Daily report for 26 February 1997

Delegates to the CSD Intersessional Working Group offered statements on cross-sectoralissues during the morning and, guided by questions presented by Co-Chair Amorim,entered into a dialogue regarding implementation of those issues during the afternoon.

CROSS-SECTORAL ISSUES

A number of speakers, including PERU, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA and PAKISTAN,stressed the need for political will. CUBA called for the restoration of concretecommitments and action. CHINA said obligations are being imposed on developingcountries that are beyond their ability to respond. He said that without developingcountries’ participation, Agenda 21 will remain another UN paper document. PERU saidthe CSD should enhance policy coordination and provide imaginative proposals forimplementation. MALAYSIA supported EGYPT’s proposal to set targets to better assessprogress. PAKISTAN said peace is a prerequisite for sustainable development.

FINANCIAL ISSUES: BRAZIL, supported by PAPUA NEW GUINEA,emphasized the need to create an enabling financial environment. The PHILIPPINES andGUYANA stressed the need to reverse the declining trend in ODA. The US stated thatprospects for increasing ODA are poor. INDONESIA said that without ODA there will belittle implementation in most developing countries. BRAZIL suggested using ODA topromote FDI in the least developed countries. EGYPT, supported by NORWAY,highlighted the need to better understand how to use development assistance to leverageFDI. NORWAY emphasized the desirability of marrying ODA with technology transferand leveraging of FDI. The EU said ODA can help the least developed countries createinstitutional and individual capacity, set appropriate environmental policies in place andfinance necessary infrastructure that is not attractive to the private sector. CANADA saidthat ODA should supplement the mobilization of domestic resources. The REPUBLICOF KOREA recommended strengthening incentives for ODA, for example by includingfiscal incentives in donor countries when calculating ODA disbursements. NEWZEALAND stressed the catalytic role of ODA in providing direction for private sectorinvestment. EGYPT suggested using part of ODA to leverage private sector flows forsocial agendas and supported a proposal calling on NGOs to lobby governments forincreased ODA.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA reiterated that FDI is unevenly distributed and does notrespect the developmental needs of developing countries. INDONESIA noted that FDI isoften seen as the best alternative in light of decreasing ODA levels, but it is driven bymarket forces and neglects social factors. EGYPT called for a study of the impact of FDIon social and economic development and advocated UN training to enhance developingcountries’ capacity to attract FDI. The G-77/CHINA said FDI is unlikely to flow toinfrastructural investment or research and development.

INDIA called for a disaggregated view of FDI flows and called for an intergovernmentalforum on financing for Agenda 21. CANADA called on the CSD to examine thedynamics of FDI flows to developing countries. BRAZIL proposed using ODA topromote a FDI multiplier effect, and advocated using structural adjustment programmesto attract FDI. The EU noted that sound macroeconomic and property rights frameworksare important if a country is to benefit from FDI. The US said it is nationalimplementation and sound macroeconomic policies, regulatory regimes and governance,not fiscal incentives in developed countries, that will encourage the private sector toinvest in socially and environmentally beneficial projects.

MALAYSIA called for efforts to obtain international financing for environmental issuesand for strengthened ties with the Bretton Woods institutions. EGYPT said a global fundfor sustainable development could be financed by subsidies and international taxes. TheUS opposed international taxation, saying it would be a violation of sovereignty.BRAZIL noted strong resistance to international taxation and legal measures and calledfor an exploration of new private sector mechanisms.

The PHILIPPINES noted that while the private sector has an important role to play, theresponsibility to operationalize sustainable development should not be fully shifted fromgovernments to the private sector. POLAND called for increased emphasis on innovativefinancial measures such as debt swaps. GUYANA called for further exploration ofinnovative mechanisms and engagement of the private sector. The REPUBLIC OFKOREA said co-funding from official financial resources could provide incentives to theprivate sector to invest in countries where commercial considerations cannot justifyinvestment. NORWAY noted that with public and private co-financing, modalitiesrelated to environmental and social conditions can be applied. MEXICO proposed creditsand guarantees and technical assistance to establish alternative or green banks indeveloping countries to finance small-scale projects with positive economic, social andenvironmental impacts. SWITZERLAND called for exploration of ways to supportinvestment in the field of the environment.

Regarding the GEF, the EU stressed that adequate replenishment is important. EGYPTcalled for annual increases of 10% in GEF resources. GUYANA noted inadequateresources and cumbersome application procedures. NIGER expressed concern about thedifficulty in securing funds to develop national communications. THAILAND,GUYANA and the PHILIPPINES called for increased contributions.

BRAZIL proposed measures in international financial institutions and developingcountries to counter destabilization by global finance flows.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: EGYPT highlighted the need to increase thecapacity of recipient countries to absorb environmentally sound technologies (ESTs).ZIMBABWE noted that transfer of ESTs is not taking place. BRAZIL called for: focuson ESTs already in the market; centers of EST dissemination; new fiscal incentives; andgreen credit lines. SWITZERLAND, expanding on the proposal for green credit lines,said new technologies can save companies money and offer a return on investment andfinancing.

INDONESIA said many patented technologies belong to governments and could be madeavailable. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA offered to fund a feasibility study of publiclyowned ESTs and host an intergovernmental expert meeting. The UK suggested that ODAshould support pilot projects to demonstrate innovative technologies and subsidizeappropriate projects and activities when existing capital markets work againstinvestments in ESTs.

INDIA called for increased attention to existing arrangements for non-commercialtransfers of technology. POLAND called for renewed and focused effort to promotediffusion of technology. CANADA said market-based mechanisms are the most effectiveway to transfer technology. The PHILIPPINES called for the establishment of aninternational task force with key private sector actors to tackle technology transfer issues.UNEP noted the problem of transferring hazardous or outdated technology and ispreparing guidelines for information that technology exporters should provide to recipientcountries. The G-77/CHINA called for a special mechanism on technology transfer todeveloping countries and protection against dumping. JAPAN suggested a policydialogue between developing and developed countries and described his country’sestablishment of centers in several countries to facilitate transfers, work with localexperts and provide training in South-South cooperation.

TRADE: ZIMBABWE called for an open and non-discriminatory internationaltrade environment to complement domestic liberalization. GUYANA noted thedisappearance of favorable trading terms for products from the Caribbean region.GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, on behalf of NGOs, urged governments to supportmajor group participation in trade fora, particularly the WTO’s Committee on Trade andEnvironment, and proposed an intergovernmental panel on trade under the auspices of theCSD.

CAPACITY-BUILDING: MALAWI called for capacity-building for education,public awareness and training to enable developing countries and all parties to beeffective partners in implementing sustainable development. GUYANA noted that manydeveloping countries have not been able to complete national reports.

POVERTY: THAILAND stressed the importance of poverty alleviation.PAKISTAN said poverty in developing countries is the most serious enemy of theenvironment. ZIMBABWE called for a global compact on poverty alleviation. GUYANAsaid the need for an international enabling environment is greater than ever to relievepoverty. COLOMBIA proposed that large companies in developed countries benefitingfrom globalization devote some profits to developing countries to help eradicate povertyand create employment.

CONSUMPTION PATTERNS: EGYPT suggested setting a ceiling for percapita energy consumption and calling on those who exceed it to come into line withinten years. POLAND stressed the importance of enhancing consumer education.CANADA stated that while Northern consumption patterns place a burden on theenvironment, rapid population growth and industrialization are adding to the burden.CUBA noted that 25% of the world’s population consumes 75% of its resources. TheREPUBLIC OF KOREA proposed publishing a report to assess the health effects ofconsumption patterns.

MAJOR GROUPS: NIGER called for civil society involvement in policydevelopment at all levels, emphasizing transparency, improved information and effectiveparticipation. MALAYSIA supported greater NGO access in the UN system andinvolvement of the private sector. CANADA stated that NGOs should be involved inUNGASS, and called on the CSD to: work on developing methodologies to integrategender analysis; assess the impact of sustainable development policies on women; andencourage the participation of women in decision-making at all levels. UNESCO calledfor recognition of the education community as a major enabling group and for moreinvestment in science.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Following from UNEP Executive Director Elizabeth Dowdeswell’s statement on Mondaythat the Governing Council will reconvene on 1 April to resolve “governance”differences, government experts on UNEP have conducted numerous consultations in thecorridors and are optimistic that a consensus agreement will be reached by the end ofMarch. Observers note that the 1 April meeting immediately precedes CSD-5 as well asthe point at which UNEP’s resources will be depleted given the threat by the US, the UK,Spain and others to withhold funding until the issue is resolved. One proposal underconsideration would establish a new intersessional body comprised of environmentalministers that could provide strategic guidance, while the Nairobi-based Committee ofPermanent Representatives would continue to monitor programme implementation.Some, however, have questioned the need for a new body and whether that body’smembership would be fixed, open-ended or elected. Consultations are also reported onhow best to structure and agree to further reforms for consideration by the 52nd sessionof the UN General Assembly and the 20th session of the UNEP Governing Council.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: Delegates will complete their dialogue on cross-sectoral issues from10:00-11:00 am in Conference Room 4. They will then turn to the questions distributedby Co-Chair Osborn, which identified five priority issues: freshwater, oceans, protectionof the atmosphere, energy and forests. Delegates are expected to discuss institutionalissues and the format of the outcome of the Special Session from 3:00-6:00 pm.

TRANSPORT IN THE 21st CENTURY: CSD Intersessional Co-Chair DerekOsborn will host a dialogue on this topic from 6:30-7:30 pm in Conference Room C. Themeeting is organized by UNED-UK in association with the International Union of PublicTransport.