Daily report for 23 May 1994

Working Group I completed its first reading of the Chair's drafttexts on decision-making structures, technology transfer, and tradeand environment.

DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURES: In paragraph 2, the G-77 andChina proposed deleting references to effective machinery andprocedures for treaty implementation and the promotion of disputeavoidance procedures. They proposed replacing this language with arequest for UNEP to study the concepts and implications ofsustainable development and international law. Other delegationspreferred the original text, or recommended that both proposals bemerged into a single paragraph. The EU proposed a new paragraph 6bis supporting developing countries in strengtheningcapacity to develop environmental impact assessment procedures andparticipate effectively in the development of international law.

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

TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY, COOPERATION ANDCAPACITY- BUILDING: In paragraph 2 (intersessional workinggroup), the G-77 and China called for the institutionalization ofthe intersessional working group. The EU, the US and Austriapreferred the original paragraph. In paragraph 4 (general actionsto combat constraints), the G-77 and China wanted reference to theneed to fulfill the developed countries' commitments, as embodiedin Chapter 34 of Agenda 21. The EU and US preferred the draft text.The Czech Republic suggested adding reference to the disseminationof environmentally sound technology (EST) on the INTERNET.

In paragraph 6 (actions to be taken), the EU, supported by the US,referred to the need to protect intellectual property rights aswell as the needs of developing countries. Switzerland, supportedby the Russian Federation, noted the need for ESTs in countrieswith economies in transition. The G-77 and China, commenting on theEU proposal, stated that they were becoming pessimistic with thedirection of the discussion, and suggested that it may be prematurefor the CSD to discuss the issue of technology transfer. They alsotook issue with the repeated inclusion of "countries with economiesin transition" with "developing countries."

In paragraph 9 (private sector role), Korea called for regional"technomarts" and "technofairs" as approaches to technologytransfer. In paragraph 11 (government's role to encourage privatesector), Korea called for financial incentives to encouragetransfer of ESTs. The US expressed reservations about thisproposal. In paragraph 12 (environmental technology centres),Switzerland proposed reference to countries with economies intransition, and was supported by Poland, Bulgaria, and the RussianFederation. Tunisia disagreed. In paragraph 13.1 (collaboration byUN agencies), Sweden requested that the contribution of NGOs beclarified. The Philippines suggested that UNIDO and relevant UNagencies undertake sectoral demonstration projects to supportsustainable industrial development. Saudi Arabia objected on thegrounds that Agenda 21 pertains to more than the industrial sector.

The G-77 and China offered a 13.1 bis, calling for thedevelopment of a mechanism to assess and elaborate an inventory ofESTs in the public domain. The US and Canada thought that thisproposal repeated paragraph 13.1. The EU recommended case studieson technology transfer. In paragraph 13.4 (technology transfermechanisms), the G-77 and China asked to delete the reference totechnical experts. The US disagreed. In paragraph 13.5("benchmarking"), the G-77 and China called for reference to theenergy, transport and agricultural sectors. Saudi Arabia objected,stating that national priority sectors for sustainable developmentdiffer.

The G-77 and China suggested a paragraph 8 bis, requestingthe Secretary-General to invite experts to make recommendations onthe feasibility of a consultative group on environmental technologycentres. Austria, the US and the EU expressed reservations on thisproposal.

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: The delegates heard from the NGOworking group on trade, environment and sustainable development,which stated that the CSD is the appropriate coordinating body forthe inputs from UN and multilateral organizations. The G-77 wantedthe title of the draft to be changed to "Trade and SustainableDevelopment." The US preferred the Chair's title. The Chairsuggested the compromise "Trade, Environment, and SustainableDevelopment." The G-77 proposed a paragraph 1 bis, whichwould reflect the Marrakesh message. The EU and US noted that thisproposal reflected the preamble to the WTO agreement, which isacceptable. In paragraph 2 (trade liberalization), the G-77 calledfor internalization of costs, taking into account the level ofdevelopment and without distorting international trade andinvestment.

In paragraph 3 (international trading system), Japan and the G-77noted the importance of an open multilateral trading system. Inparagraph 4 (benefits from trade liberalization), Australiamentioned the possible negative effects on the least developed andnet food importing nations. The G-77 proposed a diversificationfund for African commodities. The EC and the US opposed thisamendment.

In paragraph 5 (WTO Committee on Trade and Environment), the G-77found the draft text overly optimistic, and proposed that the CSDrecognize its role as the central organ for these issues. The USproposed the deletion of paragraph 6 (environmental measures), butindicated a willingness to work with the G-77, if Agenda 21language was respected. The EU proposed a paragraph 6 bis,calling for the development of a framework to facilitate assessmentof the environmental impact of trade policies.

In addressing paragraph 7 (cooperation between UN agencies), Canadanoted the need to welcome reports of agencies on trade, developmentand sustainable development. The G-77 called for a paragraph 10bis, which would take note of the Barbados Programme ofAction. The US proposed paragraph 13 bis, which wouldhighlight the need to achieve transparency for public and expertparticipation.

WORKING GROUP I

Working Group I completed its first reading of the Chair's drafttexts on decision-making structures, technology transfer, and tradeand environment.

DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURES: In paragraph 2, the G-77 andChina proposed deleting references to effective machinery andprocedures for treaty implementation and the promotion of disputeavoidance procedures. They proposed replacing this language with arequest for UNEP to study the concepts and implications ofsustainable development and international law. Other delegationspreferred the original text, or recommended that both proposals bemerged into a single paragraph. The EU proposed a new paragraph 6bis supporting developing countries in strengtheningcapacity to develop environmental impact assessment procedures andparticipate effectively in the development of international law.

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

TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY, COOPERATION ANDCAPACITY- BUILDING: In paragraph 2 (intersessional workinggroup), the G-77 and China called for the institutionalization ofthe intersessional working group. The EU, the US and Austriapreferred the original paragraph. In paragraph 4 (general actionsto combat constraints), the G-77 and China wanted reference to theneed to fulfill the developed countries' commitments, as embodiedin Chapter 34 of Agenda 21. The EU and US preferred the draft text.The Czech Republic suggested adding reference to the disseminationof environmentally sound technology (EST) on the INTERNET.

In paragraph 6 (actions to be taken), the EU, supported by the US,referred to the need to protect intellectual property rights aswell as the needs of developing countries. Switzerland, supportedby the Russian Federation, noted the need for ESTs in countrieswith economies in transition. The G-77 and China, commenting on theEU proposal, stated that they were becoming pessimistic with thedirection of the discussion, and suggested that it may be prematurefor the CSD to discuss the issue of technology transfer. They alsotook issue with the repeated inclusion of "countries with economiesin transition" with "developing countries."

In paragraph 9 (private sector role), Korea called for regional"technomarts" and "technofairs" as approaches to technologytransfer. In paragraph 11 (government's role to encourage privatesector), Korea called for financial incentives to encouragetransfer of ESTs. The US expressed reservations about thisproposal. In paragraph 12 (environmental technology centres),Switzerland proposed reference to countries with economies intransition, and was supported by Poland, Bulgaria, and the RussianFederation. Tunisia disagreed. In paragraph 13.1 (collaboration byUN agencies), Sweden requested that the contribution of NGOs beclarified. The Philippines suggested that UNIDO and relevant UNagencies undertake sectoral demonstration projects to supportsustainable industrial development. Saudi Arabia objected on thegrounds that Agenda 21 pertains to more than the industrial sector.

The G-77 and China offered a 13.1 bis, calling for thedevelopment of a mechanism to assess and elaborate an inventory ofESTs in the public domain. The US and Canada thought that thisproposal repeated paragraph 13.1. The EU recommended case studieson technology transfer. In paragraph 13.4 (technology transfermechanisms), the G-77 and China asked to delete the reference totechnical experts. The US disagreed. In paragraph 13.5("benchmarking"), the G-77 and China called for reference to theenergy, transport and agricultural sectors. Saudi Arabia objected,stating that national priority sectors for sustainable developmentdiffer.

The G-77 and China suggested a paragraph 8 bis, requestingthe Secretary-General to invite experts to make recommendations onthe feasibility of a consultative group on environmental technologycentres. Austria, the US and the EU expressed reservations on thisproposal.

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT: The delegates heard from the NGOworking group on trade, environment and sustainable development,which stated that the CSD is the appropriate coordinating body forthe inputs from UN and multilateral organizations. The G-77 wantedthe title of the draft to be changed to "Trade and SustainableDevelopment." The US preferred the Chair's title. The Chairsuggested the compromise "Trade, Environment, and SustainableDevelopment." The G-77 proposed a paragraph 1 bis, whichwould reflect the Marrakesh message. The EU and US noted that thisproposal reflected the preamble to the WTO agreement, which isacceptable. In paragraph 2 (trade liberalization), the G-77 calledfor internalization of costs, taking into account the level ofdevelopment and without distorting international trade andinvestment.

In paragraph 3 (international trading system), Japan and the G-77noted the importance of an open multilateral trading system. Inparagraph 4 (benefits from trade liberalization), Australiamentioned the possible negative effects on the least developed andnet food importing nations. The G-77 proposed a diversificationfund for African commodities. The EC and the US opposed thisamendment.

In paragraph 5 (WTO Committee on Trade and Environment), the G-77found the draft text overly optimistic, and proposed that the CSDrecognize its role as the central organ for these issues. The USproposed the deletion of paragraph 6 (environmental measures), butindicated a willingness to work with the G-77, if Agenda 21language was respected. The EU proposed a paragraph 6 bis,calling for the development of a framework to facilitate assessmentof the environmental impact of trade policies.

In addressing paragraph 7 (cooperation between UN agencies), Canadanoted the need to welcome reports of agencies on trade, developmentand sustainable development. The G-77 called for a paragraph 10bis, which would take note of the Barbados Programme ofAction. The US proposed paragraph 13 bis, which wouldhighlight the need to achieve transparency for public and expertparticipation.

WORKING GROUP II

Working Group II completed its first round of discussion of theChair's draft texts on freshwater, hazardous wastes and radioactivewastes. The Group then began its second reading of the draft texts,completing health and toxic chemicals.

FRESHWATER: Many interventions focused on the order andgrammar of the text and, for the most part, substantialinterventions were not controversial. Belgium requested thatparagraph 7(d), (the encouragement of partnerships between allconcerned parties), include the promotion of a gender perspective.Norway suggested special mention of the participation of women inparagraph 13 (capacity-building). Tunisia insisted that youth alsodeserved special mention. Others, including Senegal, argued thatyouth were not relevant in the context of water management, whichis dependent on women in developing countries.

Paragraph 11, which welcomes the offer of four countries to assistin the monitoring of the implementation of Agenda 21, was cause forconcern for some developing countries. The Netherlands explainedthat their activities were not clear at this time but it wouldaddress issues of monitoring and the development of indicators. TheNetherlands also supported the idea of a small group of countriesrather than expanding the group.

Many countries opposed the establishment of ad-hoc workinggroups of government experts to undertake a global freshwaterassessment, as outlined in paragraph 15.

Antigua and Barbuda requested this document cross-link the relevantareas of the recently negotiated Programme of Action at the UNConference on the Sustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States.

HAZARDOUS WASTES: In paragraph 4 the US, supported byAustralia, wanted to delete the request for the Secretariat of theBasel Convention to develop non- compliance procedures with respectto the recent decisions taken. Malaysia disagreed and suggestedthat this paragraph call for a protocol on liability andcompensation.

The US questioned the consensus referred to in UNEP's Decision 17/5on military establishments' environmental norms, noting that itchooses to be dissociated with this consensus. Sweden expressed itsdisappointment. Antigua and Barbuda requested a reference to theProgramme of Action adopted at the recent Barbados Conference.Malaysia and Australia are working on a new paragraph on theunwanted release of tanker sludge/ballast waters.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES: The discussion on this text wasrelatively quick and, as a result, the Secretariat was able toproduce and distribute a revised version in just over an hour.Iceland requested that paragraph 2, which notes the world-wideincrease in radioactive wastes, also note that enhanced effortshave to be pursued to promote safe and environmentally soundmanagement of radioactive wastes. Germany noted that theprecautionary principle was particularly important in 12(a),regarding new or extended activities generating radioactive wastes.

HEALTH: In paragraph 5 (preventive measures), reference tothe lack of funding and the need for adequate financial resourceswas deleted and replaced by the phrase "...recognized the criticalimportance of funding for health..." In paragraph 9 (needs ofvulnerable groups), Algeria added a new sentence on thecontribution of food aid towards improving the nutritional andhealth status of vulnerable groups. Algeria also proposed a newsub-paragraph in paragraph 15 that gives priority to food security.Cuba proposed a new paragraph 15 bis, which takes note ofthe relevant provisions of the Barbados Programme of Action.

The most protracted debate of the evening was on sub-paragraph15(c) on reproductive health issues. Numerous proposals were madeincluding: bracketing the text; deleting the text; referring to"population issues;" using the text of Chapter 6.25 and 6.26 ofAgenda 21; and using the compromise text adopted in Barbados twoweeks ago. After much debate, delegates agreed to refer toincluding population issues in basic health systems, as approved inChapter 6.25 and 6.26 of Agenda 21, without prejudice to theoutcome of the Cairo Conference.

TOXIC CHEMICALS: The meeting raced through the first 12paragraphs with only a few minor changes. The US requested thatparagraph 13 (exposure to lead), make special reference to phasingout leaded gasoline. Venezuela asked why special attention shouldbe given to gasoline and the US replied that leaded gasoline is themajor cause of lead exposure. Several developing countriesrequested further additions urging financial support for developingcountries and countries in transition. All proposals wereultimately withdrawn. If these proposals had been accepted, theywould have been the only specific actions called for in the text.

The EU suggested paragraph 18 (allocation of resources and transferof technology) be deleted and replaced with the paragraphs 20 and21 of the health document. Algeria disagreed since "it is justphotocopying Agenda 21."

INFORMAL-INFORMAL SESSION ON INTERSESSIONAL WORK

This group met Monday afternoon to discuss the G-77 proposal onfuture CSD intersessional work. Areas of agreement seemed toinclude: support for government and IGO sponsored initiatives; thead hoc working group on finance should adjust its focus butcontinue its work; and a second working group should be establishedto prepare for the work of the CSD in 1995. Areas needingclarification include: the mandate of the second group; measures toinsure universal participation and transparency; and ways tocoordinate information on the plethora of processes.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

WORKING GROUP I: Working Group I still has to complete itsfirst reading of texts on: information provided by governments;consumption patterns; and indicators for sustainable development.The Group will then begin its second reading of the draft texts onfinance and major groups. All other revised drafts are supposed tobe adopted ad referendum by the end of the day.

WORKING GROUP II: Working Group II has to complete itssecond and final reading of four draft documents today: humansettlements, freshwater resources, hazardous wastes and radioactivewastes.

INFORMAL-INFORMAL ON INTERSESSIONAL WORK: Listen for anannouncement today on when this informal group will reconvene tofinalize its recommendations on intersessional work.

FAO BRIEFING ON FORESTS: The FAO is hosting a briefing onUNCED follow-up in the field of forestry and related initiatives inConference Room 5 at 1:30 pm.

NGO-GOVERNMENT DIALOGUE: The Earth Council, NRDC and WRI areorganizing a dialogue on national multi-stakeholder councils onsustainable development. The meeting will be in Conference Room 5or 6 at 7:15 pm.