Daily report for 15 April 1997

CSD delegates continued their first reading of the draft outcome of UNGASS in Plenary.They also conducted dialogues with indigenous peoples and NGOs.

PLENARY

IMPLEMENTATION IN AREAS REQUIRING URGENT ACTION. Integration ofEconomic, Social and Environmental Objectives: In paragraph 21(population), the EU, CANADA, NORWAY and the US added references to reproductivehealth care and family planning. The US deleted the reference to international assistancefor implementation.

Sectors and Issues: In 32 (chemicals and wastes), the EU, theREPUBLIC OF KOREA, the US and RUSSIA called for separate sections on chemicalsand wastes. CANADA added references to: voluntary industry initiatives; currentnegotiations on safety of radioactive waste management; and minerals and metals.JAPAN suggested that storage, transport and disposal be consistent with existingagreements as well as the Rio declaration. MEXICO emphasized the proximity principle.

In 33 (land and sustainable agriculture), the G-77/CHINA called for plans toprovide developing countries with access to basic agricultural requirements. The EUrecommended action to ensure secure land tenure for farmers. The US suggestedminimizing conversion of forests and natural areas for food production. AUSTRALIAcalled for continued WTO work to liberalize international trade and remove distortions tosustainable development in agriculture. NORWAY called for measures to improve foodsecurity for the urban poor. The SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE CAUCUSemphasized capacity-building for small-scale farmers to reinforce local food systems.

On 34 (desertification and drought), the G-77/CHINA replaced “adequate” with“new and additional” financial resources and recommended transferring technologywithout delay. The EU recommended support for the Global Mechanism’s “work tofacilitate the mobilization of” adequate financial resources. The US proposed increasingthe effectiveness and efficiency of existing financial mechanisms. BENIN underscoredthe need to eradicate poverty in affected countries.

On 35 (biodiversity), the G-77/CHINA’s reformulation called for action to,inter alia: equitably share benefits from biotechnological development and geneticresource utilization; facilitate technology transfer; and strengthen national capacity-building. SWITZERLAND said governments should elaborate national biodiversityaction plans by 2002. The US supported “appropriate” transfer of “relevant” technologyand proposed establishing protected areas systems.

In 36 (sustainable tourism), the G-77/CHINA introduced language on:developing countries’, including SIDS, increasing reliance on tourism; special attentionto cultural and eco-tourism; and enhancing policies and capacity for sustainableconsumption and production. SWITZERLAND said tourism is particularly resource-intensive, policies should be strengthened locally, and the CSD should cooperate with theILO and other relevant organizations when defining an international programme of work.

In 37-38 (SIDS), the G-77/CHINA, supported by AOSIS, called for adequateprovision for the Barbados Programme of Action review in 1999. The US inserted “whereappropriate” after a reference to external assistance.

In 39 (natural disasters), the G-77/CHINA called for assistance to developingcountries to strengthen mechanisms and policies, improve access to technology andprovide support for preparedness and response.

Means of Implementation: The G-77/CHINA condensed three ODA paragraphsinto one, stressing that: private capital flows cannot replace ODA; developed countriesshould honor their commitment to the ODA target as soon as possible; new andadditional resources remain key for sustainable development; and developed countriesmust display political will to reverse the current downward trend. On 41 (ODAtarget), CANADA said developed countries should “seek” to reverse this trend. The EUsaid efforts should be made to reverse the trend and donors and recipients should addressthe factors causing the decline. AUSTRALIA and the EU deleted text on returning to1992 shares of GNP within five years. On 42 (role of ODA), the US saidfinancing for sustainable development will come primarily from countries’ own publicand private sectors. The EU called for continued efforts to improve the quality andeffectiveness of ODA.

In 44 (FDI), to ensure that FDI is geared toward sustainable development, the G-77/CHINA called for incentives by donor governments and NORWAY for nationalpolicies. The EU recommended ensuring macroeconomic stability and open trade andinvestment policies to stimulate FDI. In 45 (GEF), the G-77/CHINA called for:adequate resources without stringent conditionalities; adequate, sustained and reliablefunding for GEF operation; and GEF funding for incremental costs. A US redraft notesthat evaluation of the GEF’s performance will help determine the replenishment size. AnEU reformulation adds reference to IDA replenishment. NORWAY, CANADA andJAPAN deleted the reference to a doubling of resources.

In 47 (debt), the G-77/CHINA called for a study of the interrelationship betweendebt and sustainable development. The EU called for debt relief, the US for debtrescheduling, and both deleted cancellation. On 49 (subsidy reform), the G-77/CHINA emphasized impacts on market access for developing country products.NORWAY recommended “phasing out” subsidies. The US proposed reforming “orremoving” subsidies. JAPAN deleted reduction of “trade-distorting” subsidies.

In 51 (innovative financial mechanisms), the G-77/CHINA said suchmechanisms should only supplement ODA. The US noted that they are not fully evolvedconceptually. NORWAY said it is crucial to follow-up on the intersessional workinggroup on finance’s proposals. The US called on ODA donors and MDBs to supportprojects consistent with local and national Agenda 21s. The NGO FINANCE CAUCUScalled for: an interim target of 0.1% GNP in ODA for the environment by 2002; targetedaid for the poorest and projects that have no commercial attraction; common corporateoperating practices for FDI; and an Intergovernmental Panel on Finance.

On 52 (EST transfer), the G-77/CHINA called for: fulfillment and review ofAgenda 21 commitments and implementation; reduced constraints on transfers; andcooperation on building capacity. The EU and US deleted a reference specifying reneweddeveloped country commitment. CANADA added references to improving the flow ofESTs and building on current models of cooperation between the public and privatesectors of developed and developing countries. In 53 (human and institutionalcapacity), NORWAY called for statistical data to reflect technology transfers withinODA. In 54 (the private sector’s role), the G-77/CHINA deleted the linkagebetween FDI, ODA and technology transfer and called for consideration of aninternational commission to fund the acquisition of patent rights. The US, supported byCANADA, replaced a reference to further efforts by developed countries to acquire andtransfer privately-owned technology with a reference to the international community, andadded that transfers on concessional terms should be to the least developed countries.PERU proposed a clearinghouse mechanism to facilitate concessional transfers. On56 (public-private partnerships), the G-77/CHINA added text on centers fortechnology transfer. The US included multilateral development banks and internationaldevelopment institutions alongside governments as actors to play a key role inestablishing partnerships. In 57 (government’s role in business linkages), the EUstressed the importance of developing national legal and policy frameworks. NORWAYadded that cleaner production programmes should be supported when stimulating jointventures.

In 58 (South-South cooperation), the US called for priority attention totechnology needs assessments. The G-77/CHINA called for developing countryassistance through trilateral arrangements and the UN Voluntary Trust Fund for South-South Cooperation. On 59 (electronic information and telecommunicationsnetworks), JAPAN added a reference to using new technologies to reduce environmentalimpacts. CANADA drew attention to the potential for technology match-making andbrokering.

In 63-65 (science,) CANADA called for full and equal participation of girls andwomen in education and training. The EU proposed examination of the connectionbetween the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development.JAPAN called for promotion of existing regional and global networks. Regardingstrengthened capacity in developing countries, the support of funding mechanisms wascalled for “in accordance with their mandates” (US), “within existing resources”(CANADA), and for “recipient” countries (UKRAINE).

DIALOGUE WITH MAJOR GROUPS

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: Panelists in the dialogue session on indigenouspeoples noted that the Co-Chairs’ text fails to reflect the lack of progress on critical issuesof concern to indigenous peoples, although consistently presented at internationalmeetings. They stressed, inter alia: the need for political empowerment, self-determination, control over natural resources; the problems of poverty, homelessness andunemployment; recognition of indigenous political institutions, ancestral lands andintellectual property rights; and mechanisms for participation in decision-making beyond“tokenism.” Panelists called for: corporate responsibility for TNCs; priority for the draftDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; a permanent UN forum for indigenouspeoples; expanding the scope of the indigenous peoples’ fund for participation; inclusionof indigenous peoples on a par with industry in the CSD’s work; and a moratorium onbio-prospecting until IPR are protected. They also called for: coordination with the CBDand the Center for Human Rights during review of the TRIPs agreement; establishing aCSD body to examine mining issues; examining the effect of globalization on indigenouspeoples; and conclusion of a biosafety protocol. An Inuit representative noted the highlevel of POPs in the Arctic region and urged completion of a global agreement on POPs.

NGOs: On Agenda 21 implementation in the South, panelists noted thatgovernments are often unconcerned with underlying causes. They stressed: mechanismsfor NGO consultation and collaboration; capacity-building; lack of awareness aboutenvironmental issues; and promotion of community-level initiatives. Proposals included:developing a green credit system to assess environment projects; providingdocumentation on all initiatives proposed at the CSD; viewing poverty eradication as aglobal problem; and prioritizing education. On national and regional implementation,panelists reported on progress in Europe and South Africa. A number of States describedtheir methods for reporting to their constituencies on activities at the CSD. Presentationson the CSD’s role in the next five years focused on: trade, environment and sustainabledevelopment; a forest convention versus stronger implementation of the CBD; and TNCaccountability. One panelist noted that the CSD is perhaps the most appropriateinternational institution to address globalization.

IN THE CORRIDORS

NGOs are heartened that several delegates from both North and South and the Co-Chairare encouraging others to consider their proposal for a CSD intergovernmental panel onfinance. NGOs are concerned with the “sterile” level of debate over finance issues andbelieve a panel might be one way to move it forward. Some privately acknowledge thatthe panel may be yet another pseudo response. Among the issues proposed for its agendaare: appropriate roles of ODA and FDI; ways to ensure that FDI contributes to sustainabledevelopment; means of mobilizing domestic resources; and international mechanisms togenerate funds.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: The Plenary will complete C.3 (means of implementation) andbegin section B (assessment of progress) in morning, afternoon and possible eveningmeetings in Conference Room 2.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: Informal consultations will be held on theCSD work programme at 10:30 am in Conference Room A, on forests at 3:30 pm and oninstitutions at 3:00 pm, in rooms to be announced.

DIALOGUES: Dialogues will take place with local authorities and farmers inConference Room 1.