Daily report for 27 February 1997
CSD Ad Hoc Open-ended Intersessional Working Group
Delegates to the CSD Intersessional Working Group considered cross-sectoral, emergingand institutional issues during morning and afternoon meetings.
CROSS-SECTORAL ISSUES
Co-Chair Amorim said the CSD could adopt the REPUBLIC OF KOREAs proposal fora feasibility study on publicly owned ESTs. EGYPT called for a study of governmentsrole in privately owned technologies and property rights. CANADA said the privatesector is increasingly responsible for ESTs and that intellectual and other property rightsbelong to those who develop them. CHINA called for more proactive government actionto foster a favorable international environment for technology transfer, ensurecompatibility and avoid dumping. The PHILIPPINES, supported by GHANA, proposed ameeting with the private sector. COLOMBIA called for a UN forum to discusstechnology transfer. The BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (BCSD) emphasized the need for global solutions rather than the useof national targets.
SWEDEN discussed the Factor 10" concept and eco-efficiency in regard to sustainableproduction patterns. COLOMBIA called for measures to compensate countries for theeffects of changes in production and consumption patterns. The BCSD said businessshould not pass judgment on how individuals consume.
The EU reminded delegates that the OECD produces reports on OECD countries ODAlevels. The CO-CHAIR suggested creating a sustainable development review mechanismto review all countries national efforts and their compliance with internationalcommitments. COLOMBIA called for measures to address the speculative trends inprivate capital flows and a reorientation of FDI. The BCSD rejected the idea ofinternational taxation.
The CO-CHAIR summarized the discussion and, based on delegates comments, said thedraft agreement should: reaffirm Agenda 21 commitments; indicate targets; propose aforum at which governments, financial institutions, the private sector and NGOs woulddiscuss links between FDI and ODA; propose analyses of technology transfermechanisms; consider consumption, production and trade-related issues; and addresssocial and economic questions such as poverty and the global macroeconomicenvironment.
EMERGING PRIORITIES
Delegates commented on Co-Chair Osborns summary of priority areas emerging fromMonday and Tuesdays debate. The summary identifies potential recommendations forUNGASS in the areas of: freshwater; oceans; atmosphere; energy; forests; and majorgroups.
On freshwater, the US expressed hesitation regarding action at the international level, asdrinking water and sanitation issues are best addressed at more localized levels.CANADA supported the examination of freshwater issues and the Global WaterPartnership. MEXICO and KAZAKHSTAN noted linkages between freshwater and otherissues. AUSTRALIA supported a key role for the CSD on freshwater issues, noting theneed to involve all stakeholders and use the best available science.
On oceans, the US supported the implementation of the Barbados Plan of Action but didnot support the establishment of global or regional-level targets. CANADA supported theelimination of excess fishing capacity and endorsed global targets but said theprecautionary approach should be used. JAPAN said regional organizations shouldestablish any measurable targets and the CSD should not consider fisheries.AUSTRALIA suggested that over-capacity of fishing fleets is perhaps the most criticaloceans issue.
On atmosphere, CANADA said the gathering of world leaders at UNGASS could propelclimate change discussions forward. SWITZERLAND and SWEDEN concurred.SWITZERLAND called for quantified objectives. The US said UNGASS should notidentify a range of targets for reducing CO2 emissions. The EU, supported byAUSTRALIA, suggested dropping atmosphere issues from the CSD and UNGASS.
On energy, the US said the CSD should focus on efficiency, environmentally soundtransportation systems and less polluting fuels. SWITZERLAND and the US saidUNGASS should recommend that energy pricing reflect social and environmental costsand call for increased investment in renewable energy. The US said UNGASS should notset targets for such investment. AUSTRIA supported proposals that the CSD adopt acomprehensive approach to energy, including transport, urban issues and redirectingsubsidies and, with SWITZERLAND, supported CSD prioritization of transport. TheNGO ENERGY CAUCUS called for a 20% reduction of carbon emissions by 2005 andfor the internalization of all fuel consumption costs. EGYPT suggested that energysubsidies be considered with finance issues. The NGO TRANSPORTATION CAUCUScalled for examination of land-use planning, car-free areas and internalization oftransportation costs.
On forests, COLOMBIA said a high-level CSD working group should continue tofacilitate intergovernmental dialogue. CANADA suggested that UNGASS reach aconclusion regarding the launch of a forest convention. The RUSSIAN FEDERATIONsaid forest issues should be addressed in a framework separate from the Convention toCombat Desertification. JAPAN said the IFP outcome should be respected.
The US said NGO access should be broadened to the UNGA. He agreed that UNGASSshould recommend action for expanding major group participation at the national level.
Delegates made interventions on a number of other issues. On hazardous wastes,COLOMBIA called for more effective interventions in illegal transboundary movements.The REPUBLIC OF KOREA noted the lack of public awareness about the increasingnumber of accidents and stressed the need to address the handling, transport and disposalof radioactive wastes, including on a regional basis. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA andDEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KOREA each expressed concern regardingthe others pollution and hazardous waste-related activities.
The US emphasized effective education and public awareness strategies. GREECEannounced plans to host a conference on environment, society and education withUNESCO. AUSTRIA called for focused work with the media in the run-up to UNGASSto spread the consensus arrived at by the CSD and to publicize the impact ofsustainability on real lives.
GERMANY recommended sustainable tourism and soil protection for the CSDs workprogramme. COLOMBIA called for progress on a biosafety protocol and integratedmanagement of chemicals. SWITZERLAND said sustainable mountain development islinked with other items emerging for consideration such as freshwater and forests.CANADA said the CSD should broaden its examination of fragile ecosystems to includethe Arctic and MALAYSIA added Antarctica.
The NGO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CAUCUS stressed the health-related needs ofindigenous peoples. The LORETO COMMUNITY called for a ban on the sale andtransfer of land-mines and for non-violent conflict resolution training. The CITIZENSNETWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT called for: a formalized dialogueregarding corporate accountability; greater national government commitment toencourage local Agenda 21s; community-based indicators of sustainable development;and restructured economies with less emphasis on the military.
IRAN reiterated that the CSD should avoid prejudging the conclusions of work beingconducted in the COPs of environmental conventions. EGYPT said the UNGA couldinvite COPs to consider its views as representative of the community of nations.SWEDEN drew a distinction between decisions on existing processes including theFCCC and decisions on developing processes on water and forests, and called on theCSD to find ways to explore the related issues of freshwater, land use, sustainableagriculture, desertification, drought and urbanization.
EGYPT insisted on setting specific targets because continued generalities would provideno yardstick to measure future progress. The US stated that priorities should be defined atthe national and local levels and, with AUSTRALIA, opposed setting targets.
NORWAY stressed that poverty and consumption should be used as the context in whichother issues are discussed in the CSD. He recommended that the CSD focus on issueswhere follow-up processes are lacking. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION noted that manyissues can be resolved at regional, sub-regional and bilateral levels. The EU andASSOCIATED COUNTRIES called for wider participation in the CSD by ministers andall stakeholders, notably local authorities and the private sector, along with partnershipswith Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO.
INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND FORMAT OF THE SPECIAL SESSION
Delegates who spoke favored renewal of the CSD mandate. The EU and ASSOCIATEDCOUNTRIES said: UNGASS should reconfirm the CSD as the high-level forum forimplementing the overarching principle of sustainable development and the ECOSOCreview should take this into account; and UNEP should not compete with operationally-tasked organizations in project implementation. The EU also called for furtherimprovement in UN system-wide coordination mechanisms by the AdministrativeCommittee on Coordination, including high-level decision making. CHINA asked howECOSOC might take full advantage of the expertise of its functioning commissions.UNEP noted that a clear understanding of the respective roles of UN entities is essentialand that the ministers to the high-level segment of the Governing Council invited theSpecial Session to reconfirm UNEPs role in environmental issues.
BRAZIL said the CSD should not be intrusive in other UN bodies decisions or setdirectives for those bodies. MEXICO said the CSD should not be strengthened to thedetriment of other UN bodies, particularly UNEP, and the CSDs relationship with COPsshould be clarified.
CANADA and CHINA said the CSD should encourage improved internationalcoordination. The EU called for: better integration of the UN Committee on New andRenewable Sources of Energy and Energy for Development and of the Committee onNatural Resources into the CSDs work; CSD emphasis on poverty eradication andsustainable production and consumption patterns; and enhanced cooperation withregional commissions and organizations. MEXICO suggested that the CSD promote thedevelopment of uniform and harmonized international law in the field of environment andsustainable development.
CANADA proposed that: the high-level segment be in the form of a roundtablediscussion; proposals be drafted more clearly; and national reporting requirements bestreamlined and reviewed. BRAZIL recommended that the CSD develop decisions ratherthan recommendations and that they be operational rather than conceptual. He alsosupported national reporting that is regular, voluntary and result-oriented. MEXICOsuggested strengthening the high-level segment, designating one issue for itsconsideration and establishing a follow-up mechanism for its decisions.
IN THE CORRIDORS
The question in Co-Chair Osborns summary of emerging priorities of whether UNGASSshould recommend the establishment of targets in a number of areas generated manyresponses on Thursday. Observers speculate that those who do not support targets at theinternational level believe that such targets may end up being either too weak or tooinflexible and unrealistic. Proponents of targets, on the other hand, stress the need forsetting concrete goals to move beyond rhetoric to action in implementing the Riocommitments and to serve as a baseline against which progress toward these goals can beassessed.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
PLENARY: Delegates will resume discussion of institutional issues inConference Room 4 during the morning.
ACCT: Countries having the French language in common will discuss theircontribution to the Intersessional at a meeting from 1:15-3:00 pm at ACCT, 801 SecondAvenue, Suite 605.
GEF BRIEFING: The GEF Secretariat will discuss how NGOs can work withthe GEF, from 1:15-2:45 pm in Conference Room 6.