeleted, as Agenda 21 has no provision for the CSD to developguidelines for national reports. Australia disagreed since theestablishment of guidelines would help the work of the Commission.A number of other countries, including China and Uganda, echoedIndia's sentiments. A group of concerned delegates gathered in thehallway in hope of reaching a compromise.

By the end of the morning's discussion it was apparent that therewere only three major areas of difficulty: what to do withparagraph 3 (the G-77 proposed that it be removed and be put in aseparate decision on the methods of work of the Commission), theguidelines for national reports in paragraph 4(a), and the mentionof the GEF in paragraph 7.

DRAFT DECISION II

Draft decision II stated "The Commission requests the Chairman,with the assistance of other members of the Bureau and theSecretariat, to conduct during the intersessional period informalconsultations with all members of the Commission and otherinterested delegations on the methods of work of the Commission andpresent his proposals for approval at its first substantivesession." None of the members of the Commission had any problemwith this draft and no further discussion was necessary.

MULTI-YEAR THEMATIC PROGRAMME OF WORK

Draft decision III contained the proposals for the multi-yearthematic programme of work. The decision requests theSecretary-General to prepare a draft of a work programme forconsideration and adoption by the Commission at its firstsubstantive session. The only change to the proposed clusters wasthat freshwater was moved from cluster H (atmosphere and oceans) tocluster F (health human settlements and solid waste) as had beenproposed by the EC. As suggested by the G-77, the timetable fordiscussion of the clusters was removed and a new paragraph 6,asking the Secretary-General to take into account the calendar ofmajor forthcoming intergovernmental meetings when formulating hisproposals for a timetable, was added.

The G-77 made only two minor amendments to paragraph 6 and thesewere acceptable to everyone. The US wanted to delete the phrase"within each cluster" from the end of paragraph 4, so that it wouldread, "Recommends that clusters A, B, C, D and E should beconsidered by the Commission on an annual basis, with a particularfocus upon certain chapters of Agenda 21." A number of othersargued for the retention of the phrase. Razali finally suggestedthat the US might want to consider using the famous UN phrase, "asappropriate" so that the end of the paragraph would read,"...Agenda 21, within each cluster, as appropriate." The US wasable to accept this compromise, paving the way to the adoption ofDraft decision III.

FINAL MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION

After lunch, the members of the Commission sat down for their lastsession. Razali had worked over the lunch break withrepresentatives of the G-77 and the Secretariat and came back witha final draft of the three decisions. In Decision I on theprovisional agenda, sub-paragraphs 3(a) and (b), on the methods ofwork of the Commission, were removed and placed into Decision II.Paragraph 4(a) on guidelines for national reports, was replacedwith language from Resolution 47/191, thus ensuring that referenceto national report guidelines was retained, yet the language wasacceptable to all. The reference to the GEF in paragraph 7 wasresolved by adding a sentence that reads, "This includes referenceto paragraph 33.14 of Agenda 21."

During the discussion that followed, the only other amendment wasproposed by Benin who reminded the Chair of his earlier suggestionthat 4(b) be amended to include "periodic communications" so thatthe paragraph would read "ways in which, upon request, the UnitedNations system and bilateral donors are assisting countries,particularly developing countries, in the preparation of periodiccommunications or national reports and national Agenda 21 actionplans." There was no objection and the Commission quickly adoptedthe decision.

The reformulated Decision II, "Issues relating to the future workof the Commission" contained four paragraphs: setting up workinggroups; consideration of reports from other UN bodies and theinternational financial institutions; considering reports andcontributions from entities outside the UN system; and asking theChair to conduct informal consultations. The EC had a problem withparagraph 2 since it implied that the Commission would considerreports from all UN organs at each session. The G-77responded that their understanding was that in the year theCommission considers atmosphere, it would hear only from UN organsthat deal with atmospheric issues. The EC wanted furtherclarification, so the paragraph was amended to specify that theCommission would decide "which" reports should be considered.

Canada proposed amending paragraph 3 to include specific mention ofmajor groups and NGOs. Razali responded that the Secretariat wantedto avoid the implications of "major groups" and asked Canada if hecould accept adding the phrase "such as from NGOs" at the end ofthe paragraph. Colombia supported Razali and suggested using thephrase "including NGOs." After a few more comments, Razali askeddelegates if they could agree to this and quickly adopted thedecision.

At this point Razali opened the floor for concluding comments. Anumber of countries requested that the Secretariat ensure thatdocumentation is prepared, translated and distributed by 1 May1993. Razali ended the meeting by thanking everyone for being socooperative and making the first meeting of the CSD such aproductive affair. He apologized for any callous remarks he mayhave made but explained that he came from the "rough and tumbleschool of diplomacy" and that "for the next year I'm all you'vegot." Thus, the organizational session of the Commission onSustainable Development came to a close.

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CSD

PREPCOM IV:

The question of institutional arrangements tofollow-up UNCED was mandated to Working Group III of the UNCEDPreparatory Committee, which began to work in earnest on thismatter in March 1992, at its fourth and last session. The Chair ofthe PrepCom, Tommy Koh (Singapore), and Working Group III Chair,Bedrich Moldan (Czechoslovakia), chose Ambassador Razali Ismail(Malaysia) to serve as the issue coordinator for institutions andinformal meetings began on 17 March 1992. Razali had been given abroad mandate that included addressing the ways and means tostrengthen cooperation within the UN on environment anddevelopment; reviewing the role and function of UN agencies; andexamining the ways in which institutions could be strengthened toimplement Agenda 21. The objective was to produce a draft of whatwould become the chapter in Agenda 21 on institutions.

Preliminary debate in the sub-group was characterized by a generalagreement that no new institutions should be created, yet therewas a need for programme coordination and a high-level body toprovide policy direction on environment and development. Razaliprepared a draft negotiating text based on the informaldiscussions, the various government position papers oninstitutions, and consultations held with governments. This markedthe first, but certainly not the last, time in this process thatRazali used his role as the Chair to facilitate and -- according tomany observers -- accelerate discussions by synthesizing views,with the help of the Secretariat, into a Conference Room Paper(CRP.3, in this case). These informal draft papers reflected thebest political compromise possible and was then used as the basisfor negotiations in lieu of text presented by a country or one ofthe regional groups (a process that had slowed or defeatednegotiations in other sub-groups at PrepCom IV).

It was in this early draft that the idea to establish a SustainableDevelopment Commission emerged, as well as the proposal that ECOSOCundertake the work of policy review and oversee system-widecoordination of the implementation of Agenda 21 by the various UNbodies. Debate followed on the exact relationship between theproposed Commission and ECOSOC. While Razali picked up on the ideaof the CSD as a functional commission of ECOSOC (which it finallybecame), many governments promoted the idea that either arevitalized ECOSOC be given the responsibility for monitoring theimplementation of Agenda 21 or that a third sessional committee ofECOSOC be established. By the end of PrepCom IV the group was stillunable to resolve some of the issues surrounding bothinter-governmental mechanisms and functions in Chapter 38 of Agenda21: "International Institutional Arrangements." While thepossibility of a functional commission had not been precluded, thetext that was sent to Rio proposed two options: 1) a high-levelCommission on Sustainable Development that would report to theGeneral Assembly on matters of substance and to ECOSOC on mattersof coordination; 2) or the use of a revitalized ECOSOC with asubsidiary mechanism such as a third sessional committee or theutilization of its high-level coordination segments.

UNCED

During UNCED, Main Committee Chair Tommy Koh choseAmbassador Razali as the issue coordinator for institutionalmatters. On 5 June Razali circulated a non-paper that addressed therole, functions and reporting structure of the CSD as well as therole of the General Assembly in determining the specific modalitiesof the Commission. The Chair's non-paper proposed language for twoof the intergovernmental functions for the Commission that had leftPrepCom IV in brackets: 1) the consideration of informationprovided for by governments; and 2) reporting on the progress inthe implementation of international environmental conventions. Inmeetings of the contact group on institutions, a compromise wasreached that called for the establishment of a high-levelCommission on Sustainable Development that would be a functionalcommission of ECOSOC. The compromise text also recommended that the47th session of the General Assembly take the decisions on thespecific organizational modalities of the Commission, including thenumber of members and matters related to the frequency, venue andduration of meetings. Thus, the text was transmitted withoutbrackets to the Main Committee for approval.

47th SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

During the 47thSession of the General Assembly (GA), the Second Committee decidedto establish a special ad-hoc working group under the guidance ofAmbassador Razali to deal with the list of specific recommendationsmade by UNCED to be considered by the GA. Among those matters thatrequired "further elaboration and/or decisions by the Assembly"were two items in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21: 1) that the GA shoulddetermine the organizational modalities of the Commission onSustainable Development and the Secretary-General was to prepare areport with recommendations and proposals; and 2) that the UNGA wasto consider the recommendations of the Secretary-General on ahigh-level advisory board and continued secretariat support forfollow-up to UNCED. In preparation for negotiations on these itemsa number of countries circulated papers outlining their positionson the composition of the CSD, the participation of NGOs, themeeting schedule and agenda, the relation of the CSD to other UNbodies, the Secretariat, and the functions of the Commission. UNSecretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali released his own report, asrequested by UNCED, on institutional follow-up (A/47/598 andAdd.1). On the basis of the various position papers and theSecretary General's report, Razali prepared a draft resolution thatbecame the basis for negotiation by the group.

Negotiations began on 11 November 1992 and came to a conclusion on15 December 1992. The group had successfully negotiated a34-paragraph resolution that set out the terms of reference of theCommission, its composition, the participation of NGOs, theorganization of work, the CSD's relationship with other UN bodies,the high-level advisory board and Secretariat-support arrangements.(See Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol.3, No.3 for a moredetailed report on these negotiations.)

ECOSOC ORGANIZATIONAL SESSION:

In preparation for the ECOSOCorganizational session in February, the Secretary-General preparedthree documents 1) proposals for the CSD rules of procedure,including recommendations for the participation of NGOs,specialized agencies and IGOs, and the European Economic Community(E/1993/12); 2) a note on the establishment of the CSD that set outfor the ECOSOC the background for the decisions that it was to takein regards to the CSD (E/1993/14); and 3) a report on theHigh-Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development (E/1993/15).

The ECOSOC organizational session, which was supposed to meet from2-5 February, ended up lasting for two weeks. The ECOSOCnegotiations on the CSD took much longer than anticipated due tolack of agreement on the procedural arrangements for theparticipation of the European Economic Community. While the GA, hadgiven the EEC certain additional rights at the Rio Conference,these arrangements did not apply to the work of the Commission. Themember states of the EEC have delegated authority to the EuropeanCommission to speak on their behalf regarding several issuesincluding fisheries, agriculture and trade. For this reason the EEChas been advocating certain procedural arrangements that would giveit the same rights as States, short of the right to a vote.

At the ECOSOC session, the EEC proposed language for the CSD rulesof procedure that would ensure the full participation of the EEC,"within its areas of competence, in the work of the Commission andof its subsidiary organs. This participation shall not include theright to vote. Consultations and negotiations on matters ofparticular concern to the European Economic Community shall beconducted in such a way as to ensure the full participation of theEEC." This was opposed by most of the non-EEC members on thegrounds that it would give to the EEC, as an inter-governmentalorganization, some rights similar to those of member States and, infact, a permanent seat on the Commission. Numerous informalconsultations were held before a compromise was worked out thatwould have used the Secretary-General's proposed language for therules of procedure with a cross-reference to the precedent setduring UNCED, combined with a note from the President of theCouncil stating that it would be understood that EECrepresentatives would be able to participate in all formal andinformal meetings of the CSD. After consulting with their capitals,a number of delegates soon found that they were unable to acceptthis solution and further negotiations followed. A fragilecompromise was reached that would have allowed the participation of"other regional and sub-regional integration organizations to theextent that it has attained a similar level of competence, inaccordance with its mandate." The problem with this compromise wasthat some developing countries felt that their regional developmentorganizations should, eventually, enjoy the same rights as the EEC.A compromise along these lines was worked out in which regionalorganizations would present their areas of competence to each ofthe sessions of the CSD. This was still not acceptable to allparties and a decision was postponed until ECOSOC could reconvenein a resumed session.

ECOSOC was able to take four decisions related to the CSD which: 1)established the CSD, called for elections for the 53 members to beheld on 16 February, set the dates for the organizational and firstsubstantive session and set the provisional agenda for theorganizational session; 2) established the rules of procedure forthe CSD as a functional commission of ECOSOC, includingsupplementary arrangements regarding the participation ofspecialized agencies, IGOs and NGOs; 3) decided to conduct a reviewof current arrangements for consultations with NGOs; and 4)requested that the regional economic commissions submit reports tothe CSD by 1994 on their plans to implement Agenda 21 and examinethe relevant portions of Chapter 38 of Agenda 21.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR IN THE COMING MONTHS

The ECOSOC organizational sessionwill resume debate on 29-30 April on a variety of matters,including the matter of the participation of the EEC in the CSD.The ECOSOC Secretariat plans to hold elections for the membershipof the CSD for 1994, although there is strong resistance to theidea of beginning a new round of politicking and, some say, "horsetrading," for the seats on the Commission so soon after theelections held two weeks ago. It is likely that decisions on thevenue for the 1994 meeting and elections will be postponed, atleast until after the first substantive session of the CSD in June.

RESUMED ECOSOC SESSION:

The ECOSOC organizational sessionwill resume debate on 29-30 April on a variety of matters,including the matter of the participation of the EEC in the CSD.The ECOSOC Secretariat plans to hold elections for the membershipof the CSD for 1994, although there is strong resistance to theidea of beginning a new round of politicking and, some say, "horsetrading," for the seats on the Commission so soon after theelections held two weeks ago. It is likely that decisions on thevenue for the 1994 meeting and elections will be postponed, atleast until after the first substantive session of the CSD in June.

HIGH-LEVEL ADVISORY BOARD

During its resumed organizationalsession, ECOSOC will also discuss the High-Level Advisory Board.The Secretary-General, in his report on the matter to ECOSOC(E/1993/15) stated his intention to set up this Board with 15 to 25"internationally recognized personalities to be appointed by him intheir personal capacity." It is his idea that the Board would meetfor several days before each session of the CSD to review policypapers presented by the UN Secretariat related to the thematic workof the upcoming session. This group would also bring to theattention of the Secretary-General and the CSD "emerging problemsrelated to sustainable development and possible ways and means forresolving them." The report goes on to suggest that theSecretary-General may establish a roster of experts maintained bythe DPCSD (of which the Committee for Development Planning might bea sub-set) from which the Secretariat could organize ad-hoc workinggroups around the themes of the session that would submit papers tothe High-Level Advisory Board and the CSD.

NGO PREPARATIONS FOR THE JUNE SESSION

While no exact dateshave been set, it is probable that there will be an NGO meeting inNew York the week before the first substantive session of the CSDin June 1993. Funds have been made available for the participationof developing country NGOs at this session although the mechanismsfor selection and disbursal have not been determined. Pursuant tothe decision by ECOSOC on the participation and accreditation ofNGOs in the CSD, those groups that were accredited to participatein the work of the PrepCom by the end of its fourth session canapply for roster status. As determined by ECOSOC in its decision215, NGOs wishing roster status will have to have their applicationapproved by the Council. Those NGOs that are interested inparticipating in the work of the CSD should contact the CSDSecretariat in New York for further information.

In a related matter, ECOSOC is conducting a review of the currentarrangements for consultations with NGOs, particularly in light ofthe recent experiences gained during UNCED. The ECOSOC Committee onNon-Governmental Organizations has been requested to submit itsproposals on such a review to the Council this year. The Committeewill meet from 22 March to 2 April 1993 in New York to begin workon the reform of ECOSOC rules of procedures related to NGOs.

INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

Duringthe 47th General Assembly, UN Secretary-General BoutrosBoutros-Ghali announced the formation of an Inter-AgencyCommission on Sustainable Development, to be set up by theAdministrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) to coordinatecooperation among all agencies and programmes in the UN system. Thefirst meeting of the IACSD will take place during the third week ofMarch. During this meeting it is expected that representatives fromthe various UN agencies will review the functions of the Committee;examine the cost and resource implications for implementing Agenda21 within the UN system; and discuss how they will provideinformation for the preparation of reports to submit to thesubstantive meeting of the CSD in June.

PREPARATIONS BY THE CSD SECRETARIAT

UN Resolution 47/191asked the Secretary-General to prepare a number of reports for thefirst substantive session of the CSD, which will take place from14-25 June 1993 in New York. These reports include:

• Initial financial commitments, financial flows and arrangements to give effect to the decisions of the Conference from all available funding sources and mechanisms;
• Progress achieved in facilitating and promoting transfer of environmentally sound technologies, cooperation and capacity-building;
• Progress in the incorporation of UNCED recommendations in the activities of international organizations and measures undertaken by the Administrative Committee on Coordination to ensure that sustainable development principles are incorporated into programmes and processes within the UN system;
• Ways in which, upon request, the UN system and bilateral donors are assisting countries, particularly developing countries, in the preparation of national reports and national Agenda 21 action plans;
• Urgent and major emerging issues that may be addressed in the course of the high-level meeting; and
• Recommendations and proposals for improving the coordination of programmes related to development data that exist within the UN system.

The responsibility for the preparation of these six reports fallsto the CSD Secretariat, located within the new Department of PolicyCoordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), one of the threedepartments created by UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghalilast December, but yet to be either staffed or funded. At presentthe DPCSD and the CSD Secretariat consists of eight UNprofessionals in both Geneva and New York who have remainedthroughout the dismantling of the UNCED Secretariat after the RioConference. The resumed session of the 47th General Assembly, whichwill be convened during the second week in March, is expected toapprove the budget for the DPCSD and allow Under-Secretary-GeneralDesai to staff his department. Despite Razali's assurances to themembers of the Commission that documentation would be ready by May1, Desai will be hard pressed to meet this deadline.